Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Several years prior to1978, petitioner General Development Corporation (GDC) applied to the DER for a dredge and fill permit to remove a plug of land between the Ocean Breeze Waterway and the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. During the course of negotiations for this permit, it was discovered that the North Port St. Lucie Sewage Treatment Plant, owned and operated by General Development Utilities, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the petitioner, was operating without a permit from the DER and discharging effluent into a ditch which flowed into the Ocean Breeze Waterway. In March of 1978, a temporary operating permit was issued for the sewage treatment plant. In July of 1978, petitioner received from the DER Permit No. 253.123- 1031 to dredge an area approximately 800 feet in length, 90 feet in width and 6 feet in depth in order to connect the Ocean Breeze/Sagamore Waterways to the dead end oxbow of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. The permit application was given special consideration pursuant to Rule 17-4.28(7), Florida Administrative Code. The purpose for obtaining the permit was to create direct navigable access to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River from thee Ocean Breeze Waterway. The Ocean Breeze Waterway was and is currently connected to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River by a narrow, shallow, meandering creek and lake system. However, there is not a large enough opening to allow the type of navigable access desired by the petitioner for the benefit of 118 lots plotted along the Ocean Breeze and Sagamore Waterways. Among the seven particular or special conditions attached to the dredge and fill permit issued to petitioner was that the earthen plug not be removed until such time as a permanent operational permit was issued for the sewage treatment plant owned and operated by General Development Utilities, Inc. More specifically, petitioner agreed to the following special conditions to the issuance of the dredge and fill permit: "(7) The applicant is aware that the GDC Utilities' sewage plant is providing an unknown quantity of discharge into Ocean Breeze Waterway and that this discharge may be a source of pollution to the receiving body of water unless affirmative steps are taken by the Utilities. The sewage treatment plant is currently operating under a Temporary Operating Permit (TP56-4601). In no case shall the plug at Cove Waterway be removed before an Operation Permit for the STP has been issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation." At time of issuance of the dredge and fill permit, DER personnel considered the quoted special condition number 7 to an integral part of the permit in terms of water quality assurances. General Development Utilities, Inc. has not been able to obtain a permanent operational permit from the DER for its sewage treatment plant which discharges into a ditch that flows into the Ocean Breeze Waterway. Therefore, particular condition number 7 has not been satisfied and petitioner has been unable to proceed with the dredging or removing of the plug under the permit. As a result of the delays in removal of the plug, petitioner has had to repurchase some 41 of the 118 plotted lots. The sewage treatment plant was and is still operating under a temporary permit. General Development Utilities, Inc. has requested a permanent operational permit for the sewage treatment plant and DER has issued a letter of intent to deny such a permit. As a result, General Development Utilities has petitioned DER for site specific alternative criteria pursuant to Rule 17-3.031, Florida Administrative Code. This matter is the subject of a separate proceeding currently being held in abeyance pending a determination of alternative criteria. General Development Utilities, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 81-177. In September of 1980, petitioner sent a letter to DER requesting that special condition number seven be removed from its dredge and fill Permit No. 253.123-1031. It was intended that this request be considered as a minor modification to the dredge and fill permit. In response, DER's Chief of the Bureau of Permitting, Suzanne P. Walker, informed petitioner by letter dated October 15, 1980, that it was the staff's initial reaction, after a review of the original dredge and fill permit file, that the requirement that the sewage treatment plant obtain a permanent operational permit prior to dredging remain as a condition of the dredge and fill permit. Petitioner was informed that if it wished to pursue the matter further, the project must be reevaluated as a major modification to the dredge and fill permit. A major modification to a permit requires a new permit application and fee and is treated and processed as an initial application for a permit, with the applicant being required to provide reasonable assurances that the water quality standards will not be violated. Upon request for a minor modification, DER simply reviews the file and determines whether the request is obviously environmentally insignificant. After receipt of the letter from Mrs. Walker, petitioner supplied DER with additional water quality data. Based upon this additional data, discussions with DER staff who had been involved with the initial dredge and fill permit and the sewage treatment plant permit, and two days of sampling data collected by DER, DER determined that particular condition number seven was an integral part of the affirmative reasonable water quality assurance provided and should remain a condition of the permit. This determination was communicated to petitioner by letter dated January 7, 1981. The sewage treatment plant discharges treated effluent into a drainage ditch known as C-108. Effluent from the plant first goes into holding or retention ponds. Under its current flow, it takes about forty days for the effluent to be discharged from the plant to C-108 and the Ocean Breeze Waterway. C-108 flows into the Ocean Breeze Waterway, an artificial waterway which is presently connected to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River by a narrow, shallow meandering creek and lake system. The sewage treatment plant currently operates at 300,000 gallons per day but has an authorized capacity to operate at two million gallons per day. It currently contributes approximately two percent of the total daily flow to C-108. The Ocean Breeze Waterway and C-108, independent of the sewage treatment plant, drain approximately 4,000 square acres and produce about 35 percent of the water that will flow into the North Fork. The North Fork is tidal, with four one foot tides per day. The tidal action comprises almost 63 percent of the moving water. At a two million gallons per day discharge, the wastewater plant would be contributing about 12 percent of the water that would be going into the North Fork from the Ocean Breeze Waterway system. In comparison with two adjacent drainage systems, the Ocean Breeze system contributes only about three percent of the fresh water which flows into the North Fork. The dissolved oxygen levels of C-108 are chacteristically below the state standard of five milligrams per liter, primarily due to the seepage of ground water into the canal. Due to man-made alterations and to natural phenomena, the North Fork's dissolved oxygen levels also characteristically fall below state standards. The dissolved oxygen level of the Ocean Breeze Waterway is characteristically above state standards. Higher levels of dissolved oxygen coming from the sewage treatment plant improves the dissolved oxygen levels of the existing system. High levels of nitrogen, phosphate and chlorophyll have been found near the point of discharge. The quality of water in the North Fork is better than in the Ocean Breeze Waterway. It was the opinion of petitioner's experts that no change in dissolved oxygen levels would occur in the Ocean Breeze Waterway or the North Fork if the plug of land between these water bodies were removed. Petitioner's witnesses also opined that the Ocean Breeze/C-108 system was not a source of nutrient enrichment to the North Fork, and that the present creek system provided no water quality benefits in the form of nutrient uptake for the North Fork. It was estimated that, if the plug of land were removed pursuant to the permit, a pollutant placed at the upper end of the Ocean Breeze Waterway would be diluted by 98 percent in 26 hours in lieu of the present 39 hours due to increased flushing. These opinions were based upon analyses by petitioner's witnesses of various samplings and data regarding dissolved oxygen, nutrients and phytoplankton. The respondent's witnesses felt that the poor water quality in the Ocean Breeze Waterway was attributable in large part to the sewage treatment plant discharge and, if the plug of land were removed, the water quality problems would be moved to the North Fork and the St. Lucie River. It was felt that the present creek and lake system -- the narrow circuitous connection presently existing between the canal and the river -- reduces the nutrients which otherwise would flow into the river. These conclusions were based upon DER's own survey, a review of the dredge and fill permit file and a review of the additional data supplied by the petitioner General Development Corporation. No data regarding the water quality of the effluent from the sewage treatment plant was submitted by the petitioner at the time of DER's review of the original application for the dredge and fill permit.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the request of General Development Corporation to modify Permit Number 253.123-1031 by removing particular condition number seven be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 14th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Valerie Fravel Corporate Counsel General Development Corp. 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami Florida 33131 Alfred J. Malefatto Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Petitioner is charged pursuant to a Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance with a violation of Section 386.04(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1997), which describes conditions that are prima facie evidence of a sanitary nuisance injurious to health.
Findings Of Fact It was stipulated that Petitioner, Ann B. Harvey, through her company Harvey Enterprises and Company, Inc., owns the home at 102 Williams Street, Palatka, Florida. At all times relevant to the alleged violation, the home was occupied by tenants. The tenants vacated the house on or about October 13, 1998. Kenneth F. Burnett, Environmental Specialist I, with the Putnam County Health Department, first investigated a complaint regarding the property at 102 Williams Street, Palatka, Florida, on August 5, 1998. He witnessed faulty plumbing in the home and ponded wastewater at the back of the home. On August 11, 1998, Mr. Burnett drafted and mailed a Notice to Abate. The notice was mailed by certified mail return receipt requested and received by Ann B. Harvey on August 25, 1998. Ann B. Harvey signed the return receipt for the Notice to Abate on August 25, 1998. Mr. Burnett again inspected the property on September 2, 1998, and found no change in the status of the faulty plumbing and ponded wastewater. On September 9, 1998, Mr. Burnett again inspected the property and determined there had been no changes. David Flowers, Environmental Specialist II, became involved in the case on September 18, 1998, when he inspected the property. Mr. Flowers observed that wastewater ponded on the ground at the back of the home, and that the plumbing inside the home was in disrepair. Ms. Laurey Gauch, Environmental Health Director for Putnam County Health Department testified. She inspected the property in question on September 18, 25, and 28, 1998. Ms. Gauch observed ponded wastewater in the backyard and plumbing in disrepair inside the home on each visit. Ms. Gauch opined that the condition of the property was a sanitary nuisance in violation of Section 386.041(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1997), because the ponded wastewater would breed disease (bacteria, viruses, etc.) and contamination. A Citation for Violation was received and signed for by Ronald Harvey on September 25, 1998, pursuant to statutory authority at Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (1997). The citation cites the Petitioner for violation of Section 386.041(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1997). On September 25, 1998, Mr. Flowers again inspected the property, and observed that the sewage remained on the ground at the rear of the home. Mr. Flowers flushed dye in the toilet to determine if the standing water was coming from the toilet inside the home. The dye would run out onto the ground if the ponded water was from the toilet. Mr. Flowers inspected the problem on September 28, 1998. Sewage remained ponded on the ground at the rear of the home and the water bubbled when the toilet was flushed. Mr. Flowers re-inspected the property on September 29, 1998, and flushed dye in the toilet. He documented that the dye came to the ground surface. During the visit, Mr. Flowers was accompanied by a County Codes Enforcement Officer who condemned the home. On October 6, 1998, Mr. Flowers returned to the property with his supervisor, Geoff Batteiger. The tenants were still living in the home, but were reported to be leaving. The plumbing in the home remained unrepaired. When the toilet was flushed, water bubbled onto the ground surface. The problem had neither been abated, nor were there any signs that the problem was being corrected. No repairs were made to the premises between August 25, 1998, and October 6, 1998, a period of one and one-half months during which tenants lived in the home. On November 17, 1998, the property was reinspected by Mr. Burnett and Mr. Batteiger. They observed that the sanitary nuisance had been remedied. Ms. Lucille Harvey, property manager and sister-in-law to the Petitioner, testified for Petitioner. She collects rents and arranges for repairs. She had contacted one handyman who came to the home, but refused to do the work because of foul odor in the yard and fleas. Ms. Lucille Harvey did not contact anyone else for repairs until after the tenants had vacated the premises. The tenants kept dogs in the backyard where the problem was, and were uncooperative with the landlord. Ms. Lucille Harvey testified that she notified the Petitioner of the sanitary nuisance at the end of August 1998, and the problems she was having making repairs. Petitioner, Ann Harvey, testified she commenced eviction proceedings for the tenant at 102 Williams Street on or about July 12, 1998. The proceedings were on-going due to various legal exigencies until the tenants vacated the premises on or about October 13, 1998. Ms. Harvey was out-of-town from approximately July 22, 1998, through August 15, 1998, during which time a judge dismissed the eviction action. The action was recommenced. The tenant made a partial payment of one month, which Petitioner accepted. The judge again dismissed the eviction action. The sanitary nuisance at the property in question was not remedied until the Petitioner evicted the tenants and gained access to the premises. Mr. Thomas Harvey, handyman and brother Ron Harvey, testified that he began working on the repairs at the home at 102 Williams Street, on November 2, 1998. He testified that he replaced broken lines, cleaned a grease trap, and snaked the kitchen and bathroom. These repairs concluded on or about November 12, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health enter a final order waiving the fine and payment as stated in the Citation for Violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Harvey Route 2, Box 1650 Palatka, Florida 32177 Ann B. Harvey 102 Williams Street Palatka, Florida 32177 Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Department of Health 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Box 19 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether a septic tank permit, should be granted for lot 2, Whispering Oaks Subdivision. More specifically, does the' requirement of no more than four lots per acre require a minimum lot size of 1/4 acre? In the alternative, must the subject lot be grouped with three contiguous lots to determine whether the density requirement is met? If a permit should be denied, is a variance appropriate under HRS' rules and the circumstances of the case?
Findings Of Fact The essential facts in this case are uncontroverted. Ben F. Ward is the President and sole stockholder of Ben Ward, Incorporated. His business for over eighteen years has been real estate, construction and development. He has built over 300 homes and is familiar with the procedures for developing a subdivision, including obtaining septic tank permits. In 1979, Ben Ward purchased the property now designated Whispering Oaks Subdivision, located in the City of Oviedo, Seminole County, Florida. The property contains approximately six acres, net. That is, the paved right of ways have been disregarded. There are no streams, lakes or other bodies of surface water on the property. Ward subdivided his property into 26 lots, two of which, lots number 12 and 17, are dedicated for recreational use and will not have homes. Some of the lots are less than 1/4 acre; others are more. Lot number 2 has 9,137 square feet, 1,753 square feet less than 1/4 acre. As a condition of plat approval, the City of Oviedo required Ward to obtain approval from the Seminole County Health Department. Val Roberts was the county health officer with whom Ward consulted. A process was devised for "borrowing" acreage from lots of over 1/4 acre to meet the minimum requirements for lots less than 1/4 acre. In other words, it was determined that the total net acreage in the subdivision would be considered in computing the four lots per acre minimum. The plat was approved and was recorded in 1980. Between 1981 and 1987, 19 residences were built and septic tank permits were obtained. There is city water service in the subdivision. In 1985, Ward sold 16 lots to the Erie Land Company, a partnership comprised of Mary Ellen Hines and her husband. In reliance on the arrangement worked out with the health department, Ward assured ELC that the lots were buildable. He remained trustee of the property. On February 26, 1987, the Seminole County Health Department (HRS) denied Ward's application for a septic tank permit for lot number 2, including a 3-bedroom, 2-1/2-bath home, comprising 2100 square feet. The denial letter cites rule 10D-6.46(7)(b), F.A.C., and says "Four lots grouped together lack approximately 3000 square feet of meeting the required lot size...". The letter provides the procedure for petition for a variance to Rule 10D-6, F.A.C. Ward applied for the variance, and its approval was recommended by a vote of 3-2 by the HRS Review Group for Individual Sewage Disposal. The recommendation was denied by the HRS State Health Officer, E. Charlton Prather, M.D. in a letter dated May 7, 1987 which states, in pertinent part: Grouping of lots to determine whether the subdivision meets the four lot per acre requirement must be done in a logical manner to maximize the homogenous dissemination of sewage effluent or prevent a concentration of sewage effluent in a small or limited area. Once a specific area is utilized in calculating sewage flow dispersal for a group of lots, that area cannot be further used for another lot or group of lots. Lot number 2 meets all requirements of HRS for septic tanks, with the exception of the density methodology. Ward surveyed the homes built and occupied for approximately a year and found that the subdivision as a whole is about 60% of allowable capacity. Ms. Haynes has lived on lot number 22 for six years and has never had septic tank problems. She holds an inactive real estate license, and before purchasing the property found the subdivision high and dry and well-developed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the application for septic tank permit for lot 2, Whispering Oaks subdivision, be GRANTED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 18th day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben F. Ward, Jr. Ben Ward Agency, Inc. P. O. Box 670 Oviedo, Florida 32765 John A. Baldwin, Esquire Baldwin & Baum 7100 S. Highway 17-92 Fern Park, Florida 32730 James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire HRS District 7 Legal Counsel 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Lois Green, is a resident of Florida and owns the property known as the Nichols Post Office located on Highway 676 in Nichols, Polk County, Florida. There is one employee stationed at the post office and members of the public use the post office for U.S. mail purposes. On October 11, 1990, Petitioner advised Respondent that the source of water that she used to supply the post office building did not comply with the requirements of the Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, on September 23, 1991, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint to Respondent, advising of Petitioner's notice of intent to assess a fine of $100.00 per day until the corrections were made or for 30 days, whichever occurred first. At the hearing, Petitioner orally amended paragraph 4 of the Administrative Complaint to change the reference "December 22, 1989" to "October 4, 1990." Following service of the Administrative Complaint on Respondent and for 30 days thereafter, the water source for the post office building was a well located behind the post office on Respondent's property. In approximately December of 1991, Respondent disconnected the well which was presently serving the post office and connected to another well located adjacent to the property which supplied a residential home. The well which provided water to the post office was originally drilled as an irrigation well. The well head was located approximately 50 ft. to the closest septic tank and restroom pipe outlets. That well had no raw sample taps or a pressure tank with an inlet or outlet. Additionally, there was no surface protection pad nor were quarterly bacteriological samples taken to measure the water quality samples. Finally, the well was not approved by Petitioner prior to placing it into use by Respondent. Sometime subsequent to 30 days after Petitioner issued the Administrative Complaint to Respondent, Respondent abandoned the well without notifying the Petitioner and connected to a residential well which also contravenes the setback requirements contained in Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, that well is approximately 30 ft. from the on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank) and is in violation of Rule 17- 555.302, Florida Administrative Code, formerly Rule 17-22.615(2), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's agent, Mark Fallah, during times material, was employed in Petitioner's Code Enforcement Section and was charged with investigating the problems surrounding Respondent's supply of water to the Nichols Post Office. Throughout the course of employee Fallah's involvement with the investigation of this matter, there have been several proposals and counter-proposals which have been exchanged by and between Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner's agent Fallah attempted to see if a variance could be obtained whereby Respondent could continue to use the then existing well despite the fact, however, that it was in violation of the setback requirements. Additionally, Fallah attempted to get Respondent to make certain minor changes and modifications to the existing well which were not successful. Throughout the course of the parties negotiations in an effort to resolve this matter, there has been certain concessions made by both sides; however, the well which supplies the post office is a water system which is noncompliant with applicable statutory and rule requirements. Petitioner, through its employee Fallah, checked with a local well drilling company, Dunham Well Drilling Company, to obtain an estimate for a well. That company gave an estimate of approximately $2,000.00 to $3,500.00 to install a water supply system to the post office which would comply with Petitioner's requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the total amount of $3,000.00 of which amount $2,500.00 shall be suspended pending Respondent's initiation of a plan to construct and install a water well system to provide the Nichols Post Office which complies with Petitioner's requirements enunciated in Chapters 403 and 381, Florida Statutes and Rule Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. In the event that Respondent fails to initiate a plan of correction and complete the installation of the well within sixty (60) days of the date of Petitioner's entry of its Final Order, then Petitioner shall be authorized to impose the full administrative penalty of $3,000.00 without further administrative proceedings. Respondent shall submit to Petitioner the five hundred dollar ($500.00) administrative fine within thirty (30) days from the entry of Petitioner's Final Order. DONE and ENTERED this 22 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Asst District Legal Counsel HRS District VI Legal Office 4000 W Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Tampa, Fl 33614 Mygnon Evans, Esquire 5600 US Highway 98 N Lakeland, Fl 33809 Richard S. Power Agency Clerk Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd Tallahassee, Fl 32399 0700 John Slye, Esquire General Counsel Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd Tallahassee, Fl 32399 0700
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are: Whether the City of Altamonte Springs (City) violated Sections 760.10(1)(a), F.S., by discriminating against Albert Robinson (Robinson) on the basis of his race (Black) or his national origin (Jamaican), with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; Whether the City violated Section 760.10(7), F.S., by discriminating against Robinson in retaliation for his opposition to a practice which is an unlawful employment practice under this section or because he assisted or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section; and If such violations did occur, what relief is appropriate pursuant to Section 760.10(13), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Albert H. Robinson is a black male, over 18 years of age, born in Jamaica, West Indies. Respondent, the City of Altamonte Springs, is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Florida, and admits that it is an "employer" for purposes of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, sections 760.01-760.10 F.S. Robinson's account of how he arrived in the United States approximately seven years ago is bizarre, but uncontroverted, and for purposes of this proceeding is deemed true. In Jamaica, Robinson had been affiliated with the ruling People's National Party. He held the government post of Development Director in the "New Development Agency" and was in charge of approximately 300 underprivileged persons. He was also president of a youth organization within the party, and was involved in organizing youth activities and selecting members to visit Cuba as a party representative. At some point he was approached by an American embassy attache from the CIA who recruited him to provide under-cover information on the party. When that involvement became publicly exposed, he was forced to flee the country. Robinson and his family lived for awhile in Panama and other Latin American countries. When they decided to emigrate to the United States, the U.S. Government made arrangements for Mrs. Robinson and the children to enter through Miami and for Mr. Robinson to cross the border "illegally" at Brownsville, Texas. He was given authorization to work and temporary asylum. He is currently awaiting disposition of his petition for a more permanent status. Through other relatives in Florida, Robinson ended up in Altamonte Springs. At the time that he was hired by the City in September 1984, Robinson presented a letter from the INS permitting him to work during the pendency of his asylum petition. The City was thus aware of his national origin and non- citizen status. Robinson was hired as a laborer in the city water distribution division on September 24, 1984. He received two personnel evaluations during his probationary period, both "average," with every factor rated "average," and few comments. On February 7, 1985, he was promoted from laborer to utility serviceworker, a more responsible position. The serviceworker is generally assisted at a job site by the laborer, who does most of the digging. The Dixon Personnel Board hearing In April 1985, Robinson assisted a black coworker, Patrick Dixon, at his hearing before the City Personnel Board. Dixon and another black utilities worker, Carl Wilder, had been accused of making obscene and inappropriate gestures to two white women while the men were on city duty. Wilder was given a one-day suspension. Dixon, who already had a negative performance record, was given a two-day suspension. Dixon appealed the discipline to the Personnel Board. Robinson's involvement at the hearing on April 3rd was to sit behind Dixon and assist with the documents. Robinson, who had no firsthand knowledge of the incidents, did not testify. Carl Wilder did testify on behalf of Dixon. The Personnel Board, in a unanimous decision by all members present, upheld the disciplinary action. Robinson believed that Patrick Dixon had been the victim of a racial vendetta. Dixon testified in this proceeding that he, also, feels that the charge was racially motivated, yet nothing in the written documents related to his appeal supports that contention. The basis for his appeal was the insufficiency of the evidence against him and his contention that he was a bystander while Wilder, the actual perpetrator, received a lesser penalty. Shortly after the hearing Dixon was terminated for absenteeism. He did not file a discrimination complaint nor take any other action against the city. Wilder is still employed by the city, and in 1987, was promoted from laborer to serviceworker. The performance evaluation On May 3, 1985, Robinson received his first performance evaluation as a utility serviceman. His overall rating by his reporting supervisor, George Simpkins, was "average." However, he received "below average" in four categories: "ability to carry out instructions/orders"; "conduct"; "directs the work of subordinates effectively"; and "ability to make decisions within his authority." The comments in explanation of these ratings related to Robinson's failure to follow operating procedures, his temper and conflict with fellow employees, and his dictatorial manner in dealing with subordinates. Robinson was not pleased with the evaluation and wrote a letter to the Assistant Director of Public Works, Ronald Howse, asking to discuss it. Howse suggested that the discussion take place with Larry Alewine and George Simpkins, who were the supervisors responsible for the evaluation. Alewine was Simpkins' immediate supervisor. The discussion took place. Robinson now claims that Larry Alewine asked him why he followed Patrick Dixon to City Hall and claims that Alewine blamed the evaluation on his involvement with Dixon. Alewine denies this and cannot recall any notoriety with regard to Robinson's association with Dixon. Not following procedures and problems with fellow employees Robinson's difficulties in working with others and in following procedures are well-documented throughout his 1985 and 1986 employment with the city. In June 1985, he received a notice of remedial action after placing a water meter in a location where the customer wanted it, rather than where he had been directed to place it. The customer was happy, but under the city's procedures, the serviceman does not have the authority on his own to change the supervisor's direction. On November 4, 1985, Robinson had an altercation with his supervisor, Larry Alewine, regarding a meeting that Robinson wanted with Chris Hill, the recently-appointed director of the city's water distribution division. Alewine attempted to convey Hill's directive that Robinson put his request in writing, but Robinson became loud, yelled at Alewine and started to leave. When Alewine attempted to call Robinson back to discuss the matter, Robinson retorted that he (Alewine) wasn't his daddy. Right after the incident Robinson apologized for getting loud and Alewine explained that he would still have to "write him up," because he had refused to come back in the building and was hollering. Robinson claims that the incident occurred prior to 7:30 A.M., when he was still on his own time, but this claim is unsupported by Alewine or any of the other several witnesses. On November 26, 1985, Robinson and Carl Wilder were at a job site trying to locate a buried water meter. Wilder, as the laborer, was doing the digging. Robinson, his superior, insisted that Wilder keep digging in a place where Wilder did not believe the meter was located. Both men's tempers flared and Wilder called the supervisor to the site to prevent further argument. Because it was near the end of the day, Robinson was excused and Wilder was taken back to the city garage. Chris Hill spoke with both Robinson and Wilder and determined that no disciplinary action was warranted. He told Wilder that if he had any complaints or grievances about Robinson, he would have to put them in writing. Chris Hill asked other employees if they had problems working with Robinson; he did not, as alleged by Robinson, solicit written statements against Robinson from other employees in the division. Chris Hill Most of Robinson's claims of discrimination by the city are directed toward Chris Hill, who, in October 1985, was placed in charge of the city's water distribution division. The City Manager, Philip Penland, was concerned about the management of the division. The Dixon/Wilder incident was an example. Larry Alewine and George Simpkins, both white Americans, were considered to be weak leaders. Robinson and Carl Wilder were identified as employees with whom there had been problems. Chris Hill started working for the City of Altamonte Springs in 1977 as temporary summer help and laborer. He gradually worked his way up through various levels of management and was highly regarded by his supervisors and by Philip Penland as a competent and capable employee, with a positive, "can-do" attitude. He was regarded as a tough manager who could obtain top performance from his employees. In addition to his duties at Altamonte Springs, he also is in charge of water plant operations in the neighboring towns of Eatonville and Maitland. Lack of tact and finesse in dealing with people, including subordinates, have been considered Hill's weak points. Hard times in the Water Distribution Division These characteristics and Hill's direction to shape up the division led to some tense months in the division. Larry Alewine, whose management style was certainly more relaxed, openly referred to Hill as "God" and "asshole." Alewine's position had been downgraded as a result of the reorganization, and he eventually left the city in 1987 after his position was eliminated from the budget. George Simpkins left a bitter resignation notice when he resigned in October, shortly after Chris Hill's appointment. In February 1986, Larry Alewine prepared an evaluation of Robinson which was reviewed, consistent with procedures, by Chris Hill. Hill did not believe the evaluation was strong enough, in light of his knowledge of the incident with Wilder and other minor problems with fellow employees. Both Hill and Scott Gilbertson, the Assistant Director of Public Works, met with Alewine and suggested that the evaluation should be changed. When Alewine declined, Chris Hill changed the evaluation. The evaluation, dated 3/6/86, rates Robinson overall as "Employee needs improvement." The written comments are very similar to those made by George Simpkins on the May 1985 evaluation; that is, the quality of his work was deemed generally good, but his conduct, ability to follow instructions, and ability to get along with fellow employees was noted as the real problems. While it is not apparent from the evaluation itself and the testimony in this proceeding how much of the evaluation was completed by Larry Alewine, it is clear that at least some of the negative written comments were made by him. (Respondent's exhibit #2.) The meeting with management officials and its aftermath Robinson wrote a protest of his evaluation which precipitated a meeting with himself, Chris Hill, Scott Gilbertson, Philip Penland, and the City Personnel Director, Sam Frazee. The evaluation was discussed; Robinson was told that his signing the evaluation only acknowledged its receipt and that he could provide his written notations on the back of the evaluation regarding portions with which he disagreed. The group also discussed an appointment Robinson had made with the city's worker's compensation physician. He had attempted to arrange his own follow-up visit for treatment of a work-related injury. The city's policy required that the appointments with the city's physician be made after notification to the supervisor. While explaining his actions, Robinson gave contradictory versions of what he had been told by the nurse in the doctor's office regarding the procedures. His testimony at hearing was also confused and inconsistent on this point. On direct, he testified that he had been told that authorization from the city is not necessary for follow-up visits. On rebuttal, however, he stated that the nurse had told him that the city personnel department would have to be notified, but not his foreman. (TR, Vol I, p. 77, Vol IV, p. 324-325). In the course of the same meeting, Robinson made allegations of wrongdoing by Larry Alewine, stating that Alewine had a meeting with his employees and encouraged them to write grievances against Chris Hill and had called Hill an "asshole" and "God." The City Manager considered these allegations to be serious and promised Robinson that an investigation would be made. The meeting then broke up. Ed Haven, an officer with the Professional Standards Bureau of the City Police Department was assigned to investigate the allegations of misconduct. This bureau normally conducts personnel-related internal affairs investigations and considers them administrative, not criminal. The investigation was initially inhibited by Robinson's refusal to answer Officer Haven's questions unless the investigation was expanded to include Chris Hill as well. Robinson was then ordered by the City Manager to participate. The inquiry sustained the allegations that Alewine had called Hill "asshole" and "God." This investigation spawned a second investigation as to whether Robinson had ever told another employee that he lied about Alewine in order to get an investigation against Chris Hill. The issue was never resolved, but Officer Haven found that a "preponderance of evidence indicates Robinson was untruthful during this investigation...," that Robinson did have a conversation with an employee, Barry Beavers, but denied it. (Petitioner's composite exhibit #1, Memorandum of Internal Inquiry #86-9998-03, April 15, 1986). The lead Utility serviceworker positions In Spring 1986, the city created two supervisor positions in the Water Distribution Division, titled "lead utility serviceworker," to supervise and oversee the work of the utility workers and their laborers. All three utility serviceworkers applied for the jobs: Robinson, Ronnie Oliver (Black American) and Barry Beavers (White American). Robinson was never considered a viable candidate and was interviewed as a matter of courtesy. Oliver and Beavers were chosen. Robinson concedes that Beavers was qualified and properly promoted, but he disputes Ronnie Oliver's qualifications. Ronnie Oliver began work one month after Robinson, in October 1984. He worked under Robinson as a laborer for some time and he freely acknowledges that Robinson taught him a lot. Oliver also had considerable personal initiative and taught himself with the use of materials he acquired from Larry Alewine. Oliver's performance evaluations were substantially better than Robinson's; by May 1986, the time of the promotion, he was evaluated as an "Outstanding" employee. Robinson had, in fact, been on the job less than Oliver, as he had sustained a work-related injury in December 1985, and was out for weeks at a time. He had not been cleared for full-time duty when he was interviewed and was absent from work when the positions were filled. Light duty Robinson alleges that he was given "make-work" light duty when he was returned to work after his injury, and was later denied light duty. The city furnishes injured employees with light duty on a case-by-case basis, depending on the capabilities and physical condition of the individual and the needs of the employer. Robinson was first assigned floor sweeping duties in June after his recurring back problems. Later he was given the task of painting an area near Hill's office. An assistant was assigned to paint the high and low portions of the wall. He was also given a chair to sit on and rest his back. This was the lightest duty available at the city at time. Other employees including a black who had cancer, were also given routine maintenance chores. While painting, Robinson injured his neck, shoulder and hands. He never returned to work after this injury in June 1986. The city informed him in July and August that it did not have light duty available. In September 1987, the City agreed to pay Robinson $47,000.00 (including $7,000.00 to his attorney), to settle his worker's compensation claim of permanent back injury. He has since applied for reemployment. As of the hearing in this proceeding, the city was reviewing his request for reemployment. This request is not at issue here. Various grievances In Spring 1986, as the result of some publicity about the arrest of illegal aliens, the city reviewed the work authorization status of its employees. Since Robinson had initially given the city a letter from INS stating that he was eligible to work pending an application for political asylum, he was asked again for authorization. He refused at first, and claimed this was harassment. He also claimed that he was subject to derision for being a CIA spy. He had told some fellow employees about his past and the news circulated. The employees mostly did not take the matter seriously, but in an employee meeting, someone asked Chris Hill whether it was true that Albert was a CIA spy. He replied that this was what Robinson claimed. At the same employees' meeting, Hill also stated that he did not think that Robinson was going to be around much longer. He made this remark based on his knowledge of Robinson's disciplinary problems. Hill was strongly reprimanded for this remark. He did not have the authority to terminate Robinson, and management had not taken steps to terminate him. Robinson has attributed various derogatory statements and epithets to Chris Hill. He claims that Hill said that no one would take the word of a "nigger" against him and that he didn't want Americans to take orders from a Jamaican. Hill vigorously denies these statements and no credible evidence was produced to support Robinson's claims. Nor was credible evidence presented of Robinson's claim that on July 3, 1986, Hill lost his temper and spat in his face. At hearing on November 2, 1987, Robinson, through his attorney, withdrew his allegation that he was defrauded of sick leave through a forged signature. (TR Vol IV, p. 293-294.) Summary of Findings Beyond his own unsubstantiated claim that Alewine told him so, there is no evidence that Robinson's problems with the city were the result of his rather inconspicuous involvement at the Patrick Dixon hearing. His problems clearly began when he was promoted to a position of some authority over others and his temper, loud mannerisms and difficulty working with others became an issue. Beginning with his response to his first slightly negative personnel evaluation, Robinson's reaction to every event in his employment, major and minor, was lengthy, rambling, confused and confusing written grievances, memoranda and letters. Robinson also carried a tape recorder to memorialize his encounters and (in his words) "...to intimidate people from molesting me..." (TR, Vol I, p. 243). Robinson's inconsistent accounting and mixing of facts in his scenario of alleged discrimination fail to make sense. Pressure was applied to blacks and whites, alike; of the four employees targeted as "problems," the two whites are gone (Alewine and Simpkins) and one black (Wilder) has been promoted. Evidence is clear that there were serious management problems in the city's Water Distribution Division in 1985, and the atmosphere which prevailed with reorganization of the division and Hill's arrival could very well have fueled Robinson's paranoia. His vehement protestations and repetitious and rambling litany of wrongs are either a sincere confused perception, or a deliberate attempt to manipulate a situation, which because of justifiable criticism of his job performance, was becoming increasingly uncomfortable. Nevertheless, his myriad allegations of discriminatory harassment, retaliation and of unlawful failure to promote, are unsupported by competent evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Albert Robinson's charges that the City of Altamonte Springs violated subsections 760.10(1)(a) and (7), F.S., by harassment failure to promote, and retaliation, be DISMISSED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 16th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2482 The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Addressed in summary form in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 4. and 5. Addressed in paragraph 5. Adopted in part in paragraph 8. The account of discussion with Alewine is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Adopted in part in paragraphs 6.-8., otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 6.-15. Addressed in paragraph 12. The characterization of Simpkins' motives and the mandate to fire the four employees are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Addressed in paragraphs 15. and 16. Adopted in part in paragraph 18., otherwise rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence or immaterial. 14-16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, except for the comment about Robinson being terminated. See paragraph 34. Rejected as cumulative, unnecessary and argumentative (rather than factual). Addressed in paragraph 14.; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in paragraph 13., otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Addressed in paragraph 21. Addressed in paragraph 22. Addressed in paragraph 25; otherwise rejected as unnecessary and unsupported by the competent evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in paragraphs 33 and 34, otherwise rejected as contrary to the evidence. Addressed in paragraphs 26. through 28. Addressed in paragraphs 29. through 30. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in paragraph 31. 34-35. Rejected as irrelevant. The "fraud" charge was withdrawn. See paragraph 36. 36-37. Rejected as irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. 6-12. Adopted in paragraphs 6. through 8. 13-15. Rejected as cumulative. 16-22. Addressed in paragraphs 15. and 16., otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 23. Adopted in paragraph 13. 24-27. Addressed in paragraph 14. 28-34. Addressed in paragraph 19. 35-38. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. 39-40. Adopted in paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 22. Adopted in paragraph 23. 44-49. Adopted in paragraphs 24. and 25. in substance. 50-60. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 61-66. Addressed in paragraph 32. 67-69. Addressed in paragraph 33. 70-72. Addressed in paragraph 34. 73-89. Addressed in paragraphs 26.-28.; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. 93-94. Adopted in substance in paragraph 29. 95-96. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 30. 99-102. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. 103-110. Rejected as irrelevant. The "fraud" charge was withdrawn at hearing. See paragraph 36. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev & Siwica, P. A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 David V. Kornreich, Esquire Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell, Casey, Crossland, & Bramnick, P. A. Suite 1525, Firstate Tower 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department administers the National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permitting program in Florida. The Department promulgated the rules in Florida Administrative Code Title 62 that are applicable to the permitting of wastewater discharges. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the president of FOPB. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay. IP owns and operates a paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida. IP is the applicant for the Department authorizations that are the subject of DOAH Case Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923. Background When this rule challenge was filed, DOAH Cases Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923 (the permit cases) involved challenges by these same Petitioners to four Department authorizations for IP: an NPDES permit, a Consent Order, an approved exemption for the experimental use of wetlands pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300, and a waiver related to the experimental use of wetlands. IP later withdrew its request for the experimental use of wetlands exemption and the related waiver. Petitioners were ordered to show cause why their claim regarding the invalidity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300 was not rendered moot by IP’s withdrawal of its request for the exemption. Subsequently, the challenge to the validity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300 was dismissed as moot. At the commencement of the final hearing on June 22, 2009, FOPB and James Lane announced that they were withdrawing their rule challenges except with respect to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6), and that the only legal ground being asserted for the invalidity of the rule is that it is vague and vests unbridled authority in the Department. Petitioners’Standing Jacqueline Lane, James Lane and a substantial number of the members of FOPB swim, boat, and make other uses of Perdido Bay. Perdido Bay would be affected by IP's wastewater effluent. The challenged rule was applied by the Department to determine that IP's proposed industrial wastewater discharge was in the public interest. The Challenged Rule Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300, is entitled "Findings, Intent, and Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality." Subsection (6) of the rule states: Public interest shall not be construed to mean only those activities conducted solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public. Private activities conducted for private purposes may also be in the public interest. Most of the permits that are issued by the Department are issued to private entities whose primary purposes are personal uses or the production of private incomes and profits, rather than solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public.
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida, should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard d/b/a The Hubbard Association, was licensed to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 006634 on August 17, 1962. Certificate of authorization number EB0003297 was issued to the firm, The Hubbard Association, Inc., on September 25, 1981. In March 1986, Respondent prepared a set of plans for the proposed City of Macclenny Wastewater Treatment Works Improvement Program, Sewage Treatment Facility ("Macclenny project"), and one volume of "Contract Documents and Specifications" ("specifications"), which were submitted to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants (Bureau) on or about April 24, 1986. All wastewater treatment plans designs must go to the DER for approval prior to construction, and if a public entity wants grant funding for its wastewater treatment facility, the project must be reviewed and approved by the Bureau (now called Bureau of Local Government and Waste Water Financial Assistance) which administers State grant programs for wastewater treatment facilities. The Bureau reviews grant project plans and specifications to ensure that they: (a) comply with administrative requirements of the grants programs; (b) comply with minimum Federal and/or State technical standards for wastewater facilities; (c) are suitable for bidding; and (d) present a constructible project. The plans for the Macclenny project depict an existing treatment facility, a new clarifier to improve the removal of solids (an expansion of about 130,000 gallons per day in treatment capacity), and a new effluent pumping station to pump to an overland flow field (field) through a force main pipeline to spray risers. The risers would spray the water laterally across the field. Water would collect in a central collection ditch, and run through a final chlorine contact chamber prior to discharge in Turkey Creek. A new agricultural building for equipment storage, and a new holding pond, which is an off-line pond for storage of inadequately treated water, are also depicted. The field in the Macclenny project is roughly 24 acres and is located in a large area between the chlorine contact chamber and the holding pond. The field in this system has 5 cells. A cell is an area of land that can be independently controlled to allow loading/resting cycles in the treatment process. Each cell in a given field should be as near equal in size as possible to provide for equal treatment of the wastewater during the loading/resting cycles. Loading/resting cycles allows a cell within the field to "rest" (no effluent being pumped on to that cell) so maintenance mowing or harvesting can be accomplished and to "load" the other cells to revitalize the bacteria that renews the treatment process. "Load" means to apply the effluent or treated wastewater from the existing facility to the field. Generally, forty percent of the field would be loaded with wastewater at any one time. On December 9, 1985, the Bureau had a predesign conference with Respondent in Macclenny to discuss design items. No plans or specifications for the Macclenny project had been submitted at that time, nor were they submitted at this conference. On February 18, 1986, an in-progress design review was held at Macclenny, with the Bureau staff available to answer Respondent's questions. On March 5, 1986, another in-progress design review meeting was held in Macclenny, with the Bureau staff present, at which time the plans were "fifty percent" (50%) complete. The unsigned and unsealed plans were given to the Bureau for a preliminary review. On March 25, 1986, the Bureau issued a few preliminary comments on the 50% completed plans and specifications. The purpose of the 50% complete review is to help the design engineer complete his plans and specifications. On March 31, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the Bureau a set of plans for the proposed Macclenny project. Respondent's transmittal letter, which the Bureau received with the plans on April 11, 1986, stated that "completed plans" were being transmitted. On April 21, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the bureau an additional set of the same plans for the Macclenny project, which Respondent again referred to as "completed plans" on his transmittal letter form which were received by Bureau on April 24, 1986. This transmittal also included specifications, a design data check list, design calculations, cost estimate, and plan of operation. The plans in this submittal are referred to as "the plans." It was Respondent's understanding that signing and sealing a set of engineering drawings signified a legal obligation that if someone takes the plans and builds a project it will work. Respondent's signature and seal are on the first sheet of the set of plans which was in the April 1986 submittal but not on the specifications. The plans were prepared, signed, sealed and submitted to the Bureau for review by Respondent. Respondent did not place any conditional language or qualification on the plans or write a letter advising the Bureau that the plans were not complete. It was Respondent's understanding that the Bureau would not review a set of plans unless they were signed and sealed, notwithstanding the completeness of the plans. Respondent did not consider the plans as completed, notwithstanding that he had signed, sealed and submitted them to Petitioner as "completed". It was Respondent's understanding that the plans were being submitted for review only, not complete for construction. An engineer may get answers from the Bureau without submitting plans that are signed and sealed as completed, such as the predesign conference or 50% review that occurred in this case. The Bureau considers plans that are signed, sealed and submitted as "completed" for review to be 100% complete and ready to bid. The Bureau considered the plans and specifications which Respondent submitted on April 24, 1986 as being final, complete plans and specifications for final review by the Bureau. The Bureau reviewed the plans assuming them to be complete and followed normal procedures for reviewing a complete set of plans and specifications. On June 19, 1989, the Bureau issued 52 written comments based on its review of the plans and specifications it had received in the April 24, 1986 submittal from Respondent. The plans and specifications were submitted to the Department of General Services (DGS) by the Bureau for a review and opinion because the Bureau was concerned about the structural design. DGS responded to this request through Jim Berkstresser, P.E. on June 25, 1986. By cover letter dated July 18, 1989, Respondent filed written responses to the Bureau's 52 comments. The Bureau did not approve Respondent's plans and specifications for the Macclenny project submitted on April 24, 1986. On September 5, 1986, Respondent resubmitted plans in response to the Bureau's 52 comments. These plans had the same configuration as the April submittal regarding the overland flow treatment. On September 29, 1986, Respondent met with David Wolfe to discuss the field configuration for the proposed overland flow system and other outstanding issues related to the revised contract documents. The principal concerns were non- uniform flow and significant erosion potential. Respondent's plans did not follow accepted design criteria. At this meeting field configurations were discussed, as well as guidelines to be followed in design of the overland flow field, and a general field layout were developed. Respondent submitted another set of plans which the Bureau received on October 30, 1986, and that set was approved and stamped accepted by DER-BWMG on December 22, 1986. All sheets in the approved set are dated August 20, 1986, with the exception of the cover sheet on which Respondent failed to date his seal and signature, and sheets G-6 and G-7 which are dated October 24, 1986. Respondent signed and sealed the cover sheet and sheet G-7 of the approved set of plans, but did not seal any other sheets in the approved set of plans. A signature and seal on a set of plans indicates that the plans were prepared by, or under the direct supervision of the person signing and sealing them, and that the plans are complete and depict a project that will perform its intended function. A signature and seal on a set of plans means the engineer assures that the design is his design and that the plans and specifications are ready to be bid for construction. The design should contain criteria and information significant to ensure the project will work. Sheet flow is the primary treatment mode in an overland flow system. Sheet flow is where a thin layer of water is induced to flow in a very controlled atmosphere across a length of land that is functioning very similarly to a trickling filter. The acceptable range of slope of an overland flow system is 2% to 8% with the best results obtained in the lower range because of a longer "residence time". "Residence time" is the amount time the wastewater is on the field for treatment. The slopes must be even and uniform to maintain a constant velocity so as to minimize the potential for erosion and to maintain a constant depth of water throughout the filed so as to maximize the treatment. Cross slopes should be minimized and topographic lines should be as close to parallel as possible on the field. The plans for the Macclenny project shows: (a) slopes ranging from less than 2% up to 6%; (b) multiple compound slopes across the field and; (c) topographic lines that are not parallel. The specifications for the field do not set out the acceptable tolerances on the slopes or the acceptable level of compaction of the field for the contractor who is to construct the field and; therefore, lacks control over the final product. Contours in an overland flow field are important, and while it is desirable for them to be on 1-foot intervals, contours at intervals of 2 feet are acceptable provided the plans and specifications address what happens between the contours. Respondent's plans and specifications show contours at intervals of 2 feet but do not address what happens between the contours. The plans of the facilities that were approved prior to the submittal of any plans by Respondent called for a 2- 3 week loading/resting cycle. The standard practice is to have all cells within an overland flow field to be of equal size so that the area to be loaded at any given period of time is the same size. The cells in the overland flow field in the Macclenny project as depicted by the plans are not of equal size, and if operated on a 2-3 week loading/resting cycle would not provide a consistent amount of treatment and thereby result in varying levels of treatment of the effluent. It is standard practice to provide performance specifications for seeding the field with the primary grass cover and for overseeding when necessary to prevent wind and water erosion. There were no performance specifications in the plans and specifications on the Macclenny project submitted by the Respondent. Agricultural equipment is an integral part of the overland flow field system and has a direct bearing on whether the system will function over the long run. Specifications for agricultural equipment are necessary to determine if the system will work properly. There were no specifications for agricultural equipment submitted by the Respondent in the plans. It is standard practice to furnish spray nozzle specifications, such as nozzle size, degree of fanning, characteristics under varying pressures and how much water will be discharged by the nozzle, in a set of plans and specifications for an overland flow field. Respondent's specifications for the Macclenny project did not contain the necessary specifications for the spray nozzles. Compacting is a standard practice, and it is standard practice to show compaction requirements on plans or specifications. The usual practice is to investigate the soil and specify compaction, usually based on a foundation report by a geo-technical engineer, showing the safe beading capacity of the soil in what condition, with recommendations for compaction. The Respondent's specifications do not call for compaction of the soil under the clarifier slab. However, the Respondent's specifications do call for compaction in the holding pond and situations where an area is over-excavated and backfilled. Should the area under the clarifier slab be over- excavated and backfilled, then compaction is covered in the specifications but compaction would not be covered unless this occurs. Therefore, since the weight of the slab is carried by the soil beneath it, specifications for compaction should have been included in Respondent's specifications for any situation. Changes in temperature causes concrete to expand or contract which may result in cracking. Placement of a concrete slab may result in the slab bending which may result in cracking. Therefore, reinforcing a concrete slab is required to maintain the slab's integrity. The thickness of a concrete slab will determine the distribution of the reinforcing so that cracking is minimized. The clarifier slab in the Macclenny project is depicted as being 12 inches thick and shows number 6 bar reinforcing on 6 inch centers in the top of the slab but no reinforcing in the bottom of the slab. Failure to require reinforcing in the bottom of the slab could result in the slab cracking due to significant changes in temperature and soft spots in the soil beneath the slab. Failure to place reinforcing in the bottom as well as in the top of the slab is not in accordance with standards of the code of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), revised in 1983, and is a structural weakness. The chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 is like a rectangular concrete box beneath the earth where the earth is within a few inches of the top of the walls. The walls are vertically reinforced with number 4 bars on 12 inch centers placed in the center of the 8 inch thick wall. When the tank is empty the reinforcing bars will be approximately 160 per cent overstressed from the active pressure of the earth. Additional reinforcing is needed in the walls to meet ACI standards. There are deficiencies in the vertical wall reinforcing of the chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 of the Plans. On sheets 5-3, 5-4 and 5-7 of the plans, reinforcement through the construction joints is incorrectly detailed to assure that cracking of the concrete will not occur. Construction joints occur between different pours of concrete, such as where the walls meet the top of the bottom slab. The concrete bottom of the holding pond as detailed in sheet 5-8 of the Plans is large enough to require expansion joints to prevent cracking as the slab expands and contracts due to changes in the weather, yet no expansion joints are shown for the slab as detailed on sheet 5-8 of the plans. Neither the collection ditches nor the spray riser bases as detailed on the plans show any reinforcing to maintain the integrity of the concrete. While this is not a major structural weakness, it indicates a failure to comply with standard structural engineering practices. Although the plans call for relocation of an existing drainage ditch, the Respondent failed to consult DER regarding the permitting of such drainage ditch. A detention time of 30 minutes is required to properly disinfect wastewater and is-basic knowledge for all civil engineers, yet the plans called for only a fifteen minute detention time. It is standard engineering practice to provide flood level elevations on the site plans. Respondent failed to provide flood level elevations for the Macclenny facility site plans. The plans failed to: (a) provide elevations for high water alarm and pump off settings; (b) provide specifications for flume liner on sheet M-4; (c) show how to close an existing outlet on the chlorine contact chamber; (d) show where an effluent pump station was to be located; (e) show pressure relief valve locations and; (f) indicate quantities for purpose of contract bidding. The specifications list equipment and work items, such as pumping equipment, grit storage tank, case-out assembly, telescoping valve, air diffusers, portable pump, hose and couplings, that are inapplicable to the Macclenny project. There are inconsistencies in the plans and specifications, such as: (a) the plans showing one clarifier while the specifications call for two clarifiers, (b) the plans showing a 150 pound chlorine cylinder as opposed to a 1-ton chlorine cylinder in the specifications and; (c) the plans showing the clarifier with a 38-foot diameter while the specifications calls for a clarifier with a 40-foot diameter. Respondent was negligent in submitting incomplete plans to the Bureau as "completed plans" and in failing to utilize due care and failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles, with regard to the content of those plans which he submitted as "completed plans".
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and suspend from the practice of engineering for a period of thirty (30) days, stay the suspension and place the Respondent on probation for a period of one year under terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0096 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Rejected as not being necessary to the conclusions reached in this Recommended Order. 3.-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, respectively, but modified. 13. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 14.-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, respectively, but modified. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or subordinate or unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18 but modified. 22.-33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 27, respectively, but modified. 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18, but modified. 35-37. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29, but modified. 39.-40. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate, but see Findings of Fact 37 and 38. 41.-5O. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28, 32, 29 (28-31), 29, 29, 32, 30, 32 and 32, respectively, but modified. 51. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 52.-53. Adopted in Findings of Fact (28-33) and 32, respectively, but modified. 54.-55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. Adapted in Finding of Fact 55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 58.-62. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 28-33. 63.-66. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 34-36. 67.-72. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 37. 73.-74. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 38. 75.-76. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 39. 77.-79. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 13-15 and 28-39. 80.-82 Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 40- 41. 83.-90. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 42 and 43. 91.-96. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 44 and 45. 97.-104. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 46. 105.-107. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 47. 108.-109. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. 110.-115. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 55. 116.-117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49 and 50. 18. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. 120.-124. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. 125. Rejected as immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 126.-127. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 13-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 except last sentence that is rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant. Rejected as being a restatement of Administrative Complaint and not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 15 and 19. Rejected as being a restatement of John Sowerby's testimony and not a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 15, 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 6. Restatement of David Wolfe's testimony COPIES FURNISHED: Rex Smith Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire 1020 D. Lafayette Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 5676 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5676 L. Thomas Hubbard, pro se THA Building 3110 Spring Glen Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact On or about October 30, 1984, Lawrence E. Bennett, a consultant engineer for Peninsula, forwarded to DER's domestic waste engineering section an application to construct/operate a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system along with the appropriate plans and a check for the fee. The package included proposals for construction of a 300,000 gpd splitter box and addition of a 100,000 gpd contact stabilization plant. Thereafter, on May 22, 1985, Mr. Bennett submitted a revised copy of the application pertaining to the 100,000 gpd expansion initially submitted as above. The revised application reflected Peninsula's proposed outfall to the Halifax River which was applied for under separate permit. By application dated October 7, 1983, as revised on May 15, 1985, Peninsula proposed to construct an outfall discharge into the Halifax River from the secondary treatment plant. By letter dated October 29, 1984, Mr. Bennett advised DER, inter alia, that the discharge rate would be an ADF of 1.25 mgd. The application for the additional 100,000 gpd plant and splitter box also provided for a chlorination facility. This expansion was needed because 200,000 gpd capacity is already committed to serve current residents and customers of the utility. The new construction is designed to accommodate established future demand. In Mr. Bennett's opinion, the design of this facility will accommodate all DER criteria and standards. The outfall facility proposed in the second project will be a pvc forced main for a part of the distance with iron pipe for the remainder and a lift station attached to pump the effluent to a point in the river selected where the river is deep enough to meet DER water criteria. The initial permit application on this project called for discharge into a portion of the river which did not meet water quality standards. As a result; DER suggested discharge point closer to the center of the river, and this change is now planned. At this point, the outflow will meet DER standards. Intents to issue the permits, as modified, were issued in August 1985. Peninsula has also filed for permits with the Florida Public Utilities Commission, the United States EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for these projects. The plans are based on the estimated population expansion called for in the next few years. Peninsula is fully capable, financially, of providing and paying for the projected improvements. In the past, it has always provided sufficient funding to do that which is called for under its permits and which is necessary. The waters in question here are Class III waters of the State, mainly recreational. There is no shellfish harvesting in the area because of the pollution of the Halifax River, condition which has existed since at least 1941. Results of tests conducted by experts for Peninsula show the quality of the water presently coming out of the treatment plant is cleaner than that currently existing in the Halifax River. The outfall pipe in question will have the capability of handling approximately 1,200,000 gpd. Latest reports from the water treatment plant indicate that the current average daily flow is 150,000 gpd representing approximately 75% of capacity. The design estimated for this project was based on a 250 gpd per unit use rate multiplied by the estimated number of units presently existing and to be constructed in the period in question. It is estimated however, that within two to three years even this project will be insufficient and Peninsula will have to file an additional request for expansion. Construction will have no detrimental environmental effect on the waters of the Halifax River. Mr. Bennett recommends discharge into the river rather than pumping the effluent backup to Port Orange because the local dissipation rate into the Halifax River, which is called for under these projects, is much quicker than that at Port Orange. Studies run on siting of the outfall pipe location which is close to Daggett Island included studies relating to dilution calculation and water quality of the effluent versus water quality of the river near the outfall. The project was, therefore, sited in such a manner as to provide for the least possible detrimental effect. Those studies, however, were for the original outfall location, not the present location as proposed by DER which is approximately 150 to 200 feet away. In the experts' opinion, however, there is very little difference in the two sites. The Daggett Island site is not unique in any way. It is a mangrove swamp of approximately 3 to 4 acres with nothing on it. Once the pipe is buried, it will be difficult to know that it is there. Even during construction, there would be little detrimental effect or disruption to the river ecology. Mr. Bennett's conclusions are confirmed by Mr. Miller; a DER engineer specializing in wastewater facility permits who has reviewed the plans for expansion of the plant for completeness and adequacy and found that they were both. The approval of the outfall pipe initially was made in Tallahassee based on the original siting. He reviewed it again, however, and determined that both projects are environmentally sound and conform to the DER standards. Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, requires surface water discharge to have secondary treatment activity prior to discharge and the discharge cannot exceed 20% 80D and suspended solids. According to DER studies; the secondary treatment afforded the water at this location was adequate with the caveat that the District might want to require an extension of the outfall to the main channel of the river to promote tidal flushing of the effluent. It was this change which was; in fact, made by the District office. Without the change, the incoming tide would take the wastewater up into Daggett Creek. By moving it as suggested, west of the point of Daggett Island, the tide would go up river rather than into the creek taking the effluent with it. Concern over the creek is due to its limited natural flushing as opposed to the greater natural flushing of the river. It was the intent of all parties to achieve the desired result and move the outfall point; if at all possible, at no increase in cost. Consequently, the pipeline was moved at the same length with a slight possible addition to take the outlet to the same depth and this change became a condition to the issuance of the permit. The Peninsula will also need a dredge and fill permit in order to accomplish the work in question. The outfall plans (both construction and discharge) meet the requirements set forth in the pertinent provisions of Rule 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. DER evaluated post- construction, concluding that the new point source discharge would not violate these standards. However, prior to approval of these projects, DER did not perform a biological, ecological, or hydrographic survey in the area. As a result, it cannot be said that the criteria outlined in Rule 17-4.29(6), Florida Administrative Code, will not be adversely affected by the outfall pipe. Nonetheless, these surveys were not deemed necessary here. EPA denial of the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit, would have no impact on DER's intent to issue the instant permits. NPDES permits have no bearing on the state permitting process. If the NPDES permit is denied, the utility cannot discharge its effluent into the river. The state permit merely authorizes the construction. The NPDES permit applies to the outfall portion of the project, not to the treatment plant. Only if it could be shown there was a longstanding adverse effect on the water quality so as to bring it below standards, would this construction not be permitted. The depth of the water in the proposed area of the outfall is five feet. A 12-inch pipe would extend below the soil with an upturn to exit into the bottom of the river. Short term impacts of actual construction are not relevant to the permitting process. If there are any, they would be related to and considered in the dredge and fill permitting process. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Jan Mandrup-Poulsen, a DER water quality specialist who, in his analysis of the instant projects, first looked at the plans for the outfall just a week before the hearing. By this time, the water quality section of DER had previously considered the project and he is familiar with the suggested change in the outfall location. In November 1985, he spent several days on a boat on the Halifax River in this area collecting data. His inquiry and examination showed that in the area in question, there are no grass beds, oyster beds, or anything significant that would be adversely affected by the location of the pipe and the outlet. The pipe outlet, as suggested, is far enough out into the river to keep it under sufficient water at all times to promote adequate flushing. In his opinion, the proposed discharge will be quickly diluted and will not violate the standards or other criteria set out in Section 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. In contrast to the above, Mr. Richard Fernandez, a registered civil engineer with a Master's Degree in environmental engineering, who did a study of these projects for TPI, indicated that the County 201 plan relating to this area, mandated by the federal government, calls for the eventual closing of all independent wastewater treatment plants with ultimate delivery of all wastewater to the Port Orange facility. If implemented, this plan calls for the conversion of the Peninsula facility to a pump station for the transmittal of effluent to Port Orange. In his opinion, the proposed discharge standard, as evaluated here, for the secondary treatment facility, is very high for such a facility. He feels the surface water discharge content of dissolved oxygen and suspended solids should be lower. In addition, he is of the opinion that the degree of treatment of discharged water required by the facilities in question here is too low and lower than typical secondary discharge points elsewhere in the area. Nonetheless, Mr. Fernandez concludes that while the intended facility here would probably not lower the quality of river water below standards, it is not in the public interest to construct it. Having considered the expert testimony on both sides, it is found that the construction requested here would not create sufficient ecological or environmental damage to justify denial. The proposals in the 201 plan calling for the transmittal of all effluent to Port Orange would not be acceptable to DER. The cost of such a project and the ecological damage involved would be so great as to render the project not even permittable. The currently existing percolation ponds used by the facility at Port Orange are not adequate to serve current needs and leech pollutants into the surrounding waterway. While the exact transmission routes called for under the 201 plan are not yet set, there would be substantial ecological problems no matter what routing is selected. There would be substantial damage to bird habitat, mangrove, and other protected living species unless some way were found to get the pipe across the river in an environmentally sound fashion. Consequently, DER has taken the position that the current proposals by Peninsula are superior to any plan to transmit waste to Port Orange.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED THAT DER: Enter an order dismissing with prejudice Volusia County's Petition in DOAH Case No. 85-3029 and, Issue permits to Peninsula Utilities, Inc., for the construction of a 100,000 gpd expansion to its existing wastewater treatment plant and to construct a river outfall line as was called for in the amended specifications listed in the application for this project. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin S. Friedman, Esquire Myers, Kenin, Levinson & Richards 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Deborah Getzoff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lester A. Lewis, Esquire Coble, McKinnon, Rothert, Barkin, Gordon, Morris and Lewis, P.A. P. O. Drawer 9670 Daytona Beach, Florida 32020 Ray W. Pennebaker, Esquire Assistant County Attorney P. O. Box 429 Deland, Florida 32720 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings Of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, TPI 1-2. Accepted in paragraph 17. 3-4. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Peninsula 1-13. Accepted in the Findings of Fact of the Recommended Order. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, DER 1. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 1 and 2. 2-3. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 4-5. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 20 and 21. 6. 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. 8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14. 9. Accepted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 8 and 21. 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 12-13. Accepted in Finding of Fact 14 and 17. 14-15. Rejected as a statement of evidence and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. Recitation of Mr. Miller's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. The conclusions of Mr. Mandrup- Poulsen's testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Recitation of Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen's testimony testimony is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Recitation of testimony is rejected as not a Finding of Fact. Conclusions drawn from that testimony accepted in Finding of Fact 24.
Findings Of Fact B. D. Taylor, Respondent, is the owner of a wastewater treatment facility near Panama City, Florida, which serves a community of some 125-150 mobile homes at Lane Mobile Home Estates. The facility has a 24,000 gallons per day capacity to provide secondary treatment of wastewater with percolating ponds. It was first permitted in 1971 upon construction and has been in continuous operation since that time. In 1980 Respondent employed the services of a consultant to apply for a renewal of its temporary Permit to operate a wastewater treatment facility. This application stated the temporary operating permit (TOP) was needed to give Respondent time to connect to the regional wastewater treatment facility. The schedule contained in the following paragraph was submitted by Respondent at the time needed to accomplish this objective, Following inspection of the facility, a TOP was issued December 5, 1980 (Exhibit 1), and expired January 1, 1983. TOPs are issued to facilities which do not comply with the requirements for Wastewater treatment. Exhibit 1 contained a schedule of compliance to which Respondent was directed to strictly comply to stop the discharge of pollutants from the property on which the facility is located. These conditions are: Date when preliminary engineering to tie into regional will be complete and notification to DER. July 1, 1981; Date when engineering to tie into regional system will be complete and notification to DER - June 1, 1982; Date construction application will be submitted to phase out present facility - March 1, 1982; Date construction will commence - June 1, 1982; Date construction is to be complete and so certified - October 1, 1982; and Date that wastewater effluent disposal system will be certified "in compliance" to permit - January 1, 1903. None of these conditions or schedules has been met by Respondent. The regional wastewater treatment facility was completed in 1982 and Respondent could have connected to this system in the summer of 1982. This wastewater treatment facility is a potential source of pollution. The holding ponds are bordered by a ditch which is connected to Game Farm Greek, which is classified as Class III waters. The size of Game Farm Creek is such that any discharge of pollution to this body of water would reduce its classification below Class III. On several occasions in the past there have been breaks in the berm surrounding the holding ponds which allow the wastewater in the holding ponds to flow into the ditch and into Game Farm Creek. Even without a break in the berm, wastewater from these holding ponds will enter Game Farm Creek either by percolation or overflow of the holding ponds caused by the inability of the soil to absorb the effluent. On January 28, 1983, this facility was inspected and the results of the inspection were discussed with the operators of the facility. The plant was again inspected on February 8 and February 18, 1983. These inspections disclosed solids were not settling out of the wastewater in the settling tanks; inadequate chlorination of the wastewater was being obtained in the chlorination tanks; samples taken from various points in the system, the ditch along side the holding tanks and in Game Farm Creek, disclosed excess fecal coliform counts; and that very poor treatment was being afforded the wastewater received at the plant as evidence by high levels of total Kejhdal nitrogen and ammonia, high levels of phosphates, high biochemical oxygen demand, and low levels of nitrates and nitrites. In July, 1983, in response to a complaint about odors emanating from the plant, the facility was again inspected. This inspector found the aeration tanks anaerobic, effluent had a strong septic odor, the clarifier was cloudy, the chlorine feeder was empty, no chlorine residual in contact tank, final effluent was cloudy, both ponds were covered with duckweed and small pond was discharging in the roadside ditch (Exhibit 14) Expenses to Petitioner resulting from the inspections intended to bring Respondent in compliance with the requirements for wastewater treatment facilities are $280.32 (Exhibit 9)
