Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Sandra B. Frazier was a licensed real estate broker-salesman in the State of Florida, License No. 0185565, as an associate with Property Associates, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida. On July 1, 1989, Howard M. Burkholz, Leslie Burkholz, and Jacob H. Schiff entered into an Exclusive Right of Sale Agreement with Property Associates, through its agent, Frazier, for the sale of a house located in Forest Green Subdivision, at 2062 Pepperidge Way, Tallahassee, Florida. The Exclusive Right of Sale Agreement states in part: Seller further certifies and represents that the property has no latent defects except the following: septic tank is pumped monthly at Sellers request. [sic] Mr. and Mrs. Burkholz both told Frazier that the septic tank was not a problem, but Frazier had previous knowledge of septic tank problems in the vicinity and of the significance of needing septic tank pumping. Frazier sold the house across from the Burkholz's house. That house, at 2061 Pepperidge Way, was bought by Marcie Doolittle in December of 1988. The listing information and Notice to Prospective Buyers showed that, due to the composition of the soil and heavy rains, it was necessary to have the septic tank pumped. The seller offered an offset to the buyer for the cost of additional drainfield. Only after Doolittle bought the house did Frazier learn of the severity of the problems and the necessity for pump outs every two weeks. In a letter written by Frazier to Doolittle on February 9, 1989, Frazier indicated that "once a septic tank fails it does not correct itself. It then requires regular pumping." Frazier suggested that the only resolution was more drainfield or regular pumping. After Frazier listed the Burkholz house, she mentioned to Mrs. Doolittle that she could not show the Burkholz house during wet weather because the backyard, in which the septic tank and drainfield was located, was too boggy. Further, Frazier discussed with Mrs. Doolittle that the city was going to install sewer in the area because of the septic tank failures. In conformance with the Exclusive Right of Sale agreement with the Burkholzs, Frazier listed the house through the Multiple Listing Service. The data on the house was input on an input sheet. If there are defects, they can be listed on lines RE1-RE4 on the input form. Despite her knowledge about the Burkholz's septic tank and the Doolittle's septic tank, Frazier did not list this as a defect. Mary Wheatley, a sales associate with Bob Wolfe Real Estate, worked with Jesse and Susan Day to locate a house to purchase. She showed the Days the Burkholz house. Her only knowledge of that house came from the MLS listing, the brochure entitled Highlights of this Home prepared by Frazier, and from information verbally given by Frazier. Wheatley had no knowledge of the septic tank problems and Frazier did not tell her anything about the septic tank or the potential hook up to city sewer. After various offers and counteroffers, the Days and the Burkholtzs signed a contract for the sale and purchase of the house on November 24, 1989. The Contract states in paragraph 14: CONDITION OF PROPERTY: BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE HAS NOT RELIED UPON ANY REPRESENTA- TIONS MADE BY A REALTOR(S) AS TO THE CONDI- TION OF THE PREMISES. . . .SELLER warrants that the . . . septic tank . . . shall be in working order on the date of closing. SELLER agrees to repair any of the preceding items not in working order. BUYER agrees to inspect the property prior to closing to determine condition of said items; . . . If BUYER fails to make inspections as required, BUYER agrees to accept property in "as is" condition. BUYER and SELLER will diligently learn and disclose to each other prior to closing all facts affecting the value of the property. On December 26, 1989, the night before the closing, the Days, the Burkholzs, Frazier, and Wheatley did the final walk through. While Wheatley and Susan Day were in another room measuring for curtains, Mr. Day flushed a toilet and noted that it went down very slowly. He asked if there were septic tank problems. Mr. Burkholz indicated that there were, but that sewer hookup was coming and the septic tank was pumped out monthly by the city at no cost. Mr. Day asked about the costs and was told that the pumpouts were free and the sewer would cost several hundred dollars. There is a clear conflict in the testimony of the various witnesses about the sewer cost estimate given to Mr. Day, but the exact figure is of no consequence to the ultimate outcome of the case. Therefore the conflict is not resolved. The Days discussed the septic tank and sewer hookup and decided to go through with the closing. After the walk through, they signed an inspection sheet in which they accepted the premises as inspected, without any noted exceptions, and they relieved the sellers and the realtor from further warranty or responsibility for the condition of the property. According to Thomas Bryant, an engineer with the City of Tallahassee, in December, 1989, no one knew whether there would be sewer installed in Forest Green or the potential cost of sewer hookup. No one knew that even on the date of hearing. The city did enter into an agreement to charge $650 for sewer hookup in Forest Green, but there are additional charges and costs to the homeowner which are as yet undetermined. The septic tank problems constitute a latent defect which should have been disclosed to the buyers before a contract was agreed upon. The failure to disclose is not egregious since the regular pumping of the septic tank is done at no cost to the homeowner and results in no liability to the homeowner. The projected sewer hook up was too uncertain to have required such disclosure.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order and therein: Find Sandra B. Frazier guilty of one Count of concealment in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Based on the mitigating factors set forth above and on the relatively minor nature of the offense, impose a fine of $100.00 on Sandra B. Frazier. Issue a written reprimand to Sandra B. Frazier. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6189 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Sandra B. Frazier Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1). Proposed findings of fact 2-9 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801-1772 William J. Haley Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, FL 32056-1029 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1987, Petitioner applied for a septic tank permit for a proposed individual sewage disposal system to serve a single family residence on Lot 40, Block P, Killearn Lakes Unit I (Unit 1), in Leon County, Florida. A septic tank system consists of a tank and a drainfield which is wholly or partly underground. The decision of whether to grant a septic tank system permit is greatly influenced by the elevation of the wet season water table in the area where the septic tank system will be located. Under normal circumstances, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by taking a boring of the ground in question using an auger. If water is found at the time the boring is conducted, that is an indication of where the water table is located. If no water is found, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by examining the soil removed from the ground for signs of mottling. Mottling is the discoloration of the soil caused by the interaction of water with the minerals in the soil. The process of mottling takes place over hundreds of years. Therefore, a rapid change in conditions may cause the elevation of the wet season water table to be different than what would be indicated by mottling. Because of the development of Unit I and the drainage method used in Unit I (sheetflow), the elevation of the wet season water table in Unit I is estimated to be between 12 and 20 inches higher than what is indicated by mottling. On July 7, 1987, a boring was taken on an indeterminate area on Lot 40, by Certified Testing, Inc., a private engineering firm. The evaluation of the boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 60 inches. On August 3, 1987, Ms. Teresa A. Hegg, an Environmental Health Specialist with HRS, took two borings on Lot 40. The first boring was taken in an area other than where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 45 inches. The second boring was taken in the area where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 22 inches. Based on the boring taken at the proposed site for the septic tank system, showing mottling at 22 inches, and the estimate that the wet season water table in Unit I is from 12 to 20 inches higher than mottling would indicate, the estimated wet season water table for Lot 40 is between 2 to 10 inches below the ground surface. Unit I has a history of septic tank system failures. Unit I was platted prior to January 1, 1972. There exists a very high probability that any septic tank system, even a mound system, installed in Lot P-40 will fail.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4085 The Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection First phrase accepted. Remainder of paragraph supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. First two sentences accepted. Third sentence supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 5,6,7,8,9,10 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 13,14 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 15. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected; the wet season water table on Lot P-40 is from 2-10 inches below grade. Third sentence accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Jr., Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 John R. Perry, Esquire Assistant District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monore Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 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, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Hance B. Jones, is a registered septic tank contractor. The Petitioner is charged with regulating septic tanks, and may initiate charges against septic tank contractors which fail to comply with the statutes and rules regulating septic tanks. The Department's local inspector, Mr. Land, was asked by a representative of Best Septic Tank Contracting to meet with the Best representative and Ms. Inez Quiett at Ms. Quiett's home and confer about a proposed septic tank repair. On March 5, 1992, Mr. Land visited the site, observed water standing around an area which he was advised was the existing septic tank and drain field, and was asked what would have to be done. Mr. Land advised that they would have to obtain a permit, and that the new drain field would have to be separated by at least 24 inches from the wet season water table, and that this would entail placing the drain field in a mound. Mr. Land left the site expecting to have a representative of Best pick up a permit for the repairs within a few days. When Mr. Land did not see anyone come in about the permit, he drove by Quiett's, and observed disturbed soil in the area of the drain field. He stopped, went to the Quiett's house, and spoke with Ms. Quiett's son. The son advised that they had repaired the drain field. Mr. Land asked who had repaired the field, and the son advised him that Mr. Jones had repaired it. On April 22, 1992, Mr. Land then wrote a letter to the Respondent and advised Jones that he had violated the law by repairing Quiett's septic tank and not obtaining a permit for the repair. Mr. Jones spoke with Land at Land's office, and denied that he had repaired the septic tank. Mr. Jones stated he had provided the materials and equipment used to repair the tank. On April 22, 1992, Ms. Quiett called Mr. Land on the telephone, and told Land that Mr. Jones had helped her with the tank, but denied that Jones had been her contractor. The Respondent denied that he was the contractor of the job; denied he was on the site; denied he supervised the work; and denied he received any compensation from Quiett. He indicated that he knew Ms. Quiett's brothers, who were contractors, and admitted that he had provided the materials used on the job and had loaned them his backhoe. Ms. Quiett was asked about the repairs to the system and invoked her privilege against self-incrimination.
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 the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 26th day of August, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: David West, Esquire District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Bobby Kirby, Esquire Route 2, Box 219 Lake Butler, FL 32054 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether a septic tank construction permit should be issued by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, for use by the Respondent, Alex Rutkowski, owner of Lot number 6, Block E, Carlton Terrace Subdivision First Addition, in Clearwater, Florida. Whether the filling in of Lot number 6 and the construction of a septic tank will damage the residence of the Petitioner, Elinor Burger, on Lot number 5.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Alex Rutkowski, and his wife own Lot number 6, Block E, Carlton Terrace Subdivision, First Addition, in Clearwater, Florida in which the sixteen (16) lots are approximately 70 feet wide and 105 to 150 feet deep. The soil in the area is Mayakka Fine Sand, a poorly drained soil which has a water table normally at a depth of ten (10) to thirty (30) inches below ground surface, but which rises to the surface for a short time during wet periods. After respondent Rutkowski's initial application for a permit to install a septic tank on Lot number 6 had been denied, he employed an engineer and filed a plan for proposed site modification. The plan was received by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, and Rutkowski was notified on December 6, 1979, that the plan to remove the existing land fill, replace it with Astatula Fine Sand and raise the building pad appeared to be acceptable for the issuance of a septic tank construction permit, but that no further action on the application for the permit could be taken until after an administrative ruling on a protest by a neighboring property owner (Respondent' Exhibits 1, 4 and 5). The Pinellas County Engineering Department had approved the drainage for the area on October 9, 1979 (Respondent's Exhibit 2). The Petitioner, Elinor Burger, has lived on Lot number 5, which adjoins Lot number 6, since 1957. When there is a heavy rain of three (3) to four (4) inches, her septic tank fails to operate, and water stands in her back yard. She has seen and smelled polluted water standing in the street in front of her home. Water also stands on a second lot she owns adjoining her residence after a heavy rain preventing the mowing of the lot for long periods of time. Ms. Burger has unsuccessfully sought to connect to a sewer system by petitions for sewer connection on at least- three (3) occasions and has laid additional drainage lines to help solve her problem. In the spring, summer and fall of 1979, she had severe water problems. Ms. Burger believes the elevation of Lot number 6 would cause further water damage to her property, and that a septic tank on Lot number 6 would add more sewage problems to the area A witness for Petitioner, Alan Flandreau, who lives with his wife and three (3) children on lot number 13 adjoining Lot number 5 in the subdivision, has a septic tank that fills up in rainy weather and runs into the street, resulting in a stench and green slime. Flandreau has had his septic tank pumped out a number of times since 1968, when he bought his home. His lot is low, and water drains onto his property from other lots. A witness for Petitioner, Burl Crowe, owns Lot number 11 and lives on Lot number 12. Lot number 11 adjoins Lot number 6, and Lot number 12 borders on the property of Petitioner Burger. Crowe has lived on Lot number 12 for fourteen (14) years and on many occasions had water entering his garage and standing in his yard when it rains. He has seen Lot number 6 under water and water standing on the street in front of his house, A witness for the Respondents was Gerald Goulish, the professional engineer who prepared the site modification plan (Respondent's Exhibits 4 and 8). Goulish has studied the site together with Rule 10D-6 of the Florida Administrative Code (infra) and believes the plan to fill the location of the septic tank site will cause the soil to percolate and evaporate and the proposed elevation of Lot number 6 two (2) feet will cause the water to drain toward the street and not onto adjoining property. He suggested that the adjoining and adjacent property owners cooperate and construct common swales to eliminate the surface water problems. A second witness for the Respondents was Burt Fraser, a sanitary supervisor for the Pinellas County Health Department, who denied the first application for installation of a septic tank on Lot number 6 but notified Respondent Rutkowski that the lot could be modified. Thereafter, he wrote Rutkowski that a modification plan had been received which meets the minimum requirements of the Florida Administrative Code. Fraser stated that he will issue a permit for construction of a septic tank upon completion of the administrative hearing procedure unless directed not to issue such a permit. Fraser agreed that the conditions as described by Petitioner Burger and her witnesses are accurate, and that the subdivision has problems which will not be solved until sanitary sewers are installed, but he believes that he has no alternative except to issue a permit if an applicant meets the requirements of Rule 10D-6.25 Florida Administrative Code. He knows of no requirement to make a study of adjacent and adjoining properties, and Respondent Department has not made a study. There are seven (7) houses in the sixteen (16) lot subdivision. The area is low and subject to flooding because of soil texture. There is an undisputed drainage problem in the area which causes a septic tank problem to the residents. The addition of more houses and septic tanks will increase the already serious drainage conditions which are public health nuisances. The Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, submitted proposed findings of fact, memorandum of law and a proposed recommended order. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Respondent Rutkowski's application for a permit for the construction of a septic tank on Lot number 6 be denied without prejudice to the Respondent to reapply if there should be a change in circumstances. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of April 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED Barbara Dell McPherson, Esquire Department of HRS Post Office Box 5046 Clearwater, Florida 33518 William W. Gilkey, Esquire Richards Building 1253 Park Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Mr. Alex Rutkowski 30 North Evergreen Clearwater, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner failed to obtain a permit for abandoning an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system septic tank, and failed to notify Respondent so that Respondent could inspect the system prior to abandonment, in violation of Section 386.0065, Florida Statutes (1997), and, if so, whether Petitioner should pay a $500 fine. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for issuing citations under Chapter 386 and is the licensing authority for Petitioner. The Osceola County Health Department (the "Department") is an agency of Respondent. All Pro Services ("All Pro") practices septic tank contracting in Osceola, Orange, and Seminole counties. All Pro is a Florida corporation wholly-owned by Mr. Wayne H. Crotty. Mr. Crotty is licensed in the state as a septic contractor pursuant to Chapter 386. Mr. Crotty has been in the septic tank business for over 25 years. He has extensive experience in septic tank repair and contracting. Mr. Crotty also has had experience in the rule-making process conducted by Respondent pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 10D-6. He has participated in various committees and held offices in the Florida Septic Tank Association. (Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.) In the summer of 1996, Petitioner submitted an application to the Department for a repair permit. Petitioner sought to install a standard drainfield utilizing gravity fall from the existing septic tank of a mobile home owner who used the mobile home facility as a day-care center. The existing drainfield was antiquated, clogged, and had ceased disposing effluent properly. Petitioner made arrangements for the day-care center to refrain from using water or sewage for a period of hours so that the drainfield could be repaired. The application came to the attention of Mr. Thomas Franklin Wolf, Director of the Department's Environmental Health Section. Mr. Wolf did not accept the site evaluation in the application. He chose to perform his own evaluation of the repair site. When Mr. Wolf performed a site evaluation, he placed the seasonal high water table two inches higher than the high water table stated by Petitioner in the application for a repair permit. As a result, Mr. Wolf issued the permit at an elevation that would have required either the use of a pump system or elevated plumbing lines in the existing septic tank to meet the higher elevation deemed necessary by Mr. Wolf. The higher elevation established in the permit could be accommodated in either of two ways. The plumbing underneath the mobile home, along with the septic tank, could be raised. Alternatively, a new pump, and other equipment meeting the requirements of Chapter 10D-6, could be installed. The repair permit issued by Mr. Wolf contemplated the use of a new pump chamber complete with alarm. Pumps fail, are problematic, and are expensive. A conventional gravity-fed drainfield line is preferable, whenever feasible, to the use of a pump chamber system and is less expensive. Petitioner determined that the plumbing and septic tank could be elevated to meet the higher elevation requirements thereby avoiding the need for a pump system and its increased cost. This lower-cost alternative satisfied the requirements of Chapter 10D-6 for a septic tank drainfield. Based on past experience, Mr. Crotty believed he could obtain the Department's approval of this alternative to the pump chamber requirements of the permit. The Department had no objection to an alternative that achieved the higher elevation requirement with a gravity-fed system. One risk associated with Petitioner's alternative was that the existing septic tank might not withstand the rigors of being excavated and raised and could break during the repair process. After conferring with the homeowner about the matter, Petitioner proceeded to elevate the existing plumbing lines and septic tank. Petitioner began excavation and removed the lid from the existing septic tank. Petitioner then determined that it would not be feasible to lift the tank up and reinstall it at the higher elevation due to the age and style of the tank. Petitioner determined that the best way to proceed was to abandon the old tank and to install a new tank at the higher elevation. Petitioner replaced the existing septic tank without obtaining a separate abandonment permit. Petitioner did not need a separate abandonment permit. The repair permit was inclusive of the abandonment of the existing tank. In a previous repair effort for another customer, Petitioner broke the existing septic tank while attempting to elevate the tank to a higher location. The prior incident led to a disagreement between Petitioner and the Department over whether a separate abandonment permit was required for replacing a tank in the course of a repair. Petitioner wrote a certified letter to the Department and Department's counsel memorializing an understanding reached during discussions with Department representatives. Any requirement for a separate abandonment permit in the course of a repair was tabled pending further review by the state health office in Tallahassee. The letter further stated Petitioner's understanding that under Chapter 10D-65, the replacement of an existing tank was provided for through a repair permit, and that no separate abandonment permit is necessary for an abandonment which occurs in conjunction with a repair effort. The letter was received by Mr. Wolf on behalf of the Department. In response, the Department specifically informed Petitioner that the replacement of an existing tank is provided for through the repair permit. Mr. Wolf never retracted this position in his dealings with Petitioner. At about the same time, the state health office, through its acting Health Officer for Environmental Health, issued an interoffice memorandum advising every district administrator in the state that a separate abandonment permit is not required when an existing tank is abandoned during repair. The interoffice memorandum stated, in relevant part: This addresses permitting procedures when a septic tank is abandoned in conjunction with a system repair. Since the repair and tank abandonment inspections can be conducted at the same time, a separate permit and fee is not required if a tank is abandoned in conjunction with a repair permit. The repair permit should specify the abandonment requirements from s. 10D-6.053, F.A.C., and the requirements to have the abandonment inspected. If an additional inspection visit is required for either the repair or abandonment, the unit should charge the $25.00 re-inspection fee. Respondent's memorandum served as the Department's official interpretation of its rules relating to abandonment procedures. The memorandum made a separate abandonment permit unnecessary because the repair permit "is inclusive of the abandonment if the abandonment is necessary." The repair permit in this case suffices as an abandonment permit. Petitioner relied upon the representations of Mr. Wolf personally as well as the Department memorandum of February 18, 1996. Based upon Department policy, Petitioner was not required to amend its permit application to seek specific approval for abandonment of the existing tank, because the tank was being abandoned in conjunction with a repair permit. Petitioner pumped out, ruptured, and demolished the old septic tank with the exception of the inlet end wall and the sidewall closest to the tank. Petitioner left intact the latter portions of the old septic tank for inspection purposes and for stabilization. Petitioner placed the lids and the broken pieces of concrete from the tank alongside the new septic tank that was installed. Mr. Crotty requested an inspection by the Department. Inspector Garner arrived on the scene with a standard probe. The probe is a tool useful for inspecting on-site sewage disposal systems. Mr. Crotty informed Mr. Garner that Petitioner had abandoned the old tank and replaced it with a new one. Mr. Crotty took Mr. Garner over to the site and specifically pointed out the remaining sidewall of the old tank and the lids piled up on-site and remaining from the old tank. Mr. Garner inspected the repairs and satisfied himself that Petitioner had installed a new septic tank in the place of the old tank and had done it in a way that would allow gravity feeding to the new drainfield. The repairs dispensed with the need for a pump and were accomplished at a lower cost to the customer. After the inspection on August 13, 1998, and a subsequent review on August 14, Inspector Garner approved the installation by Petitioner. The approval specifically approved the use of a gravity-fed line rather than the use of the pump contemplated in the permit. The approval constituted the "construction final" approval for the septic system that was repaired. Rule 10D-6 does not specify when the inspection for an abandonment of a septic tank in conjunction with a repair is to occur. Nor does it say anything about requesting an inspection before the tank is filled with sand or other suitable material and covered. It was Inspector Garner's practice, and the unwritten policy of the Department, to conduct inspections of damaged septic tanks at the same time the Department inspected repair constructions. The practice of the Department in such an inspection was to inspect the abandoned tank after it had been pumped and the bottom ruptured, but before a new tank was installed. According to Department practice, the inspection of an abandonment in conjunction with a repair must determine that the tank had been pumped and that the bottom of the tank had been opened or ruptured or collapsed to prevent the tank from retaining water. The inspection can only occur after the tank has been pumped out, opened, ruptured or collapsed. Inspector Garner arrived for the inspection after abandonment of the old tank. Mr. Garner does not dispute that Petitioner abandoned the old tank, but maintains that the abandonment was accomplished without proper notification to the Department. Mr. Garner approved the construction, but recorded x- marks on the approval form adjacent to a box for abandonments and next to "tank pumped" and "tank flushed and filled." Mr. Garner also recorded on the form under "explanation of violations" a notation that the old septic tank "was abandoned without any inspection of [sic] verification." The promulgated rules of the Department and Respondent do not require an inspection before an abandoned tank is filled with sand, or other suitable material, and covered. It was the Department's unwritten policy, evidenced by its practice, to insist that inspection of the abandoned septic tank occurred before the tank is actually crushed. The promulgated rules of Seminole and Orange counties do not require inspection prior to abandonment of an existing tank. The unwritten policies of Seminole and Orange counties deviate from those of the Department. The Seminole County Health Department ("Seminole") also received the Department's interpretive memorandum regarding abandonment of septic tanks in conjunction with repairs. Seminole concluded that abandonment inspections should be conducted simultaneously with the final inspection for repairs. At that point, the old septic tank is already ruptured and filled with sand. Seminole adopted the practice of inspecting abandoned septic systems with a probe to verify the pump-out and the rupturing of the old tank. It is the same type probe used by Mr. Garner and the Department. The probe allows a department employee to verify all of the requirements of Rule 10D-6.053 for abandonment. The Orange County Health Department ("Orange County") also received the interpretive memorandum concerning abandonment of septic tanks in the course of repair procedures. By the time the memo was received, however, it was already the practice of Orange County not to require a separate abandonment permit for an abandonment as part of a repair. In Orange County, inspectors permitted abandonment inspections to occur at the point where the tank was already collapsed and covered with sand. The inspection was accomplished with the use of a probe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding Petitioner not guilty of the allegations against it and dismissing the citations. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Marya Reynolds Latson Marion County Health Department Post Office Box 2408 Ocala, Florida 34478-2408 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath and Gilchrist, P.A. Post Office Box 3791 Orlando, Florida 32802-3791 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should fine the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., for maintaining a sanitary nuisance.2/
Findings Of Fact In 1990,6/ the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., purchased property at 8402 Lemon Road, Port Richey, Florida, for purposes of relocating his on-going food distributing business. The prior owner operated a carpet business, with approximately five employees, at the location. The Respondent had about 45-50 employees. Shortly after the Respondent started doing business at the new location, he began to have problems with the existing septic tank system. The problem seemed to relate to the increased use of the toilets in the building by the added number of the Respondent's employees. In September, 1990, an HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and observed evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface from the septic system's drain field and flowing into a stormwater retention pond on the property.7/ The Respondent was directed to abate the nuisance, and a discussion of the Respondent's alternatives ensued. The Respondent rejected the first proposed alternative of connecting to a central public sewer. The nearest connection was over 1000 feet away and would entail significant cost to the Respondent. (The cost would have been even higher if gravity flow was not possible, and it became necessary to pump to the connection point.) The Respondent chose, with HRS' permission, the next alternative of trying to solve the problem by installing a second septic tank system on the property. The second septic tank system for which the Respondent applied, and which he had built, was designed for domestic use by 15 employees. In addition, after installation of the second septic tank system, the Respondent began processing a relish pack and a salad mix on the premises. The processing method for these products required the use of a great deal of water. On or about February 7, 1991, another HRS environmental health specialist inspected the premises and again found evidence of raw sewage bubbling to the surface, this time from the new septic system's drain field, and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. The amount of water flowing into the drainfields, from a combination of the use of the toilets in the building, together with the new processing operations taking place in the building, had overtaxed the double septic tank system, and the system failed. Given the quantities of water needed to process the new products, the Respondent should have anticipated, and probably was aware of, the system failure. The Respondent was directed to fix the problem within a week or stop the processing the new products on the premises. The Respondent tried several water conservation methods in an attempt to address the problem without having to either stop processing the new products or incur the cost of connecting to the central public sewer system. He knew, or should have known, that his efforts were futile, given the quantities of water needed to process the relish pack and salad mix. HRS also referred the matter to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. DER inspected on or about February 18, 1991, and told the Respondent that he could not dispose of the industrial waste from the operation of his business in the on-premises septic system without an industrial waste disposal permit. In connection with this, DER apparently advised the Respondent that he would be required to test the water in the stormwater retention pond for certain contaminants. The Respondent was unable to understand what he needed to test for, and how, and sought assistance from DER and HRS. Although there is evidence that HRS tried to help the Respondent by referring him to certain individuals employed by the DER for answers, the Respondent did not follow HRS' guidance. In any case, the efforts would have been futile, as the Respondent did not have enough property to dispose of the industrial wastes from the operation of his business on-site using a septic tank system. On or about June 19, 1991, a neighbor complained to the Respondent about the smell of raw sewage coming from the Respondent's septic system. The Respondent did not receive his neighbor's observations kindly. The neighbor complained to HRS and the Pasco County Sheriff's office. An HRS inspection on June 20, 1991, confirmed the existence of a sanitary nuisance on the premises. Again, raw sewage was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and was flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged for another meeting with the Respondent on June 27, 1991. At the June 27, 1991, meeting, HRS required that the Respondent stop processing the relish pack and the salad mix until he could hook up to the central public sewer. It was felt that the septic tank systems might be adequate pending connection to the central public sewer if the quantities of water required for processing those products on the premises were eliminated and if other preventive measures were taken. From June 27, 1991, forward to the date of the hearing, the Respondent purchased relish pack and salad mix from other suppliers rather than process them on the premises at 8402 Lemon Road. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out as frequently as required (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. After learning that excessive water use at the premises was partially a result of plumbing leaks, the Respondent also had the plumbing fixed. The Respondent also immediately initiated the long process of connecting to the central public sewer. He had a meeting with the assistant county administrator for utilities service for Pasco County on July 3, 1991. They discussed alternatives for connecting the Respondent's business. Initially, the County wanted the Respondent to pay to run a sewer line over 1000 feet to the south of his property to enable the County to efficiently connect other businesses and property owners in that area. But this option would have been costly to the Respondent, and there was no guarantee that gravity flow was possible between the Respondent's property and the connection point. If not, the Respondent also would have to pay the cost of pumping to the connection point. The Respondent hired an engineer to design an alternative that would be less costly. He also sought the cooperation of his neighbors, who would be required to connect to central sewer when the Respondent did. The engineer also worked with those neighbors in designing an alternate connection. On or about September 9, 1991, another meeting was held among the Respondent and his engineer and the county's utilites construction team. As a result of this meeting, the County agreed to modify the connection route in accordance with the Respondent's proposal. The Respondent's engineer continued his work on the design of the connection. HRS inspections on or about September 11 and 25, 1991, revealed that the Respondent's septic system was failing again and that raw sewage again was bubbling to the surface from the new septic system's drain field and flowing into the stormwater retention pond. HRS arranged to meet with the Respondent again on October 4, 1991, along with a Pasco County deputy sheriff and a DER industrial wastewater compliance inspector. At this meeting, the Respondent felt that the deputy sheriff was threatening to arrest him for violation of the law, and he angrily terminated the meeting and asked all of them to leave the premises. In December, 1991, the Respondent arranged a meeting with the County and his neighbors to discuss sharing the cost of the connection route the Respondent was proposing to build. The neighbors, realizing the Respondent's weak bargaining position, refused to share the Respondent's costs. At this point, the County conceded to pay the approximate $9,000 to jack and bore under the road, but the Respondent was required to pay to run a sewer line approximately 300 feet to the south and to construct a manhole on his neighbors' side of the road, as well as on his side of the road. (The second manhole would be used by the neighbors to connect their properties to the line the Respondent was building when the County required them to connect.) The total cost to the Respondent for his part of the construction of the connection to the public sewer will be approximately $24,000. On January 17, 1992, the Respondent paid a $3,428 impact fee for connecting to the central public sewer, based on projected water use. On January 23, 1992, the Respondent applied for a force main interconnect permit. At the time of the final hearing, the jack and bore and the construction of the new sewer line connecting the Respondent's property to the central sewer were about to begin. The evidence indicates that, once HRS made it clear to the Respondent on or about June 27, 1991, that connection to the central public sewer was the Respondent's only remaining option, the Respondent moved with reasonable dispatch. The time it took to arrange to be connected to the public sewer was within normal ranges, and there is no evidence that the Respondent did anything to cause unnecessary delays. (Delays, if any, were caused by the need for the Respondent's engineer to work with and get cooperation from the Respondent's neighbors, who were not as anxious as the Respondent to have the new sewer line built.) There also is no evidence that the Respondent processed relish pack or salad mix on the premises after June 27, 1991. In addition, the Respondent continued to attempt to conserve water, had the septic tanks pumped out frequently (sometimes practically daily), and had his employees utilize portable toilets in an attempt to avoid additional septic tank failures. The evidence also indicates that, after June 27, 1991, all concerned were hopeful that the measures the Respondent was taking would prevent, or at least minimize, septic system failures pending connection to the public sewer. After June 27, 1991, HRS presented direct evidence of septic tank system failures only on two occasions in September, 1991. The evidence is that, after becoming aware of the system failures in September, 1991, HRS sought the imposition of a fine against the Respondent. The evidence suggests two other important motivating reasons for HRS' action: first, not being aware of the actions the Respondent took between June 27 and September, 1991, to connect to the central sewer, HRS mistakenly believed that the Respondent was ignoring its instructions; and, second, HRS mistook the Respondent's angry outburst at the meeting at the Respondent's place of business in September, 1991, when he felt he was being threatened with arrest for violation of the law, as being evidence that the Respondent was not genuine in his apparent concern and efforts to respond to HRS' guidance and instruction.
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 fining the Respondent, William Loiacano, d/b/a Gulf Coast Food Distributors, Inc., in the amount of $5,000. RECOMMENDED this 29 day of April, 1992, 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 day of April, 1992.
The Issue At issue in DOAH Case No. 04-4333 is whether Respondent committed the two violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022 alleged in the citation issued on September 29, 2004, and, if so, whether the imposition of a $1,000.00 fine was properly imposed. At issue in DOAH Case No. 05-0695 is whether Respondent committed the three violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued on February 21, 2005, and, if so, whether his septic tank contractor registration should be revoked or some lesser penalty imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to the practice of septic tank contracting in Florida pursuant to Chapter 489, Part III, and Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (2004). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent Matt Beebe, was a registered septic tank contractor, having been issued registration number SR0971283, and was the qualifying contractor for his business, Southern Sanitation, Inc. ("Southern Sanitation"), having been issued registration number SA0970864. On June 7, 2001, Mr. Beebe was cited for installing a septic system without a permit, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022, and paid a fine of $500.00 without contest. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Beebe also operated a septage disposal service business under the Southern Sanitation name, having been issued operating permit number 11-QN-0054. Improper Septage Disposal and Sanitary Nuisance On September 29, 2004, Kenneth Rech, the Department's environmental health and engineering director for Collier County, received a telephone complaint that a Southern Sanitation septage hauling truck had been seen emptying its contents onto a vacant lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples. Mr. Rech and his assistant, James Miller, drove out to the location to investigate the complaint. When he arrived at the location, Mr. Rech first spoke to the complainant, who lived across the street from the vacant lot. The complainant estimated that the Southern Sanitation truck left the lot about 20 minutes before Mr. Rech arrived. Mr. Rech and Mr. Miller investigated the site. Mr. Rech described the area containing the dumped contents of the truck as a low-lying wetland. The property was about ten acres in size. The owner kept horses on the lot. Mr. Rech testified that there was a strong smell of septage, though the dumped contents were light gray in color. Raw septage is generally black. Based on the smell, Mr. Rech concluded that the dumped contents included septage mixed with some other material. Mr. Rech telephoned Erin Kurbec to meet him at the dump site. Ms. Kurbec is a Department employee responsible for oversight of septage hauling and disposal businesses. Ms. Kurbec in turn phoned Mr. Beebe and asked him to come to the site. Mr. Rech testified that Mr. Beebe was "very agitated" when he arrived at the dump site, calling Ms. Kurbec a "liar," and protesting that the Department did not have the right to ask for his company's hauling logs. Because of Mr. Beebe's aggressive behavior, Mr. Rech phoned to request a Sheriff's deputy to come to the site. Mr. Beebe conceded that he was somewhat agitated because Ms. Kubec asked him to come to the site, but would not tell him why she wanted to see his truck. She would only say that it was a "spot check," which Mr. Beebe did not believe. By the time the Sheriff's deputy arrived, the situation had calmed down. Mr. Beebe told Mr. Rech that he had dumped approximately 3,000 gallons of "drillers' mud" on the site. Drillers' mud, or bentonite clay, is a colloidal clay sold under various trade names that forms a slick slurry, or gel, when water is added. The appearance of the material dumped at the site was consistent with that of drillers' mud. Mr. Beebe testified that the owner of the vacant lot asked him to dump the drillers' mud to fill in a low-lying, hard to reach area of the property. The liquid-like consistency of the drillers' mud made it ideal for filling this difficult portion of the property. Mr. Beebe's testimony as to having permission to dump materials on the property is credited. Mr. Rech took two samples of the dumped material from a pooled area about six inches deep. He used sterile sample equipment and containers. Because Mr. Beebe had alerted him to the possibility that there could be horse manure under the dumped material, Mr. Rech was careful to scoop the contents from the top of the dumped material. Mr. Rech provided one of the samples to Mr. Beebe to allow Mr. Beebe to have a laboratory of his choice analyze the material. Mr. Rech sent the other sample to the Department's Tampa laboratory, which found the sample to contain a fecal coliform count of 4,800 colonies per gram. The laboratory's report was stamped with the disclosure stating, "Sample does not meet the following NELAC requirements: 1) exceeds 6 hr. hold time; 2) this matrix is not certified under NELAC." NELAC is the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference, a voluntary association of state and federal agencies, the purpose of which is to establish and promote mutually acceptable performance standards for the operation of environmental laboratories. NELAC certifies environmental laboratories such as the Department's Tampa facility, which was not certified for solid matrices such as the sample provided by Mr. Rech. Dr. Philip Amuso is the director of the Department's Tampa laboratory. Dr. Amuso testified as to the testing procedures and the disclosure statement included on the laboratory report. He concluded that neither of the disclosures affected the validity of the fecal coliform count found in the sample. Dr. Amuso testified that the applicable testing standard calls for a sample to be analyzed for fecal coliform within six hours of the sample collection time. The sample in question was not tested within six hours. However, Dr. Amuso testified that the longer a sample is held, the lower the fecal coliform count will be, because the fecal coliform colonies tend to die off over time. Thus, Dr. Amuso testified that the fecal coliform count in the sample was likely understated, due to the failure to analyze the sample within six hours. Dr. Amuso testified that his laboratory chose to classify the sample as solid. The Tampa laboratory was required to note on its report that it is not NELAC-certified for solid matrices. However, Dr. Amuso testified that the classification of the sample had no impact on the analysis performed or the validity of the result. He explained that the laboratory could have classified the sample as a non-potable liquid, a matrix for which the Tampa laboratory is NELAC-certified, and the same analysis would have been performed and would have yielded the same result. Mr. Beebe forwarded his sample of the dumped material to Sanders Laboratories, Inc. ("Sanders"), a private environmental testing service. The Sanders laboratory classified the sample as a non-potable liquid and performed its analysis within six hours of the sample's collection. The Sanders laboratory report dated September 30, 2004, found the fecal coliform count to be 1,600,000 colonies per 100 milliliters. Placed in comparable terms to the Tampa laboratory's report, this sample showed a fecal coliform count of 16,000 colonies per gram, or about three times higher than the Tampa laboratory's sample. Dr. Amuso attributed this higher reading to the fact that Sanders ran its test within six hours of collection. Dr. Amuso testified that the fecal coliform count of 4,800 colonies per gram found in the Tampa laboratory's sample constituted "pretty significant" contamination. Mr. Rech testified that a count of 4,800 colonies per gram is about one-half of the count found in raw, untreated septage from a septic tank, and that such a count is "bad" in terms of public health significance. Mr. Rech testified that the fecal coliform count in the Sanders sample was "in the range" for raw untreated septage. Mr. Rech stated that the laboratory analyses led to the conclusion that there was a substantial amount of untreated septage mixed with the drillers' mud in the dumped materials. He concluded there was more septage than could reasonably be attributed to residue from a previous dump of septage in Mr. Beebe's truck. He added that it would be impossible to clean the tank of a septage disposal truck sufficiently to prevent fecal contamination of a subsequent non-septage load. Mr. Beebe conceded that Mr. Rech told him that he should not use a septage hauling truck for any other kind of load, especially where that load would be dumped on the ground. Before leaving the dump site on September 29, 2004, Mr. Rech and Ms. Kurbec handed Mr. Beebe the citation for failure to properly treat or dispose of septage and the creation or maintenance of a sanitary nuisance. The citation directed Mr. Beebe to pay a fine of $500.00 for each of the two violations. Mr. Rech testified that he and Ms. Kurbec were able to conclude from their on-site observations that Mr. Beebe had improperly disposed of septage and had created a sanitary nuisance. Mr. Rech stated that the subsequent laboratory analysis served to confirm those conclusions. Mr. Rech testified that untreated septage consists of human waste containing high levels of fecal coliform and viruses, bacteria, and parasites that cause a wide range of gastrointestinal and neurological conditions in humans. Mr. Rech stated that untreated septage dumped anywhere other than at a properly regulated disposal site constitutes a public health nuisance. He noted that the materials were dumped by Mr. Beebe within roughly 100 feet of residential drinking water wells. Mr. Beebe admitted that he dumped the contents of his disposal truck on the vacant lot, though he denied that it contained septage. He theorized that the high fecal coliform counts in the laboratory analyses were caused by animal manure beneath the drillers' mud that he dumped on the property. Dr. Amuso conceded that no testing had been performed to establish the ambient level of coliform on the property, and further conceded that the laboratory tests do not distinguish human from animal feces in measuring the coliform count. However, as noted above, Mr. Rech knew that there were animals on the property and carefully took his sample from the top of the dumped material. Mr. Rech testified that the strong smell of septage, and the high coliform count found by the subsequent laboratory analyses left no doubt that untreated human waste had been dumped on the property by Mr. Beebe. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe dumped a mixture of drillers' mud and untreated septage on the lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples. Holding Tank On or before January 6, 2005, Mr. Beebe placed a 900-gallon domestic wastewater holding tank into a pre-dug hole at the newly built residence of Edward Ehlen at 616 Crescent Street on Marco Island. Mr. Beebe did not dig the hole, nor did he connect the holding tank to Mr. Ehlen's house. Mr. Ehlen testified that he contracted with the City of Marco Island in July 2004 to connect his new residence, an $800,000 house, to the city sewer system. The connection was to be completed no later than November 2004, when Mr. Ehlen and his family expected to take occupancy of the house. The city did not complete the connection and, therefore, allowed Mr. Ehlen to install a holding tank to be used until the sewer connection was completed. After the holding tank was installed, the city inspected the tank and gave Mr. Ehlen a temporary certificate of occupancy. On January 6, 2005, after Mr. Ehlen and his family had moved into their house, the Department discovered that the Ehlen home was using a holding tank to collect its wastewater. On January 7, 2005, the Department issued to Mr. Ehlen an "Official Notice to Correct and Abate a Sanitary Nuisance," finding that Mr. Ehlen was in violation of "Florida Statutes Chapters 381 and 386" because "plumbing discharge from your home is connected to a sewage holding tank which has not been permitted or inspected by this department." The Notice also provided, in relevant part: You are hereby directed to correct this condition by complying with all the conditions listed below. Apply for a "temporary" Holding Tank permit by close of business on Monday, January 10, 2005. [This permit will be valid for a maximum of 120 days, Permit fee is $185.00] Apply for an abandonment permit for the temporary holding tank by close of business Monday, January 10, 2005. [This permit will be valid for a maximum of 120 days. Complete tank removal will be required within 10 days of hook up to public sewer. Permit fee is $40.00] Have a licensed septic contractor excavate the holding tank for inspection of all connections and seals by this department by Wednesday, January 12, 2005. Sign and maintain a pump-out agreement with a licensed septage hauler until the temporary holding tank is properly abandoned and inspected by this department. Provide a copy of this agreement to the department by Wednesday, January 12, 2005. [Minimum required pump-out frequency to be every other day]. Complete hookup to Marco Island Utilities sewer system within 120 days of receipt of this notice. Failure to comply may result in administrative and/or civil enforcement action, including administrative fines of up to $500 per day per violation of law. On January 12, 2005, the Department issued a 120-day temporary permit to Mr. Ehlen for his holding tank. Also on January 12, 2005, Mr. Ehlen signed a contract with Southern Sanitation pursuant to which Mr. Beebe's company agreed to pump out the holding tank three times per week. Mr. Beebe conceded that he did not obtain a permit from the Health Department before he placed the holding tank in the hole on Mr. Ehlen's property. Mr. Beebe relied on Mr. Ehlen's statement that the City of Marco Island had approved the installation of the holding tank. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.0101(7) provides that a construction permit must be obtained before the placement or installation of any holding tank. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe placed a 900-gallon domestic wastewater holding tank into a pre-dug hole at the Ehlen's residence without obtaining a Department permit. Mr. Beebe's good faith belief that Mr. Ehlen had obtained approval for the placement of the tank is noted as a mitigating factor, but cannot operate as a defense for a registered septic tank contractor's admitted failure to confirm the status of any permit with the Department prior to commencing work on the project. Collection and Hauling Log Mr. Beebe's annual operating permit from the Department authorizes him to pump septage from septic tanks and holding tanks and haul it to an approved treatment site for disposal and treatment. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e) requires a septage hauler to maintain a collection and hauling log "at the treatment site or at the main business location" and to retain that log for a period of five years. The rule lists the following items for inclusion in the log: Date of septage or water collection; Address of collection; Indicate whether the point of collection is a residence or business and if a business, the type of business; Estimated volume, in gallons, of septage or water transported; Receipts for lime or other materials used for treatment; Location of the approved treatment facility; Date and time of discharge to the treatment facility; and Acknowledgement from treatment facility of receipt of septage or waste. On September 29, 2004, the date on which the Department investigated Mr. Beebe's dumping of drillers' mud and sewage on the lot at 295 Brandy Lane in Naples, the Department requested that Mr. Beebe provide his septage collection and hauling log. On September 30, 2004, Mr. Beebe faxed to the Department a single-page, typed document titled, "RE: Southern Sanitation, Inc. Truck Log for Trucks 1 and 2." The document stated that on September 29, 2004, "Truck #1" transported 3,000 gallons of "Well Drillers Mud" from Southern Well Drillers Services drilling site and disposed of it at 295 Brandy Lane. The document stated that "Truck #2" did not haul materials on September 29, 2004. Mr. Rech testified that this document did not satisfy the rule criteria for collection and hauling logs. He noted that this was not a log kept by the drivers of the trucks, but merely a statement from Mr. Beebe attesting to what the trucks had hauled on a single day. Mr. Rech also pointed out that the Department had inspected and authorized Mr. Beebe to haul septage in two trucks identified by their vehicle identification numbers, but that Mr. Beebe's single-page "log" provided no information specifically identifying the trucks in question. On February 3, 2005, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Beebe requesting that he produce, among other documentation, "your original collection and hauling logs for all domestic sewage and food establishment sludge and/or septage you collected and disposed of from January 1, 2004 through February 2, 2005." On February 11, 2005, Mr. Beebe responded to the Department's request, providing copies of "Septic Receiving Logs" maintained by the North County Water Reclamation Facility ("NCWRF"), the Collier County wastewater facility at which Mr. Beebe disposed of his loads. There were log pages for January through June 2004, and October through December 2004. The logs included the dates of disposal, the number of gallons and type of waste in the load (septic or grease), and the signature of the Southern Sanitation driver who dropped off the load. On March 8, 2005, Mr. Beebe submitted to the Department supplemental information covering January 2005. It includes a typed "Pump Job List" for January 2005, prepared on March 3, 2005. The list contains dates, addresses, and approximate gallons collected, including eight entries for pumping out Mr. Ehlen's holding tank. Individual trucks were not identified on this list. The supplemental information also included an NCWRF Septic Receiving Log for January 2005. Mr. Beebe testified that the Department had never asked him for an accounting during the eight years he has operated his business and that the Department did so in this case only after he contested the allegations in the Brandy Lane dumping case. Mr. Beebe appeared to believe that the Department was acting punitively in requesting documents that Mr. Beebe, as the owner of a permitted septage disposal business, was required to keep. Mr. Beebe did not contest the apparent fact that he did not keep collection and hauling logs for his trucks in the normal course of business. Such documentation as he provided was insufficiently detailed to meet the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e), and in some instances was cobbled together well after the fact in order to provide the Department with some documentation of Southern Sanitation's activities. Mr. Rech testified that the Department requires accurate logs of collections and disposals to allow it to monitor compliance and investigate complaints. An accurate, detailed, and contemporaneously-created log would have allowed the Department to discover what Mr. Beebe's truck had collected and dumped prior to the Brandy Lane dumping incident and would have allowed the Department to reconcile the amounts of septage collected by Mr. Beebe from January 2004 through February 2005, with the amounts of septage Mr. Beebe properly disposed of during the same period. The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Beebe did not maintain a septage collection and hauling log as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e). Improper disposal of septage The terms of Mr. Beebe's septage disposal service permit required him to dispose of his collected septage at the NCWRF. Dale Waller, the plant manager of the NCWRF, testified as to the procedures followed by sewage haulers at the facility. Mr. Waller testified that the facility has a computer capable of generating reports as to the quantity of disposals made by haulers, but that the computer system often does not operate correctly. Therefore, the facility's chief means of monitoring disposals is the "Septic Receiving Logs" discussed above. The Septic Receiving Log requires the hauler to record the date of disposal, whether the disposal consisted of septage or grease, the amount of disposed material in gallons, and the driver's signature and printed name. The number of gallons disposed is shown on a calibrated gauge when the waste is pumped out of the truck. Mr. Waller testified that this gauge is accurate within five per cent of the actual amount pumped. The county sends invoices each month to the hauler, based on the number of gallons and the type of waste disposed of at the facility. The Septic Receiving Log is maintained in the foyer of the NCWRF building, with a monthly sheet for each hauling company that uses the facility. No NCWRF employee monitors the haulers as they make their log entries. Mr. Waller testified that it is essentially an honor system for the haulers. Due to computer problems, the NCWRF had no computer records of disposals for the month of January 2005. The Septic Receiving Log for Southern Sanitation for that month showed six entries totaling 11,908 gallons of septage and grease, plus two early January 2005 entries of 3,450 gallons that were placed on the December 2004 log, for a total of 15,358 gallons. Mr. Waller testified that in March 2005, Mr. Beebe submitted a revised Septic Receiving Log for Southern Sanitation for the month of January 2005. Mr. Beebe also provided this revised log to the Department as part of his March 8, 2005, supplemental information for the month of January 2005. This revised log listed three additional disposals of septage in the month of January 2005: 2,550 gallons on January 17; 2,000 gallons on January 24; and 1,700 gallons on January 28. These additional 6,250 gallons brought the reported total disposals of septage and grease for January 2005 to 21,608 gallons. The NCWRF declined to accept the revised Septic Receiving Log as an official record of Southern Sanitation's disposals at the facility for the month of January 2005, because the NCWRF could not verify the additional disposals. Mr. Beebe was billed only for those disposals documented on the original Septic Receiving Log kept at the facility. As part of the March 8, 2005, submission of supplemental information, Mr. Beebe provided to the Department a "pump job list" for January 1 through 28, 2005. This list indicated that Southern Sanitation collected between 21,000 and 22,600 gallons of wastewater during the period specified, a number that roughly corresponds to the total number of gallons reported by Mr. Beebe in his revised Septic Receiving Log for the month of January 2005. At the hearing, the Department contended that because Mr. Beebe reported collecting between 21,000 and 22,600 gallons of waste, but could only verify the proper disposal of 15,358 gallons of waste, Mr. Beebe must have improperly disposed of at least 5,600 gallons and as much as 7,200 gallons of waste. In a similar fashion, the Department examined the amounts that Mr. Beebe reported pumping from Mr. Ehlen's holding tank, compared those amounts to the Ehlen household's water usage for the month of January 2005, and concluded that Mr. Beebe further underreported the amount of waste collected that month and, therefore, must have improperly disposed of even more than 5,600 to 7,200 gallons of waste. Mr. Beebe was forthright regarding the issues in these cases, even when his testimony was against his own interests. In light of his overall credibility, Mr. Beebe's denial that he made any improper disposals of waste is credited. No evidence was presented to show that Mr. Beebe actually made these improper disposals. The Department's contention was a surmise derived from discrepancies in Mr. Beebe's reports of collections and disposals. Based on all the evidence, the undersigned finds that the discrepancies in the reports were more likely due to Mr. Beebe's poor record-keeping and his after-the-fact efforts to create records complying with Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.010(7)(e), rather than any illegal dumping of waste. The Department failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Beebe improperly disposed of septage during the month of January 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Department of Health, enter a final order imposing a $1000.00 fine for the violations described above, relating to DOAH Case No. 04-4333, and imposing a fine of $1,500.00 and a 90-day suspension of Respondent's septage disposal operating permit for the violations described above, relating to DOAH Case No. 05-0695. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 7th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Kayusa, Esquire Post Office Box 6096 Fort Myers, Florida 33911 Susan Mastin Scott, Esquire Department of Health 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue This case arises out of the Petitioner's objection to the issuance of a septic tank permit for property adjacent to his lot in Panama City Beach, Florida. The sole issue before the Hearing Officer, as alleged by Petitioner's pleading, is whether the applicant's permit for septic tank should be denied on the basis that it is in violation of Rule 10D-6.24, Florida Administrative Code, which requires that no septic tank be placed within 75 feet of a private water supply well. On November 15, 1982, by certified mail, the Bay County Health Department notified Petitioner of its intent to grant a permit for a septic tank at 6713 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. Thereafter, on December 13, 1982, Respondent filed a petition for formal proceeding, objecting to the issuance of the aforementioned permit and requesting a formal hearing. Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held at which the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and also called Paul Miller, an Environmental Sanitarian for the Bay County Health Department as a witness. Respondents called as witnesses Michael Sarra, Bay County Health Department, William Curtis Wright, and Thomas F. Gladstone. Petitioner offered and had admitted two exhibits and Respondents offered and had admitted three exhibits. The Petitioner, subsequent to the formal hearing, filed with the undersigned Hearing Officer two late-filed exhibits. No permission had been granted or requested at the formal hearing for the filing of late-filed exhibits and, therefore, those exhibits were neither considered nor utilized as a basis for the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in this Recommended Order. Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact are not adopted herein, they were considered by the undersigned Hearing Officer and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 15, 1982, Mr. Dewayne Dilmore, by and through his contractor, Tom Gladstone, applied for a septic tank permit for a new residence located at 6713 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida (See Petitioner's Exhibit B). After a required change in the design drawings reducing the structure from a 3-bedroom to a 2-bedroom residence, the application was determined to be in compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements and was approved by the Bay County Health Department. Petitioner, Samuel M. Torrence, owns a residence at 6715 Gulf Drive, Panama City Beach, Florida. This home is west of and contiguous to Mr. Dilmore's lot. In response to a Notice of Intent to issue a septic tank permit for the adjacent lot, 6713 Gulf Drive, Mr. Torrence objected on the grounds that such septic tank would be located within 75 feet of his private water supply well. Prior to the June 15, 1982, application by Mr. Dilmore, there was an existing septic tank on Mr. Dilmore's lot. This septic tank had been on the lot since April, 1961. The Petitioner's home at 6715 Gulf Drive was constructed in 1968 or 1969. 4 The replacement septic tank on the applicant's lot will be located farther from the Petitioner's property than the existing septic tank. The testimony of Paul Miller and Michael Sarra, along with the approved application, establish that the application of Dewayne Dilmore and the proposed replacement septic tank meet all requirements of Rule 10D-6.24, Florida Administrative Code, and Florida Statute 381.272(1982). Approximately two years ago, Mr. Torrence had his home at 6715 Gulf Drive hooked into city water, and has no private well hooked up to any of the pipes of his home. Although the Petitioner contended that the replacement septic tank would be within 75 feet of a private well on his property, there was no evidence in the record of the specific location on his property of a private well or any measurements he had made. The evidence does not show that there is in fact a private well within 75 feet of the location of the replacement septic tank. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has an established policy of grandfathering existing septic tanks, and this policy permits the septic tank on the Dilmore property as a replacement of an existing septic tank regardless of whether said tank would be located within 75 feet of a private water supply well on the Petitioner's property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is:: RECOMMENDED: That the permit for septic tank be issued and Petitioner's request to halt issuance should be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 12 day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 12 day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel M. Torrence Post Office Box 7106 Dothan, Alabama 36302 John Pearce, Esquire Department of HRS 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Mr. Mike Sarra and Mr. Paul Miller Bay County Health Department Post Office Box 1728 Panama City, Florida 32402 Mr. David H. Pingree Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent installed a septic system without a permit; whether a permit was required for the installation; whether the installation was of inadequate size; whether the Respondent caused the disconnection of an existing system without a permit, and whether that system was improperly abandoned. A related issue is whether the proposed $1,500.00 fine should be imposed if the violations are proven or what, if any, fine is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, by its organic statutes and rules, with regulating the practice of septic tank contracting and the installation and repair of septic tank and drainfield waste disposal systems and with licensure of such contractors pursuant to Rule Chapter 64E, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent, Trammel Fowler (Fowler), is a licensed septic tank contractor regulated by the statutes and rules cited herein. Fowler has never been issued any citations or been subjected to discipline under the relevant statutes and rules enforced by the Petitioner with regard to septic system design, construction, installation and repair. He has worked in the septic tank installation business for 19 years. The Respondent installed a septic tank and drainfield system at 5642 Old Bethel Road, Crestview, Florida, a residential construction project (home) in 1993. The original septic tank system installed by the Respondent was finally approved on June 11, 1993. The home site at issue was originally designed to have the septic tank and drainfield system located in the backyard of the residence. Plumbing errors by the general contractor and the plumbing sub-contractor caused the plumbing system to be "stubbed-out" to the front of the house so that the septic tank and drainfield system was installed in the front of the house rather than in the backyard as originally designed and approved by the Petitioner. Additional excavation work was required at the site, which caused the soil type to change in the front of the house where the septic tank and drainfield were to be installed. This in turn required the Okaloosa County Health Department to require additional drainfield square footage to be added to the previously approved 600 square feet of drainfield, so that the drainfield installed in the front of the house by the Respondent ultimately encompassed 800 square feet. Thus, although the original site plans approved by the Okaloosa County Health Department were not followed, subsequent modifications to the system resulted in the septic tank system being fully approved by the Petitioner (through the Okaloosa County Health Department), on June 11, 1993. In the ensuing months, landscaping problems at the site caused surface water to collect around and above the drainfield area. This, coupled with a continuous water flow from the residence caused by leaking appliances, and particularly the commode, resulted in raw or partially treated wastewater becoming exposed on the surface of the ground, as a sanitary nuisance. This was caused as the septic tank and drainfield system became saturated by the excess water from the two referenced sources. This caused the failure of that septic tank and drainfield system within nine months of its original installation, as was noted on March 4, 1994, by the Department's representative Mr. Sims. It is undisputed that the Respondent, Mr. Fowler, did not cause or contribute to this septic tank system failure. He constructed the system as designed and approved by the Department (or as re- approved by the Department in June 1993 with the relocation of the system to the front yard of the residence and with the augmentation of the drainfield referenced above). The Department was aware of the failure of the original system in the front yard of the residence as early as March 1994. There is no evidence that an actual permit for repair of that system was ever issued. Mr. Fowler maintains that the Department had a policy at that time of authorizing repairs to systems that failed within one year of original installation, as this one did, without a written, formal permit process, but rather by informal approval and inspection of the repair work. The Petitioner disagrees and Mr. Sims, the Petitioner's representative, states that a permit was required, although no fee was charged. Indeed in 1994 a rule was enacted authorizing issuance of a permit for repair work for systems that failed within one year of original installation without being accompanied by the charging of a fee for that permit. In any event, prior to the rule change, repairs were authorized for failures within one year by the Department without a permit, but were required to be inspected and a notation made in the permit file or in some cases on a "nuisance complaint card," so authorization and inspection was supposed to be documented. When by the time the repair was effected by the installation of the backyard septic tank and drainfield system or "overflow-system" in February 1995, the rule change requiring issuance of a repair permit without fee had become effective. There is evidence that the Respondent was aware of this since, sometime in 1994, he had obtained a permit authorizing repair of a septic tank and drainfield site on "Windsor Circle" as shown by the Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 7 in evidence. Be that as it may, the Respondent contends that Mr. Brown, the environmental specialist and inspector for the Department, met with him at the repair site in question and at least verbally authorized the repair of the system by installation of the septic tank and drainfield in the backyard of the residence; to be connected to the sewer line which also was connected with the malfunctioning system in the front yard of that residence. Mr. Brown in his testimony purports to have no memory of authorizing the repair work or inspecting it and seems confused as to whether he met with the Respondent at the site. The Petitioner acknowledges, as does Mr. Brown, that he has had problems since that time with memory lapses, attendant to two life-threatening injuries, which have apparently caused problems with memory loss. He purportedly suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome and is taking medication with regard thereto. There is no dispute that he has problems with recall. Moreover, there is evidence that Mr. Brown met with the Respondent at an address on Old Bethel Road for some reason, as shown by a notation in Department records in February 1995. Consequently, while there is no doubt that the repair work in question was done without a written permit, there is evidence to corroborate Mr. Fowler's testimony to the effect that Mr. Brown inspected and reviewed the repair system while it was actually being installed by Fowler and approved it. Thus, it is possible that Mr. Fowler was under a good faith impression that the Department had a policy of inspecting and approving repair work without there being a permit related to it at the time when he installed the secondary "overflow" system at the Old Bethel Road site in February of 1995, even though that impression may have been legally mistaken, because the rule requiring a permit at no fee for repair work was already in effect. In any event, Mr. Fowler installed the so-called "repair system" in February 1995, which he has termed an "overflow" system designed to augment the treatment capability of the previously-approved system installed in the front yard at that residence. That system, as found above, consisted of 800 square feet of drainfield. The "overflow" system installed in the backyard by Mr. Fowler in February 1995 without the permit, has only 300 square feet of drainfield. This is clearly well below the minimum required for such a system and tends to support Mr. Fowler's testimony that it was intended really as a repair job in the form of a overflow system to handle extra flow that the original system in the front yard would not be able to handle in performing the intended treatment function. It is unlikely that Mr. Fowler, with or without a permit, would have installed a system he clearly would know to be of only one-half (or less) of the adequate size and treatment capability for the residence, if it had been intended to be a separately functioning independent treatment system for the residence. In fact, the "overflow" system was connected through a "T" or "Y" fitting in the sewer line outfall pipe from the house with the original septic tank and drainfield system in the front yard of the residence, so that flow could go to both systems simultaneously from the residential sewer line. There is conflicting testimony as to whether such a dually draining system could work properly. One septic tank contractor testified that it could and could adequately split the flow between the two septic tank and drainfield systems so as to perform adequate treatment without backups or overflows, while a witness for the Department testified that such a split-fitting could cause stoppages and therefore sewage backups. Be that as it may, the installation of the system in a connected fashion to the original system supports Mr. Fowler's testimony and contention that the system installed in the backyard, with 300 square feet of drainfield, was intended as a repair system merely to augment the treatment function being provided by the poorly functioning original system in the front yard. In fact, the preponderant evidence shows that, with the elimination of leakage from the appliances in the house and the correction of the water-pooling problem caused by improper landscaping, that the system would function adequately thus connected. Indeed, when the plumber or the general contractor for the residence disconnected the original front-yard septic tank system from the overflow system, so that all of the sewage in the house went to the overflow system with the smaller drainfield, that system still functioned adequately for one and one-half years until failure in approximately August 1997. It is undisputed that the Respondent had no part in the unreported and unapproved disconnection of the original front system from the overflow tank and drainfield system in the backyard. The evidence shows a preponderant likelihood that the total system would have functioned adequately indefinitely had the two remained connected so that sewage could flow to the front yard system with the 800 square feet of drainfield, with the excess water flow problems referenced above already corrected. Mr. Brown, the Department environmental specialist and inspector, did not recall specifically whether he had been at the Old Bethel Road site at issue, but testified that it was definitely possible. He testified that the time entry notation he made admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. 3, may have reflected an inspection for a repair job at the Old Bethel Road site. Mr. Brown admitted that he was present on Old Bethel Road in February 1995, but did not recall his purpose of being there. His testimony thus did not contradict the testimony of Trammel Fowler. Mr. Brown also testified that he was aware of problems at the Old Bethel Road site and testified that Mr. Wykle of the Department and Mr. Sims were also aware of problems at the Old Bethel Road site. Douglas Sims of the Department testified that the two systems, the original front tank and drainfield and the overflow tank and drainfield installed in the backyard by Mr. Fowler could not work together if they were connected. This is belied by testimony of a septic tank contractor, Ken Arnett, who was a rebuttal witness called by the Department. Mr. Arnett testified that he would expect a system of the type contemplated by Mr. Fowler and Mr. Brown to function properly. It thus seems from the preponderant weight of the evidence that the reason the Old Bethel Road residential system quit functioning properly, in approximately August 1997, is that the plumbing contractor, at the behest of the residential building contractor for the residence constructed there, disconnected the overflow system from the original front yard system, so that all the house effluent was going to the overflow system, which was never intended to have a complete, standard-sized drainfield for such a dwelling, prevalent soil conditions, elevations and the like. Mr. Brown, a long time employee of the Department was familiar with the statewide rules affecting septic tank contractors and installation and familiar with local department rules and policies relating to repairs. He testified that for a period of time in the early 1990's, there was an unwritten policy by the Okaloosa County Health Department that some repair permits would be waived for certain repairs provided a final inspection by the Department was made. He stated that if the septic tank system failed within one year under certain circumstances, a repair permit would be waived as long as the Department was aware of the repair. Mr. Brown could not recall when the policy ended, but estimated it to be sometime between 1995 and 1997. He called the discontinuation of the local policy to waive repair permits a "gradual phase out." Mr. Brown also recalled that the Okaloosa County Health Department's unwritten, local policy concerning waiver of repair permits was known and relied upon by septic tank contractors in certain situations. Cecil Rogers, a long-time septic tank contractor who dealt with the Okaloosa County Health Department regularly, testified that there was a standard policy to allow repairs to be made to septic tank systems that failed within one year without requiring a permit. There thus seems to have been an unwritten policy or practice among septic tank contractors and the Okaloosa County Health Department to the effect that if a system failed within one year and the contractor was willing to repair the system without cost to the homeowner, that the permit would be waived as long as the system or repair could be inspected by the Department. The system originally installed which failed appears to have been installed before the effective date of the rule requiring that a no-charge permit be obtained for repair work. The repair work in question, the installation of the overflow system, appears to have been effected after the effective date of the new rule. It also appears that Mr. Fowler knew of the new rule because of his obtaining a permit for repair work at the Windsor Circle repair site in 1994. It also would appear that Mr. Brown likely verbally approved and inspected the repair work at the subject site, giving Mr. Fowler the impression that he was authorized to go ahead and make the repair by installing the overflow system. Thus, although he may have technically violated the rule requiring a no-charge permit for repair work, it does not appear that he had any intent to circumvent the authority of the Department, since the preponderant evidence shows that Mr. Brown knew of and approved the installation. Thus, in this regard, a minimal penalty would be warranted. Moreover, after the original septic system at the Old Bethel Road site failed in March of 1994, through no fault of Fowler, Fowler paid to make the repair by installing the overflow system at his own expense. The original new home purchaser at that site, and Mr. Fowler's customer, Mr. Wayne Aaberg, thus did not sustain any personal expenses for the repair work performed by Fowler. The Petitioner did not present any evidence to establish that the repairs made by Fowler caused the septic tank system at Old Bethel Road to fail. The Petitioner, through the testimony of environmental manager Douglas Sims, itself established that the plumbing contractor actually disconnected the front system from the overflow system and made a physical connection only to the rear system installed by Mr. Fowler, rather than Fowler, and without Mr. Fowler's knowledge. The Petitioner, apparently through Douglas Sims, failed to conduct an investigation to determine which party actually was responsible for physically abandoning or disconnecting the original front system from the home and from the overflow system prior to the charges being filed against Mr. Fowler. Mr. Fowler did not cause the physical disconnection of the two systems and the residence and is not a licensed plumber. He did not, during the course of his contracting business for septic tanks and drainfields make physical connections or disconnections to dwelling units, but instead left that to the responsibility of the general contractor and/or the plumbing contractor. The Petitioner presented no evidence establishing any monetary harm to any customer of the Respondent. The disconnection of the systems which caused the failure was not shown to have been the responsibility nor fault of Mr. Fowler. Rather, any monetary harm to the homeowner who owned the residence when the failure occurred in August 1997, after the original repair installation had been paid for by Mr. Fowler was caused by the plumbing contractor and/or the general contractor, Kemp Brothers, who directed the plumbing contractor to disconnect the original front system from the overflow system. Consequently, any monetary damage caused by fixing the failure which occurred in August 1997, and which engendered the subject dispute, was not caused by Mr. Fowler. Finally, Mr. Douglas Sims of the Department, testified that he knew of two other un-permitted repairs by septic tank contractors which were known to the Department. In both of those cases, the contractors were only issued a Letter of Warning. Mr. Sims testified that if the Respondent herein had made repairs to the existing system at his own cost after the failure occurring in August of 1997, then the Department would have only issued a Letter of Warning. Mr. Fowler paid to fix the original system in February 1995, but felt that monetary responsibility for the August 1997 failure was not his fault and thus did not offer to pay for that.
Recommendation Accordingly, 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 finding that the Respondent effected repair work to a septic tank and drainfield system without the required written permit but that, in view of the above-found and concluded extenuating circumstances, that a minimal penalty of a letter of warning be issued to the Respondent by the Department and that the citation for violation, in all other respects, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Matthew D. Bordelon, Esquire 2721 Gulf Breeze Parkway Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health Bin A00 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should pay a fine of $500 for an alleged violation of Section 386.041, Florida Statutes (1997). (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for issuing citations under Chapter 386. Respondent owns apartments located at 2014-2018 Dante Street, Lakeland, Florida. On August 8, 1997, Petitioner discovered a septic tank backing up at Respondent's apartments. Sewage had leaked out of the system and was flowing onto the adjacent area. The sewage included human waste and toilet tissue. Respondent attempted to hide the leaking system by covering up the pipe with a wooden board. Respondent had taken off the cap to the septic system. Petitioner had previously warned Respondent that the cap needed to remain on the system at all times. Respondent replaced the cap on August 8, 1997. She cleared the open sewage within the next day or two. On January 7, 1998, Petitioner again found the cap off of the system. Sewage had leaked out of the system an onto the adjacent area. Petitioner issued the citation that is the subject of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order sustaining the citation issued on January 8, 1998, imposing a fine of $500, and denying the request to dismiss the citation. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Stark 2028 Dante Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, 4th Floor Bartow, Florida 33830 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 136 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
