Findings Of Fact Respondent, George Sigountos, is a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0080704 with a principal place of business at 4338 First Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent has been licensed in the State of Florida for approximately ten (10) years, having been a broker- salesman in New York for approximately twenty (20) years before coming to Florida. The Respondent Sigountos was at all material times employed by Century 21 Realty, 4922-38th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. On or before March, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. John Opal listed for sale by the Respondent a house on Benson Avenue which they then occupied. Subsequently, the Opals located another house which they desired to purchase at 5871-78th Avenue North, Pinellas Park, Florida. The Opals obtained financing to purchase the Pinellas Park home although they had not yet sold their Benson Avenue home and requested the Respondent's assistance to sell their original home. On or about March 4, 1979, the Respondent, through his broker, submitted a contract to the seller, Mr. Boyce, from the Opals, who contracted for the purchase of the Boyce home with a closing date on or before April 10, 1979. The bank where financing was arranged informed the involved title company that interest rates were scheduled to increase as of March 19, 1979. As a result of this information, the title company and parties attempted to arrange to close on March 16, 1979. The Opals attended this closing while Mr. Boyce did not. The Opals, however, executed all documents necessary on their part for the closing on March 16, 1979. Included was an agreement requiring the sellers to replace three (3) boards on the back porch because of previous termite damage. This was included as a result of a prior conversation between Mr. Opal and Mr. Boyce concerning termite damage. Mr. Sigountos did not prepare this document and it is unclear how it came into existence. No termite inspection report was filed until March 19, 1979. The Boyce home was not inspected for termites until March 19, 1979, at which time the exterminator, Hobelman Exterminating Service, Inc., left his inspection report with Mrs. Boyce which stated, in part:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Petitioner dismissing the complaint filed April 7, 1981 against the Respondent George Sigountos. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Grover G. Freeman, Esquire Suite 410 4600 West Cypress Avenue Tampa, Florida 33607 Christopher C. Ferguson 5959 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commision 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact The Respondents hold licenses granted by the Petitioner as a pest- control business and Harry Minds and Richard Jenkins hold individual pest- control employees' identification cards granted by the Petitioner. The Respondents individually, and the licensed business they represent, are a well recognized pest-control service in the Dade County area and enjoy a good reputation for competent pest-control operations in their community. On July 10, 1980 and subsequent thereto, the Respondents have, after conducting termite or wood-destroying organism inspections of buildings owned by customers, furnished them inspection reports containing the following language: This is a termite and wood-destroying insect report only, fungi and carpenter ant inspections are available as a separate special inspection. Each time the Respondents performed such inspections for customers they issued the customer such a report pursuant to the requirements of the authority cited below. The report issued by the Respondents, which is at issue herein (Petitioner's Exhibit One), is on the prescribed HRS form set forth in Rule 10D- 55.142(c). It is like it in every way. The only difference is that the above- quoted language is inserted as an addendum at the bottom of the form as a notice to the customer. After commencement of the hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation whereby they agreed that the only issue is whether or not the inspection report customarily issued by the Respondents and depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit One violates Section 482.226, Florida Statutes or Rule 10D- 55.142(c), Florida Administrative Code. As acknowledged by the Petitioner's witness, Mr. Preve, there is no restriction either on the face of the form or in the Petitioner's policy or enforcement interpretation against the ability of a termite or wood-destroying organism inspector to charge separately for each type of wood-destroying organism inspected for. Further, it was acknowledged by the Petitioner that such an individual inspector could even charge separately for each area of a house or building which he inspects; i.e. one price for an attic or beneath the crawl-space of a house, as opposed to an inspection of the interior of the main portion of the house. Nor is it required that an individual inspector inspect an entire house. The Respondents established that an inspection for fungus requires extra time, labor and additional training for inspection personnel. If clients desire that such a fungus inspection be made, the Respondent makes it available at a set, published, per hour charge. The Petitioner acknowledged that an individual inspector can legitimately inspect for only one type of insect or organism according to the statutes, rules and policy the department makes a practice of enforcing. The Respondents herein inspected for all the statutorily defined pests except one, the presence of fungi. The Respondent properly inspected for wood-destroying organisms and properly completed the report form depicted in Exhibit One as required of it by the Petitioner supplying all information required. The Respondent, by inserting its own disclosure that an inspection for fungi had not been made, but could be ordered if desired by that customer, was making a more extensive disclosure of information to the benefit of the customer than the Petitioner's required form does itself. Rather than merely following the prescribed form and reporting within the strict scope of its actual inspection, the Respondent also called the customer's attention to an additional condition which perhaps should be inspected for, the lack of which disclosure by merely adhering to the form may have misled an uninformed customer.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaint herein be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1982 at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Morton Laitner, Esquire 1350 Northwest 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Andrew C. Pavlick, Esquire 2780 Galloway Road, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33165 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nemi, Inc., should pay a $500.00 administrative fine for maintaining an unpermitted stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution (Count I); whether it should pay an administrative fine of $9,500.00 for failing to submit a completed Site Assessment Report (SAR) within 270 days of discovery of the discharge of chemical solvents (Count II); whether it should pay investigative costs and expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 incurred by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department) (Count III); and whether it should take corrective action, as described in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice of Violation) issued on January 23, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is a for-profit corporation registered to do business in the State. Respondent's president and registered agent is Neil Schuberg, who represented the corporation at hearing. Respondent is the owner of a 1.1-acre parcel of real property located at 6801 Northwest 17th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The property is situated in what is known as the Gateway Industrial Center just south of the City of Pompano Beach and midway between the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95. The parcel is rectangular shaped and is approximately 90 feet wide by 180 feet long. The property is further identified by the Broward County Property Appraiser as Parcel Identification Number 494209050040. A one-story warehouse and parking lot are located on the property, which is currently leased by Respondent to a testing laboratory. The evidence shows that for at least since 1981 David R. Ligh owned the property until his death. After he died, his widow, Elsie M. Ligh, sold the property in 1994 to Clayton John Pierce subject to a mortgage in the amount of $167,640.00. Mr. Pierce began operating a business on the premises known as Combined Roof Services, Inc. In 1995, Mr. Pierce decided to sell the property. A potential buyer, S & S Propeller Company, retained the services of Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an environmental site assessment for the purpose of "determining the suitability of property for ownership by [S & S Propeller Company]." When it first inspected the site in July 1995, Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., discovered three thirty-five gallon drums and a twenty-gallon black plastic tub, all labeled "hazardous waste" and reflecting that they had contained tetrachloroethene (also known as perchloroethylene) waste. This is a chemical solvent that is typically used by dry cleaning establishments. The labels carried the name and "EPA ID number" of Family Dry Cleaners located at 6804 Stirling Road, Davie, Florida, an address which appears to be around ten to twelve miles south of the subject property. The three drums were lying on their sides on the northern end of an asphalt parking area beneath overgrown Brazilian pepper trees and were empty; the empty twenty-gallon tub was located inside the building on the property. Soil borings on the property performed by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., revealed concentrations of tetrachloroethene at 10,613 parts per billion, which exceed allowable standards. Tetrachloroethene and its breakdown products are a solid waste, as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113). A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) dated August 13, 1995, was prepared by the consulting firm and sets forth in detail the results of its inspection. See Department Exhibit 2. The sale was never consummated. Later that year, Mr. Pierce engaged the same consulting firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the property. That assessment revealed concentrations in groundwater ranging from 8,840 parts per billion to 173,000 parts per billion of tetrachloroethene, which exceed the State Clean Soil Criteria and State Maximum Contaminant Levels. The report, issued on October 13, 1995, was received in evidence as Department Exhibit 3. On October 30, 1995, a Mr. Pivnick, an attorney with the firm of Dombroff & Gilmore, P.A., which represented Mr. Pierce, notified the Department by letter that the empty drums and tub had been discovered on the property. The letter also attached a copy of the Phase I ESA. Mr. Pivnick was instructed by the Department to contact the local police department to report the incident as well as the state warning system for reporting discharges to the environment. Also, the Department contacted other local agencies and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In October 1995, Mr. Pierce vacated the premises and ceased operating Combined Roof Services, Inc. In January 1996, he began leasing the property to Sun Valley Industries, also a roofing repair business, until that firm vacated the premises in December 1997. With the use of grant monies, the Department engaged the services of International Technology Corporation to prepare a Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) for the property. That report was issued on February 13, 1997. See Department Exhibit The PIR recommended that additional monitoring of the site (through shallow monitoring wells, soil samples, groundwater samples, and groundwater flow direction) be made to quantify the presence of chlorinated solvents. Again with the use of grant monies, in 1997 the Department engaged the services of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., to prepare a Site Inspection Report (Report) for the subject property. The Report was issued in March 1998. See Department Exhibit 5. Excessive tetrachloroethene, Cis-1, 2- dichloroethene, and trichloroethylene were detected in ground water samples, while tetrachloroethene was detected in all seven soil samples. On April 2, 1998, Ms. Ligh assigned the mortgage on the property to Nemi, Inc., for around $100,000.00. Mr. Schuberg explained that he was able to purchase it at a discount because Mr. Pierce had ceased making payments on the mortgage and had warned Ms. Ligh that if she foreclosed on the mortgage, she would be responsible for cleanup costs on the property exceeding a million dollars. While Mr. Schuberg acknowledged that he was aware of a contamination problem on the property, he says the mortgage was purchased as an investment, and he never thought he would actually acquire the property because he believed Mr. Pierce would continue to make the mortgage payments. After failing to make payments on the mortgage, on September 21, 1999, Mr. Pierce executed a Warranty Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure in favor of Nemi, Inc. Based on conversations with Mr. Pierce at that time, Mr. Schuberg says he was under the impression that the spill was much smaller than it actually was, and that it would be cleaned up by the Department. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg characterized Mr. Pierce as "a hustler and a liar." After Mr. Pivnick's report of contamination was received, the Department, along with the Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection, initiated an investigation (probably in late 1995 or early 1996) in an attempt to verify the source of the contamination. Because Family Dry Cleaners "was on the top of [its] list," the Department first sought to determine whether that firm had actually deposited the drums and tub on the subject property. It learned that in 1994, or a year before the contamination was reported to the Department, Family Dry Cleaners had been evicted by its landlord, Lincoln Park. According to the Department, this "led to a dead- end" as far as Family Dry Cleaners was concerned. However, that business had been replaced by another tenant, Liberty Dry Cleaners. The Department then attempted to ascertain whether Lincoln Park or the new tenant might have been responsible for transporting the drums and tub to the subject property and dumping the waste. However, the Department was unable to confirm that either of the two had done so. Photographs of the drums and tub were made by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., when it conducted an assessment in July 1995. Because the empty drums and tub were later removed from the site by unknown persons, the Department was only able to review the photographs when it conducted its investigation. Photographs of the drums indicated that they were larger than the twenty-gallon drums normally used by a dry cleaning establishment, and the labels on the drums were not perforated or dot matrix, which are more typical of those used by dry cleaners. For this reason, and because the empty tub was found inside the building on the property, the Department attempted to determine if Mr. Pierce had purchased the contaminants for use in his operations; it was not able to confirm this fact. The Department also contacted local law enforcement officials to see whether a criminal investigation could be launched. As noted above, however, the drums and tub had been removed by unknown persons while Mr. Pierce still had possession of the property and there was no forensic evidence for law enforcement officials to examine. The result of the investigation was that the Department was unable to determine who deposited the drums on the site or the exact location where the contents were first dumped. Although Respondent contended that the Department could have easily determined who removed the empty drums and tub from the subject property by examining the manifests of the carriers who engage in that type of business, the Department investigator did not attempt to do this since the yellow pages in the telephone directory reflected at least six pages of transporters in this type of business. Further, there is no evidence that a commercial transporter was even involved. For all of these reasons, the Department looked to the current owner of the property, Respondent, as the entity responsible for site rehabilitation since there were, and still are, contaminants leaching into the groundwater and aquifer system. Specifically, as of 2007, or twelve years after the discharge occurred, the groundwater on Respondent's property was still contaminated with tetrachloroethene, trichloroethylene, and cis-1, 2-dichloroethene exceeding the Department's groundwater standards. Also, the same contaminants exceeded the Department's soil cleanup target levels based on ground water criteria. Because rainfall and surface water continue to come into contact with the contaminated soil, and there is no liner or impervious cap in place, the installation is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution. On September 12, 2001, the Department sent a letter by certified mail to Respondent advising that contamination was present on the property, that there were "possible violations of law for which you may be responsible," and that a Preliminary Contamination Assessment (PCA) must be filed within sixty days from the date of the letter. See Department Exhibit 6. Although a meeting of the parties was held on October 4, 2001, a PCA was never filed. 16. On April 27, 2006, March 12, 2007, and July 3, 2007, the Department issued Warning Letters to Respondent advising that an enforcement action would be initiated unless Respondent provided a SAR within a time certain. See Department Exhibits 7, 8, and 9. (The record is silent as to why no formal activity occurred between October 2001 and April 2006.) Exhibit 8 reflects that on November 21, 2006, "analysis results of sampling of one monitoring well were received by the Department." A meeting was later conducted by the parties on January 16, 2007, at which time Respondent agreed to "draft a suitable letter of [its] intentions with regard to conducting the required assessment and send it to the Department on or before January 31, 2007." There is no record of such a letter being sent. In August 2007, Respondent contracted with Florida Environmental Engineering, Inc., to perform a "limited site assessment report." In March 2008, that firm submitted to the Department a Preliminary Site Assessment Report (PSAR) See Department Exhibit 10. For this service, Respondent paid around $16,000.00. On March 21, 2008, the Department advised Respondent by letter that the PSAR was incomplete and that further information should be provided by April 30, 2008. See Department Exhibit 11. An Addendum to the PSAR was provided on May 5, 2008. See Department Exhibit 12. This report cost Respondent an additional $3,000.00. The PSAR indicated that contaminants (dichloroethene and trichloroethylene) in the water and soil on the property exceeded Department groundwater and soil cleanup target standards and levels. The report concluded, however, that "the discharge to the site is from an offsite source" (west of the property) and that "the property owner is no longer a responsible party." On August 27 and then again on October 22, 2008, the Department issued letters to Respondent advising that "there is not enough data to support the assumption that the discharge is offsite and the contamination is from an offsite source located west of the property." The Department reached this conclusion because, among other reasons, "[t]he contamination does not seem to be delineated towards the northern and southern portions of the site," "[t]here are no horizontal delineation wells to [the] north," the "iso contour maps provided appear to show the vertical delineation of the contamination but not horizontal delineation [of the plume]," "additional monitoring points need to be [added]," and "the onsite monitoring well, MW-2, shows a very high concentration of Perchloroethylene (PCE) at 81,000 ug/L [microgram per liter] and other contaminants, while the MW-1 does not exhibit groundwater contamination to that extent." See Department Exhibits 14 and 15. In plainer language, Respondent's report was deficient in that all contamination sources were not identified; it failed to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and groundwater contamination; and it failed to recommend a remedial action to clean up the contamination. The two letters advised that the site assessment was incomplete and that additional information described in the letters must be submitted by November 14, 2008. To date, Respondent has failed to submit the required information. According to Mr. Schuberg, to perform a study that would supply the additional information requested by the Department would cost him around $100,000.00, an amount he is unwilling to pay. More than 270 days has expired since a discharge was discovered on Respondent's property, and it has failed to submit a complete SAR, as described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-780.600(8). See also Table A, Fla. Admin. Code R. Ch. 62-780, which prescribes the specific time frame (within 270 days after the discharge is discovered) for submitting this report. The Department has incurred expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 while investigating this matter. See Department Exhibit 17. This amount is not disputed. As corrective action, the Department requests that within ninety days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent submit a complete SAR which addresses the deficiencies specified in the Department's August 27, 2008, letter. See Department Exhibit 14. To complete the SAR, additional soil and groundwater samples need to be collected to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination, all source areas must be identified, and a remedial action must be developed to abate the contamination. Finally, the contaminated soil must be removed from the property so that it will no longer discharge into the groundwater. The Notice of Violation requests that upon approval of the SAR, Respondent "shall commence and complete in a timely fashion all further tasks" required by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-780. These corrective actions are reasonable and are hereby approved. In calculating the penalty, Respondent has assessed a $500.00 administrative penalty for Respondent maintaining a stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution without a permit. This is based upon a violation of Section 403.121(5), Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful to not comply with a regulatory statute's requirement. Under Section 403.121(6), Florida Statutes, the Department has also assessed a $500.00 per day penalty against Respondent for failing to file a SAR for nineteen days, for a total of $9,500.00. When added to the $500.00 previously assessed, the total administrative penalty is $10,000.00, which is the maximum allowed in this type of proceeding. See § 403.121(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Throughout this process, Mr. Schuberg has contended that the responsibility for cleanup lies with the person or entity actually responsible for placing the drums and tub on the property in 1995. He says that the evidence clearly shows that Family Dry Cleaners is the responsible party. However, the Department and local authorities were never able to confirm who actually dumped the waste on the subject property. Although Mr. Schuberg says it will take "[i]n the hundreds of thousands of dollars" to clean up the site, the evidence shows that when he purchased the mortgage in 1998 and assumed ownership in 1999, he knew the property was contaminated. Mr. Schuberg further stated that because his consultant could never get "answers" from the Department, the consultant was instructed to stop work. However, Mr. Schuberg never contacted the Department to get clarification about what was required. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg also offered a lay opinion that his consultant's report filed in March 2008 proves that in 1995 the contents of the drums and tub were dumped on an offsite asphalt road adjacent to the property, surface water runoff then carried the chemical solvents onto his property, and the empty drums and tub were left in the parking lot. The Department's expert did not agree with this supposition, and there is no expert testimony to confirm the accuracy of this theory. Respondent has also contended that the property should be cleaned up with state funds. As pointed out by a Department witness, however, one problem is that the property does not meet the definition of a dry cleaner and thus cannot qualify for funds under that program. Then, too, a state-funded cleanup is a last resort which is used only after the Department has exhausted all enforcement remedies. Also, in this era of tight budgets, the Department has a finite amount of funds to use for this purpose, and is limited to cleaning up only a few sites per year. Finally, the responsible party must first acknowledge by affidavit that it lacks the necessary resources to clean up the property before the Department "may" seek cleanup funds. Respondent has not yet filed such an affidavit or admitted liability. In terms of mitigating evidence, Mr. Schuberg conceded that he has not done "a whole lot" to address the contamination problem since acquiring the property in 1999. In 2008, he did expend around $20,000.00 in having a PSAR and Addendum prepared for the Department. In all other respects, he steadfastly refuses to spend any more money on assessments or take responsibility for the cleanup since he believes that Family Dry Cleaners is the entity responsible for site rehabilitation.
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Florida law regulating the manner in which pesticide chemicals are to be utilized and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the duty to prosecute administrative complaints against operators, applicators, and licensed pest control businesses pursuant to Section 482.011, et seq., Florida Statutes. Respondent is at all relevant times a licensed operator and applicator, subject to Petitioner's regulatory jurisdiction. On or about February 21, 2004, Respondent was performing preconstruction termite treatment services at a job site at 7750 Okeechobee Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida, utilizing a pesticide known as Dursban TC. Label instructions for Dursban TC provide that a 0.5 percent concentration be utilized for preconstruction treatment for the prevention of subterranean termites. Baker admits he did not follow the label instruction; rather, the concentration of pesticide was less than one tenth of the 0.5 percent concentration provided for on the label instructions as regards the pre-construction soil treatment for subterranean termites. Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6) states in pertinent part: Pesticides used for treatment for the prevention of subterranean termites for new construction shall be applied at the specific amounts, concentration, and treatment areas designated by the label. Baker defends his failure to follow the label instructions on the grounds that such instructions call for a higher concentration of pesticide than is actually necessary to accomplish an effective termite treatment. Even if, as Baker contends, the label instructions suggest a higher concentration of pesticide than is actually necessary to accomplish an effective termite treatment, that is not grounds for him, or Petitioner, to disregard the Rule mandating that label instructions be followed. Pesticide usage is highly regulated due to the potential of such chemicals to impact public health, safety and welfare. § 482.011, et seq., Fla. Stat. Changes in the regulations must come from the legislature, and cannot be made on an ad hoc basis by individual operators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing a fine of $400.00 against Respondent for violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106 (6). DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 5th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard J. Hochman, Esquire Law Offices of Howard J. Hochman 7695 Southwest 104th Street Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33156 David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda D Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue posed herein is whether or not the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' revocation of Respondent's pest control business license, operator's certificate and employee's identification is warranted based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail as set forth in the Petitioner's revocation notice dated June 4, 1979. 1/
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the arguments and briefs of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Pursuant to Petitioner's Notice of Violation dated June 4, 1979, the administrative proceeding herein commenced on December 6, 1979, on twenty-six of the thirty-nine specific violations alleged to have been committed by Respondent. The specific alleged violations are as set forth below based on a separation by complainant or victim with the alleged date of violation: On February 28, 1977, it is alleged that Respondent and/or its agents, performed pest control services for Ms. Ethel Atkinson and Ms. Loree Atkinson, 1903 East Leonard Street, Pensacola, Florida, and violated the following Administrative Code sections and/or statutes: Treated the Atkinsons' residence with fumigant gas, methyl bromide, without notifying in advance, the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. Failed to perform the fumigation of the Atkinson residence in strict accordance with the registered label directions for methyl bromide, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.111(4), Florida Administrative Code. On March 17, 1977, Respondent failed to perform subterranean termite control treat- ment for the Atkinsons, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.142(1)(b), Florida Administra- tive Code. During July, 1978, Respondent's agents and/or employees, Steven R. Foster and Gerald A. Caudill, inspected the Atkinson residence and told them that the home was infested with powder-post beetles and proposed a treatment when no such infestation existed, and thus no treatment was required, which acts constitute violations of Chapter 10D-55.104(4), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during times material, failed to apply for and obtain an I.D. card for Steven R. Foster, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.143(1), (2) and (3), Florida Adminis- trative Code. Respondent performed Phostoxin fumi- gation on residences when Phostoxin is not labeled or registered for residential fumi- gation, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent and/or its agents, during times material but particularly during July, 1978, illegally used Phostoxin for fumigation purposes in a residential structure, in vio- lation of Chapter 10D-55.116(2), Florida Administrative Code. During July, 1978, Respondent per- formed Phostoxin fumigation without notifying the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. During July, 1978, Respondent performed Phostoxin fumigation without the knowledge and personal supervision of its certified registered operator in charge of fumigation for Killingsworth, Inc., Elmer Logan, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. Shumpert/Graham Case On April 22, 1977, Respondent performed services for Robert Shumpert and/or R. A. Graham of 109 Harris Street, Pensacola, Florida, by fumigation of their residence at 109 Harris Street, without informing the Escambia County Health Depart- ment, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent fumigated the Shumpert/Graham residence with "Vikane" gas in a manner not in accordance with the label instructions, nor were occupants of the residence properly warned of the hazards, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.110(3); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Adminis- trative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent used Phostoxin for residential fumigation for the Graham/Shumpert residence, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent fumigated the Graham/Shumpert Residence with Phostoxin without informing the occupants of the hazards, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. During approximately April 22, 1977, Respondent performed a fumigation with Phostoxin without advance notification to the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. During April 22, 1977, Respondent performed a Phostoxin fumigation without the knowledge and personal supervision of its certified operator in charge of fumigation, Elmer Logan, in violation of Chapter10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. During May 22, 1978, Respondent per- formed pest control services for Mrs. Ann Boyett of 706 North Lynch Street, Pensacola, Florida, and during the course of such treatment, through its agent and employee, Steven R. `Foster, placed Phostoxin pellets under the Boyett residence for control of powder-post beetles, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent used Phostoxin in resi- dential fumigation in violation of Chapter 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, released Phosphine gas during use of Phostoxin. which is highly inflammable and its use in resi- dential structures is illegal pursuant to Chapter 10D-55.116(2), Florida Administrative Code. During May 23, 1978, Respondent performed a fumigation with Phostoxin without informing the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, per- formed a fumigation with Phostoxin without informing the homeowner of the hazards, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, failed to apply for and obtain an employee I.D. card for Steven R. Foster, in violation of Section 482.091(1), (2) and (4), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-55.143(1),(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing activities, it is alleged that Respondent violated his duties as a certified operator in charge of the pest control activities of a licensee, in violation of Section 482.152(1), (2),, (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. During July 12, 1978, Respondent performed pest control work for John A. Sanders, Jr. , at his residences located at 912, 914 and 916 North 63rd Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. During the course of this treatment it is alleged that Respondent failed to per- form the work in accordance with the label directions of any registered termiticide or by the use of methods and equipment generally suitable and accepted as good industry practice, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.135(2) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Adminis- trative Code. Based on the conduct set forth in the paragraph next above, it is alleged that the Respondent violated the duties of a certified operator in charge of pest control activities of a licensee, in violation of Section 482.152(1), (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. The Hinote Case During December 21, 1978, it is alleged that Respondent's agent Wayne Thompson, repre- sented to Ms. Lee Hinote of 1405 East Gonzales Street, Pensacola, Florida, that wood borers were infesting her residence and that treatment was needed, when no such infestation existed and no treatment was required, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.104(4), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the alleged conduct set forth in the paragraph next above, it is alleged that the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 482.152(1), (2), (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. William E. Grimsley, Supervisor, Environmental Health Unit of the Escambia County Health Department, is the person in charge of inspecting and ensuring that within the county no violations of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code, occur. All pest control companies operating in the county, including Respondent, are required to notify the County Health Department when a fumigation is to take place and the approximate time that the "gas" will be released. Fumigation notices are required to be submitted to the Health Department twenty-four hours in advance of the fumigation. Thee Health Department inspects the premises to be certain that the tent is properly sealed, that there is first aid equipment readily available and to generally ensure that the operator is qualified to perform the fumigation Mr. Grimsley recalled having received no fumigation notices from Respondent. Specifically, Mr. Grimsley testified that his office, the County Health Department, received no fumigation notice from Respondent for the Atkinson residence during April of 1977, for the Sumpert residence during times material, or for Ann Boyett's residence during the period of May, 1978. During May of 1978, Mr. Grimsley, through the Escambia County Health Department, received a complaint from the Atkinsons regarding the pest control services performed by Respondent. Mr. Grimsley referred Ms. Atkinson to Mr. William E. Page, Petitioner's agent in the Office of Entomology, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. During October of 1978, Mr. William Page and Mr. William Grimsley removed a sample of a white powdery substance found in the Atkinsons' attic. The sample was analyzed by Chris Bush, a chemist employed by Petitioner, who determined that the substance was a residue of Phostoxin. (Petitioner's Exhibits 32 and 40.) The Atkinson residence was treated by Respondent during, April of 1977. As stated, the Atkinsons complained to the Health Department during May of 1978, approximately fifteen months after the treatment. Samples of a white powdery residue found in the attic were analyzed by Petitioner's chemist during. October, 1978, and were determined to be a Phostoxin residue. Respondent and its agents and employees denied treating the Atkinson residence with anything other than Lindane and Methyl Bromide. During late 1978, Messrs. Grimsley and Page visited the residence of Mrs. Ann Boyett of 704 North Lynch Street, Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Page removed two prepac Phostoxin strips from underneath the Boyett residence. Steven Roy Foster (Moneyhun) also known as Steven Roy Foster was employed by Respondent from March of 1978 through July of 1978. Foster was hired by Respondent to perform mechanical work, although he assisted in tapings for fumigations and assisted Respondent's pest control operators. Foster placed two prepac Phostoxin strips under the Boyett residence. Foster was assigned to do the work by Respondent's agent, Frank Ancarrow, and was paid by the Boyetts for the work. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13.) Respondent and its agents, Frank Ancarrow and former employee, Elmer Logan, denied any knowledge, authorization or other assistance in the use of the treatment of residential structures with Phostoxin. Phostoxin is not authorized for the use in residential construction according to its label use restrictions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12.) Respondent treated the Graham-Shumpert residence at 109 Harris Street, Pensacola, Florida, for subterranean termites and old house wood borers during late April, 1977. The old house wood borers were located in the attic and, according to Respondent, were treated by him using a "spot" fumigation treatment of Methyl Bromide. 3/ Approximately two years later, Mr. Shumpert detected traces of termites again swarming in the kitchen of his home and called Frank Roberts of Roberts Pest Control Company to check on the termites. Mr. Roberts inspected the Shumpert residence and noted what he found in the attic, a residue of suspected Phostoxin. Mr. Roberts engaged the services of a private laboratory in Pensacola, Florida, to analyze the residue of the substance he found in the Shumpert residence. The sample was analyzed and, according to the lab analysis, the residue of the sample was Phostoxin. Gail Thompson, a former employee of the Respondent, testified that he treated the Shumpert residence for termites and that he assisted in taping the house in preparation for the fumigation which was performed by Respondent Billy F. Killingsworth. Respondent testified that he treated the Shumpert house by a "spot" fumigation using Methyl Bromide as a localized treatment to eradicate the infestation which was concentrated on a few joists. Respondent's testimony to the effect that the infestation was localized to a few joists conflicts with the testimony of witnesses William Page, Carlton Layne and John Boitnott, who testified that the damage and infestation was severe and widespread. Based on the extended hiatus between the treatment by Respondent and the inspections by Messrs, Page, Layne and Boitnott, it cannot be concluded that the condition of the premises as found by Respondent, continued unchanged until the subsequent and, of course, more recent visit by the investigating officials. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) When the Shumpert residence was treated, it was under contract to be sold by Mims-Snow Realty of Pensacola, Florida. Prior to sale, it was necessary to receive an FHA wood infestation report which admittedly, as testified to by Respondent's secretary and assistant, Joyce Beard, was filed incorrectly using information from another wood infestation report for another property. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 9.) According to that report, Vikane gas was used as a fumigant, which, if used according to the petitioner's licensing administrator, Warren T. Frazier, was not applied in accordance with the label instructions of that fumigant. 4/ On or about July 12, 1978, Mr. John A. Sanders entered into a contract with Respondent for pest control treatment of three houses that he owned on North 63rd Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 17, 15 and 19.) Respondent contracted to control household pests, fleas, etc. in the Sanders' residences for a total price of $520.00. According to 14r. Sanders, the treatment period lasted approximately twenty minutes and no trenches were dug, no drilling took place and there was no treatment for powder-post beetles contrary to his payment and contract for these services. Mr. Sanders filed a complaint with local and state officials and executed a complaint form. (Petitioner's Exhibits 20 and 21.) Respondent's former employee, Steven Foster, was assigned the task of treating the Sanders' residences. Foster acknowledged that he inadequately and incompletely treated the Sanders' residences for termites and powder-post beetles. Testimony of Warren Frazier, John Sanders and William Page corroborate Foster's testimony to the effect that the treatment was substandard and was not in accordance with the label directions of any registered termiticide. Additionally, the treatment fell below what is generally accepted as good industry Practice. Respondent testified that the Sanders' residences were treated by Carl Heichel. Heichel was unavailable and did not testify in this proceeding. Opal Lee Hinote of 1405 East Gonzalez Street contacted Respondent during December, 1978, for an annual renewal inspection of her residence. Respondent's agent, Wayne Thompson, performed the annual inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 27.) Additionally, Respondent's agent, Thompson, represented to Ms. Hinote that old house wood borers were affecting her residence and that treatment was needed. Thompson discussed a treatment price of $175.00, which was reduced, after some negotiation, to $125.00. Ms. Hinote, being suspicious, called Elmer Logan, Respondent's former employee who presently operates Fireman Pest Control, to inspect her premises. Mr. Logan advised Ms. Hinote that there were no wood borers in her house but merely old traces of wood borer activity. Ms. Hinote, still concerned, contacted Petitioner's agent, William Page, who inspected the house and confirmed Logan's report that there was no present wood horer activity to her residence. (Petitioner's Exhibits 28, 29 and 30.) Respondent's position on Ms. Hinote's complaint is that it is difficult to discern whether or not there is active or inactive wood borer activity and that Thompson, being a sales representative only for a short time when he made the inspection, was unable to discern whether or not the activity signs were evidences from old damage by powder-post beetles and wood borers. 5/ Mr. F. R. Du Chanois is Petitioner's supervisor for pest control records and has in excess of twenty-six years experience as an Entomologist. Mr. Du Chanois, who is Petitioner's records custodian, also receives and assigns complaints for investigation. Based on the complaints received about Respondent, Mr. Du Chanois directed an Inquiry to the manufacturer respecting the application of Phostoxin for residential application. Mr. Du Chanois determined and received confirmation that there are presently no registered uses for residential application for Phostoxin fumigations to control wood destroying insects. (Petitioner's Exhibit 42.) According to Du Chanois, the responsibility for obtaining an I.D. card is jointly placed on the operator and the employee. See Section 482.091(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Billy F. Killingsworth, the certified operator and owner of Killingsworth pest control business, has been in business for approximately eleven years in Escambia County. Respondent has a B.S. degree in Entomology from Auburn University and is certified in all areas of pest control, i.e,. general household pest and rodent control, subterranean termites, lawn and ornamental, and fumigation. According to Respondent, it is very difficult to determine whether powder-post beetles are in an active or inactive status. Respondent uses Lindane as a residual treatment for the eradication of beetles and Methyl Bromide as a fumigant to control beetles, dry wood termites and rodent control. Respondent only uses Phostoxin as a commodity fumigant since it is only labeled for such uses and since it is one-half to two-thirds more expensive than other registered fumigants. Respondent, Billy F. Killingsworth, is the only certified operator within his employ in Escambia County who is registered to use Phostoxin. (Testimony of Billy F. Killingsworth.) According to the worksheets, Tommy Phelps was the card holder assigned to perform the work for the Atkinson job. Respondent performed the fumigation, using oil based Lindane in the attic. Respondent acknowledged that he erroneously issued a termite contract for the Atkinsons. Respondent considers a "spot" fumigation as being superior to a complete or tent fumigation, in that it permits a larger concentration of gas to be infused to the exposed area and is least expensive. Respondent has performed less than ten structural fumigations since he has been in business. (Respondent's Exhibits 4, 5 and 6.) Respondent employed Steven Roy Foster (Moneyhun) to help in repairing hydraulic pumps, refrigeration equipment and to do mechanical and other minor maintenance tasks based on his (Foster's) prior experience. Respondent denied that Foster was assigned to assist or perform fumigations within the short period that Foster was employed by Respondent. Respondent acknowledged that the FHA Wood Infestation Report given to Ms. Graham of Mims-Snow Realty was erroneously issued based on the realtor's rush to sell the property. (Respondent's Exhibit 8.) Respondent performed the fumigation for the Shumpert residence and placed a warning sign on the front and back doors of the house. At the time of the fumigation, the house was unoccupied. Respondent used Methyl Bromide to fumigate the Shumpert residence and had no explanation as to the presence of Phostoxin in the attic of the Shumpert residence. Respondent assigned Carl Heichel to do the termite and beetle treatment for the Boyett residence. (Respondent's Exhibit 9.) Lindane and Heptachloride were used for the treatment. Heichel left Respondent's employ approximately October of 1978. According to Respondent, Heichel was also assigned to perform the work for the Sanders' houses on 63rd Avenue. (Respondent's Exhibit 10.) Respondent testified that he attempted to correct the problems in connection with the Sanders residence but was unable to arrange a mutually convenient schedule to resolve the matter. Wayne Thompson was assigned to perform the pest control treatment for the Hinote residence. Thompson had only been employed approximately six months when he was assigned to inspect the Hinote residence. Respondent noted that it was a mistake not to apply for an I.D. card for Steven R. Foster. He acknowledged that there was no reason not to apply for an I.D. card for Foster; however, the fact that Foster was hired to do mechanical work delayed his decision to apply for or to obtain an I.D. card for Foster. Respondent treated the Shumpert residence using Methyl Bromide which was registered and labeled "Dowfume MC-2". 6/ Respondent acknowledged that it is unlawful to use a registered pesticide in a way which is inconsistent with the label. He also acknowledged that certified operators are charged with the duty of using fumigants in accordance with the registered labels consonant with the structure to be fumigated. (Testimony of Billy F. Killingsworth.) Several of Respondent's former employees who were employed during times material herein testified that they were unaware of any illegal uses of Phostoxin by Respondent and/or its employees. These employees included J. D. White, Sr., of Sterling, Illinois; Gerald Caudill of Evansville, Indiana; Frank Ancarrow; Elmer Logan and Gail Thompson. J. D. White, Sr. , of Sterling, Illinois, was formerly employed by Respondent from June, 1973, through the end of 1974. Mr. White worked for Frank Roberts, a competitor of Respondent during the period July, 1976, through August of 1977. Mr. White was party to conversations between Frank Roberts to the effect that he was; "out to get" Respondent and was privy to conversations with Mr. Roberts to the effect that Roberts had communicated with various Federal regulatory and state agencies to register complaints about Respondent and other competitors in the area. White testified that he was offered money to spray the yards of customers who were on annual contract with Respondent using the wrong chemicals to destroy the grass. Gerald Caudill presently is employed by Economy Pest Control of Evansville, Indiana. He was formerly employed by Respondent from approximately March, 1978, through approximately April of 1979. Caudill did a localized treatment for powder-post beetles for the Atkinson residence on Leonard Street in Pensacola, Florida. Caudill was shown by the Atkinsons, signs of what he viewed to be an active infestation in the attic of the Atkinson residence and advised them that they needed treatment in their attic. Frank Ancarrow, Respondent's sales manager, has been employed in that capacity for approximately four years and has approximately eight years' experience with another pest control company. Mr. Ancarrow is certified in all categories except fumigation. Messrs, Ancarrow and Thompson prepared the Shumpert residence for fumigation. The Shumpert residence was treated by Gail Thompson for subterranean termites and the Respondent fumigated the attic for old house wood borers. Frank Ancarrow was shown the statement given in an affidavit taken by Carlton Layne of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the effect that Gail Thompson was in charge of the fumigation of the Shumpert residence. Mr. Ancarrow testified that that was a mistake and that Thompson only prepared the house for fumigation. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 26.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, Recommended: That the Respondent's Pest Control Operator's Certificate Number 1306; Respondent's Pest Control Employee Identification Card Numbers 5832 and 5843 and Respondent's Pest Control Business License Number 78 be SUSPENDED for a period of two (2) years. In all other respects, the June 10, 1980 Recommended Order previously entered herein remains unchanged. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jon W. Searcy, Vsquire Department of IIIS 160 Governmenta] Center Pensacola, Florida 32522 Larry Parks, Esquire Murphy, Beroset and Parks 216 Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of IRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= STIPULATION TO CONSENT FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issues presented in the case are whether Respondents P & L Salvage and Marlene Ballard are liable for violations of state statutes and rules, as alleged in the amended NOV, and, if so, whether the proposed corrective action is appropriate, and whether the proposed civil penalties and costs should be paid by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Respondent P & L Salvage, Inc., is a Florida corporation. P & L Salvage owned and operated an automobile salvage yard at 4535 and 4537 West 45th Street in West Palm Beach, Florida (the “property,” “facility,” or “site”). The property comprises less than two acres. Respondent Marlene Ballard is a Florida resident and the president, treasurer, secretary, and director of P & L Salvage, Inc. Historical Use of the Site Beginning in the 1960s, the site was used as an auto salvage yard, first under the name Johnny’s Junkyard and later as General Truck Parts. In 1981, the owner of the salvage yard, Marie Arant, sold the facility. The record is not clear about the exact identity of the purchaser. The Alliance report, referred to later, states that the property was purchased by “the Ballard family.” The record evidence is insufficient to prove that Marlene Ballard ever owned the salvage yard. The parties agree that the salvage yard was operated for a time as P & L Salvage, which was unincorporated. Then, in January 1990, the site was purchased by Respondent P & L Salvage, Inc., which owned the site continuously until January 2007. Marlene Ballard lived in a house on the site from the 1980s until the property was sold in 2007. A separate building at the site was used as P & L Salvage’s office. The general operation of the salvage yard was to bring junk cars and trucks to the site, remove fluids from the vehicles, remove parts for sale, and then crush the dismantled vehicles in a hydraulic crusher to prepare them for transport and sale as scrap metal. The automotive fluids removed from the junked cars were stored on the site in 55-gallon drums for later disposal. Respondents presented evidence to show that the person who had the most knowledge of and managed the day-to-day operations in the salvage yard was an employee named John Boyd. When John Boyd ceased employment at the salvage yard, Marlene Ballard’s son, Thomas Ballard, took over the management of the yard. Respondents contend that no evidence was presented that Marlene Ballard conducted or participated in any activities that resulted in contamination, or that she had authority to prevent any potential contamination that might have occurred. However, Ms. Ballard was familiar with the activities in the yard, having worked and lived on the site for many years. She did the bookkeeping and signed payroll checks. All employees answered to Ms. Ballard. She contracted for environmental assessment and remediation work, and signed the hazardous waste manifests. She was acquainted with the contamination that could and did occur at the salvage yard. Eagle Sanitation, Inc., which operated a roll-off container business, leased the site from September 2005 until January 2007. Eagle Sanitation also obtained an option to purchase the property. At first, Eagle Sanitation only leased about a quarter of the site because there were many junk autos, tires, and other salvage debris still on the site in September 2005. For several months, Thomas Ballard continued to sell auto parts and scrap from the site, and to clear the site. Eagle Sanitation did not have complete use of the site until early in 2006. Eagle Sanitation’s business consisted of delivering roll-off containers for a fee to contractors and others for the disposal of construction debris and other solid waste, and then picking up the containers and arranging for disposal at the county landfill or, in some cases, recycling of the materials. Roll-off containers at the site were usually empty, but sometimes trucks with full containers would be parked at the site overnight or over the weekend. During its lease of the site, Eagle Sanitation did not collect used oil or gasoline and did not provide roll-off containers to automotive businesses. No claim was made that Eagle Sanitation caused any contamination found at the site. Contamination at the Site In 1989, Marlene Ballard contracted with Goldcoast Engineering & Testing Company (Goldcoast) to perform a “Phase II” environmental audit. Goldcoast collected and analyzed groundwater and soil samples and produced a report. Cadmium, chromium, and lead were found in the soil samples collected by Goldcoast. Some petroleum contamination was also detected in soils. These pollutants are all associated with automotive fluids. The Goldcoast report states that groundwater samples did not indicate the presence of pollutants in concentrations above any state standard. The Goldcoast report did not address the timing of discharges of contaminating substances that occurred at the site, except that such discharges had to have occurred before the report was issued in 1989. That is before the property was purchased by P & L Salvage, Inc. During an unannounced inspection of the salvage yard by two Department employees on August 15, 1997, oil and other automotive fluids were observed on the ground at the site in the “disassembly area” and around the crusher. There were also stains on the ground that appeared to have been made by automotive fluids. No samples of the fluids were taken or analyzed at the time of the inspection. The Department inspectors told Marlene Ballard to cease discharging fluids onto the ground, but no enforcement action was initiated by the Department. Ms. Ballard was also told that she should consider removing the soil where the discharged fluids and staining were observed. In early 1998, RS Environmental was hired to excavate and remove soils from the site. This evidence was presumably presented by Respondents to indicate that they remediated the contaminated soils observed by the Department inspectors, but no details were offered about the area excavated to make this clear. In 2004, in conjunction with a proposed sale of the site, another Phase II investigation of the site was done by Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI), and a report was issued by PSI in May 2004. The PSI report is hearsay and, as such, cannot support a finding of fact regarding the matters stated in the report. Presumably as a result of its knowledge of the PSI report, the Department issued a certified letter to Ms. Ballard on June 24, 2005, informing her that the Department was aware of methyl tert-butyl ethylene (MTBE) contamination at the facility. MTBE is an octane enhancer added to gasoline. The Department’s June 2005 letter advised Ms. Ballard that Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-780 required “responsible parties” to file a site assessment report (SAR) within 270 days of becoming aware of such contamination. The letter also informed Ms. Ballard of the proximity of the City of Riviera Beach’s wellfield and the threat that represented to public drinking water. The June 2005 letter was returned to the Department unsigned. In October 2005, the Department arranged to have the letter to Marlene Ballard served by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. The Department received a confirmation of service document that shows the letter was served by a deputy on October 14, 2005, but this document is hearsay and does not support a finding that Ms. Ballard had knowledge of the contents of the letter. The Department did not receive an SAR within 270 days, but no enforcement action was immediately initiated. On December 15, 2006, the Department issued a six- count NOV to P & L. Salvage, Inc. P & L Salvage requested a hearing and the matter was referred to DOAH. In January 2007, in conjunction with Eagle Sanitation’s proposed sale of its purchase option to Prime Realty Capital, LLC, Alliance Consulting & Environmental Services, Inc., (Alliance) conducted a site assessment at the site and produced an SAR in April 2007. At that time, as indicated above, P & L Salvage had ceased operations at the site and Eagle Sanitation was operating its roll-off container business there. The SAR states that in January 2007, “[a]pproximately 80 yards of black stained oily-solidified shallow sands were excavated [by Eagle Sanitation] from the central and northeastern portions of the site, where car crushing, fluid draining and battery removal were historically conducted.” The soil contained lead, iron, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic, but testing did not show the excavated soils constituted hazardous materials and, therefore, the soils were disposed at the county landfill. The area of soils where the Department inspectors in 1997 observed automotive fluids and staining appears to have been included in the soils that were excavated and removed in 2007. The Department presented no evidence to the contrary. Testing by Alliance of other soils at the site showed “no significant petroleum metals concentrations” and Alliance did not recommend the removal of other soils. The presence of an MTBE “plume” of approximately 30,000 square feet (horizontal dimension) was also described in the SAR. The plume is in the area where the crusher was located. Several groundwater samples from the site showed MTBE in concentrations above the target cleanup limit. The City of Riviera Beach operates a public water supply wellfield near the site. The closest water well is approximately 250 feet from the site. The SAR concludes that “the potential exists for the MTBE plume to be pulled downward” toward the well, and recommends that a risk assessment be performed. Alliance recommended in the SAR that the MTBE contamination be remediated with “in-situ bioremediation” with oxygen enhancement. No remediation has occurred on the site since the date of the Alliance report. The Alliance report did not address the timing of contaminating discharges that occurred at the site. To the extent that Alliance reported contamination in 2007 that was not reported in the 1989 Goldcoast report, that is not sufficient, standing alone, to meet the Department’s burden of proof to show that P & L Salvage, Inc., caused “new” contamination after 1989. Competent evidence was not presented that the Alliance report describes “new” contamination. The authors of the reports were not called as witnesses. No expert testimony was presented on whether the data in the reports can establish the timing of contaminating discharges. It is not the role of the Administrative Law Judge, nor does he have the requisite expertise, to compare the environmental assessments conducted by Goldcoast and Alliance and make judgments about whether some of the contamination reported by Alliance had to have occurred after 1989. Although the Department’s expert, Paul Wierzbicki, testified that it was his opinion that the contamination was attributable to the “operations of the P & L Salvage yard facility,” he was answering a question about “what caused the contamination” and, in context, his testimony only confirmed that the type of contamination shown in the photographs and reported in the site assessment reports was the type of contamination associated with auto salvage yards. Mr. Wiezbicki’s testimony is not evidence which can support a finding that the contamination at the site, other than the automotive fluids and stained soils observed by the Department inspectors in 1997, was caused by P & L Salvage, Inc.1 On June 12, 2007, after reviewing the Site Assessment Report, the Department issued a letter to Marlene Ballard, requesting additional data and analysis. At the hearing, the Department presented a responding letter from Alliance dated June 21, 2007. It was disputed whether the Alliance letter is evidence of Ms. Ballard’s receipt and knowledge of the Department’s June 12, letter. However, even if Ms. Ballard did not know about the Department’s letter in June 2007, she certainly became aware of the letter in the course of this proceeding. The amended NOV issued in January 2008 mentions the letter, and the letter was listed as an exhibit in the parties’ June 4, 2008 Pre-hearing Stipulation. On January 24, 2008, the Department issued an amended NOV which dropped three counts from the original NOV and added two new counts. Most significantly, the amended NOV added Marlene Ballard and Thomas Ballard as Respondents. P & L Salvage and Marlene Ballard responded to the amended NOV with petitions for hearing. Thomas Ballard did not respond. At the hearing, the Department presented testimony of employees that were involved in this enforcement action regarding the value of their time expended on various tasks associated with this case. Bridget Armstrong spent eight hours inspecting the site of the contamination, eight hours drafting the NOV and consent order, approximately 30 hours reviewing technical documents, and 15 hours corresponding with Respondents. Ms. Armstrong’s salary at the time was about $20.00 per hour. Paul Wierzbicki spent 16 hours investigating facilities in the area, reviewing the contamination assessment reports, and overseeing the enforcement activity of his subordinates. Mr. Wierzbicki was paid $33.00 per hour. Kathleen Winston spent 10 hours reviewing a site assessment report and drafting correspondence. Ms. Winston’s salary at the time was $23.56 per hour. Geetha Selvendren spent 4-to-5 hours reviewing the site assessment report. She was paid $19.00 per hour at the time. Finally, Joseph Lurix spent three hours reviewing documents. His salary at the time was $34.97 per hour.
Findings Of Fact On June 17, 1994, Petitioner, City of Stuart (City), filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation, predecessor to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), for a permit to maintenance dredge Krueger Creek between the East Ocean Boulevard bridge and Tenth Street. The City proposed to suction dredge 7,500 cubic yards of sediment or spoil material to be placed on nearby retention sites for dewatering. The retention sites were vacant lots in a residential neighborhood. Some 2,500 cubic yards were to remain on the dewatering sites, and the remainder to be taken elsewhere. On June 20, 1994, the Department sent a completeness letter to the City, requesting additional information. On October 4, 1994, the Department received and approved a complete sediment characterization plan. By memorandum dated January 27, 1995, Ligia Mora-Applegate, an employee of the Department, sent out interim soil cleanup goals which were to be used by waste program administrators in determining final cleanup goals. The memorandum listed chemicals and the appropriate health-based goal for each chemical. For arsenic, the cleanup goal for an aggregate residential setting was .711 mg/kg. These goals had been developed by Dr. Stephen Roberts, a toxicologist employed by the University of Florida, under contract with the Department. On February 2, 1995, the Department received additional information from the City, including sediment analysis results, responses to hydrographic questions, a description of operational methods, and revised spoil retention locations. The Department reviewed the analyses submitted by the City. By memorandum dated February 27, 1995, Paul Wierzbicki, a Waste Cleanup Supervisor of the Department, advised Bruce Jerner, the Department employee who was reviewing the City's permit application, that Based on the analyses submitted it does not appear that the sediments will meet the guidance concentration of 0.7mg/kg as the cleanup criteria for soils. An alternative management plan should be proposed for the sediments. On February 28, 1995, the Department advised the City that arsenic concentrations did not meet the Department's guidance criteria for metals at the proposed spoil disposal sites. The Department recommended alternatives for disposal of the spoil material or the performance of a site specific risk assessment for the spoil sites. By letter dated March 14, 1995, Joseph Capra, the applicant's Project Engineer, advised the Department that the City disagreed with the Department's position that the arsenic levels exceeded the state standards based on Rule 17- 775, Florida Administrative Code which allows a maximum concentration of 10mg/kg of arsenic for the cleanup of petroleum contaminated soil at a soil thermal treatment facility. Mr. Capra asked the Department to reconsider its position and consider the application complete. Staff from the Department's waste cleanup section reviewed Mr. Capra's letter and forwarded the following response to Mr. Jerner by memorandum dated March 29, 1995: The allowable maximum concentration of 10mg/kg for Arsenic referred to in the letter applies to petroleum contaminated soils and since this has not been identified as a petroleum contamination site would not necessarily be appropriate in this situation. Site specific risk assessments have always been an alternative when maximum contaminate levels are not otherwise specified. This level for Arsenic may have been used in the past for non-petroleum contaminated sites in lieu of a risk assessment since it is some- what risk based, is established in rule for specific sites, and based on the lack of any other updated risk information; however, the Department has obtained updated risk inform- ation for arsenic which is currently being incorporated into 62-770, F.A.C., the Petr- oleum Cleanup Rule first, with a 62-775 F.A.C., update to follow. The difference in the exposure to aquatic organisms through sediments and direct human exposure by disposal of the dredged material on land has been explained to Mr. Capra along with some of the alternatives, to disposal in a residential area which may allow direct exposure, which may be accept- able to the Department based on further evaluation. The goal is not to jeopardize funding for the project but to provide reasonable assurance the disposal of the dredged material will not present a potential for harm to human health or the environment based on the latest technological information. Recommend Mr. Capra continue evaluating some of the disposal alternatives discussed, assuming Arsenic is the only contaminant of concern, such as: Evaluating background conditions at the original site or an alternate site. Using the material, within acceptable levels (<0.7mg/kg As), at the original site with disposal of the remainder at a lined landfill. Using material, with acceptable levels (<3.1 mg/kg As), at an industrial site with disposal of the remainder at a lined landfill. Using the material on the original site in such a manner as to prevent human exposure as long as ground water contamination is not an issue. Disposal at a lined landfill with approval from the operator. On April 5, 1995 the interim soil cleanup goals were revised and transmitted to the waste program administrators by memorandum from Ms. Mora- Applegate. The goal for soil cleanup with arsenic in a residential setting was 0.7 mg/kg (ppm). By letter dated April 24, 1995, the Department advised Mr. Capra: The data you submitted on February 2, 1995 was reviewed by the DEP Waste Cleanup Section using the 'Updated Interim Soil Cleanup Goals' which were faxed to you on April 7, 1995. These guidance concentrations are in fact the levels which will be used to evaluate the dredged material and its ultimate destination. The Department also advised that the spoil material could be placed at a residential site if the average background arsenic levels at the spoil site met or exceeded the average of the creek sediment samples. The City declined to provide additional information concerning the application. On August 15, 1995, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial denying the application for the following reasons: Pursuant to Section 403.918(2), F.S., a permit may not be issued under Sections 403.91-403.929 unless the applicant provides the Department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In determining whether or not the project is contrary to the public interest, the Department shall consider and balance the seven (7) criteria listed in Section 403.918(2)(a), F.S. This project is contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(23)(a), F.S. because the project will: adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Specifically, the proposed disposal of dredged material with arsenic levels of greater than 0.7 mg/kg on two residential lots presents a potential for human harm based on the Departments (sic) health-based levels. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that site specific backgrounds are greater than or equal to the levels of arsenic in the dredged materials. The Department received a letter of objection on April 21, 1995 from an adjacent property owner requesting denial of the permit unless additional sediment testing is done and a suitable method of disposal is proposed. Therefore, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project to maintenance dredge is not contrary to or clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. In drafting the notice of denial, Mr. Jerner relied on Ms. Mora-Applegate's memoranda dated January 27 and April 5, 1995, the memorandum from Mr. Wierzbicki dated February 27, 1995, and the memorandum from the waste cleanup section dated March 29, 1995. By memorandum dated September 29, 1995, John M. Ruddell, Director of the Division of Waste Management, sent the District Directors and Waste Program Administrators a list of the soil cleanup goals for Florida. The residential health-based cleanup goal for residential sites for arsenic was 0.7 mg/kg (ppm). In October, 1995, the Department took samples of the creek sediment. Based on the sampling by the City and by the Department, the average arsenic concentration was 1.8 ppm. On January 19, 1996, Mr. Ruddell sent the District Directors and Waste Program Administrators a memorandum concerning the use of the soil cleanup goals set out in the September 29, 1995 memorandum. Mr. Ruddell stated: The Soil Cleanup Goals are intended to be used only as 'goals' for cleanup decisions in corrective actions and should not be used by the agency as rule, standards or to deny or approve permits. The FDEP has found that most business/site owners do not normally have the money or the expertise to establish Site-specific Rehabilitation Levels (SRLs) as allowed by our cleanup Consent Order condi- tions. The soil cleanup goals are intended to be used for site screening purposes, for source removal evaluations, and as guidance during evaluation of remediation alternatives and design considerations for development of Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for a site. The soil cleanup goals can and should be used for cleanup decisions if the default assumptions fit the site-specific situation. * * * The evaluation process should take into consideration the following criteria: the site-specific background levels, the Method Detection Limits (MDLs), the soil cleanup goals, and the site contaminate levels. The site contaminant levels (criterion 4) for each Chemical of Concern (COC) would be compared to the highest value of the first three criteria. If the site contaminant levels are below the highest value, then no remediation is required for that contaminant. If the site contaminant levels are higher than the highest value, then remediation alternatives should be evaluated taking into consideration the specific nature of the site and the responsible party's ability to effectively manage the risk of a particular site contaminant level. FDEP may consider site-specific risk management alternatives that may further modify the guidance levels for the contaminant. These health-based soil goals are evaluated based on the nature and intended use of the site (e.g., residential or industrial) and usually only apply to the upper two feet of soil. If the contaminated soil can be permanently covered with more than two feet of clean soil or otherwise have the exposure pathways restricted, the site may not need further remediation if the contaminated soil is not a source of ground- water contamination. * * * The soil values may be used for other purposes (other media) if indeed the particular application fits the situation (e.g., sediments that upon dredging will be used as soil). Again, an analysis of the specific situation must be performed (i.e., ascertain land use, exposure duration, leachability concerns, background consideration, etc.). The January 29 memorandum also advised that the soil cleanup goal for arsenic on residential sites was changed to 0.8 mg/kg. This is not a significant change from the goal set out in Ms. Mora-Applegate's January 27, 1995 memorandum. The health-based soil cleanup goals for arsenic have not been adopted as rules, and the Department does not presently intend to adopt them by rule. The health-based goals for arsenic are used to define appropriate concentrations for arsenic regarding protecting public health. The levels are default numbers which an applicant may chose to accept by default. Alternatively, the applicant may elect to provide additional information in the form of a site-specific evaluation or of management strategies that would satisfy the Department. A site specific evaluation could result in a change from the default number to a greater or lesser number. Unless the applicant provides site-specific information, the Department will apply the health-based goals for arsenic.
The Issue Whether Respondent is in violation of various provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated October 30, 1991.
Findings Of Fact BEI's composting facility is a potential source of water and air pollution and to operate the facility, BEI requires a permit issued by DER. The original permit issued to DER for this facility expired on June 1, 1991 and has not been renewed. Although its permit had expired, BEI was allowed to continue to operate while informal proceedings were ongoing between BEI and DER. When these informal proceedings were terminated by DER on May 20, 1992, further operation of this composting facility was in violation of Chapter 403.707(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-709.400(1), Florida Administrative Code. On at least two occasions while this composting facility was in operation, the air around the facility was polluted by foul odors. During the period following the expiration of BEI's license, BEI failed to submit monthly operating reports and did not conduct quarterly samplings and testing of the compost and submit the testing to DER as required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the DER enter a Final Order finding that BEI has violated Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, on each of five counts; and that BEI should immediately cease operation of its solid waste facility, volume reduction plant, until and unless it obtains an appropriate and valid permit from DER and in that regard, BEI shall: Immediately cease acceptance of all materials on the property. In the event that Respondent does not receive a permit from the Department to resume operations at the facility, within 90 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall remove all solid waste from the property to an approved solid waste management facility and provide the Department written documentation of its disposal within 30 days of removal. In the event that Respondent does receive a permit from the Department to resume operation at the facility, Respondent shall remain in strict compliance with all terms and conditions of such permit. Within 30 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall, if it has not already done so, provide the following to the Department: All records of testing and monitoring conducted on the compost material since January 1, 1990, including daily reports on the temperature and moisture content of compost material, and any testing of compost material conducted prior to distribution. All records documenting application rates of stillage, manure, and leachate to the compost withdrows since January 1, 1990. All records, documenting distribution of composted or mulch material, including amount of compost or mulch material delivered, date of delivery, specific destination of compost or mulch, and intended use of compost or mulch material delivered, since January 1, 1990. All records documenting amount of yard trash received at the facility since January 1, 1990. Within 30 days of execution of the Final Order, Respondent shall make payment to the Department for costs and expenses in the amount of $500.00. Payment shall be made by, cashier's check or money order to the "State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation". Payment, specifying Office of General Counsel Case No. 91-2006, shall be sent by certified mail to Administrator, Division of Waste Management, Department of Environmental Regulation, 3804 Coconut Palm Drive, Tampa, Florida 33619. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 16th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Howard C. Batt, Esquire 611 Druid Road East Suite 712 Clearwater, Florida 34616 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ken Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Robert A. Pace has violated Section 482.161(5) and (6), Florida Statutes, and Rules 10D-55.04(4) and 10D-55.35(2), Florida Administrative Code, and therefore should be denied a pest control identification card and the opportunity to take the examination to become a certified pest control operator.
Findings Of Fact Testimony and evidence was introduced by DHRS from various witnesses regarding Pace's activities as the holder in the past of a pest control identification card with both Suncoast and Bay Area Control Companies, and as an emergency certified pest control operator for Suncoast Pest Control Company. From that testimony only the following factual allegations were proven. All other allegations against Robert A. Pace as stated in the letters of denial clearly were not proven by substantial and competent evidence. On or about March 21, 1974, Pace was a holder of a pest control identification card as an employee of Suncoast Pest Control. At this time Pace was also a partner in this company. On that date, Robert Pace offered to conduct a free termite inspection of the residence of Melvin Redlin. The inspection was conducted and live termites were shown to Mrs. Redlin by Pace with the explanation that they had been found in the area of the tub trap or plumbing service access in the bathroom of the Redlin's home. On the same day, Pace solicited a termite treatment contract with the Redlins. Treatment for subterranean termites was begun by employees of Suncoast Pest Control, but while it was in progress, one of Redlin's neighbors stated that he had never seen termites. One of the Suncoast employees stated that he had some live termites in the truck and showed Redlin and others a log infested with live termites. At that point Redlin became irate, suspecting that the individual who had inspected his home had shown his wife termites taken from the truck and not from the plumbing access space. Redlin ordered all work by Suncoast to cease. At the time Redlin directed them to stop, chemicals were being introduced into the ground around the slab foundation of the Redlin home. Before leaving, a Suncoast employee poured a jar of chemicals into the tub trap. Three weeks later, in response to a complaint by the Redlins, William Bargren, who is qualified as an expert witness in entomology and who is employed as an investigator with DHRS, inspected the Redlin's residence. Bargren found no evidence of prior termite infestation. On or about July 1, 1974, a contract for the treatment of subterranean termites was solicited from John A. Johnson by Suncoast Pest Control Company. This contract bore the signature of Robert A. Pace as a representative of Suncoast; however, Johnson was unable to identify Robert A. Pace at the hearing and described the man with whom he had dealt as being taller and heavier than Pace. Pursuant to this contract, the Johnson's house was treated for subterranean termites and certain structural repairs were made in the attic by employees of Suncoast. William Bargren, identified above, testified that upon his subsequent inspection of the home, in his opinion, it was only partially treated. Bargren found evidence of previous subterranean termite infestation but concluded that the inner walls of the foundation of the house had not been treated. For the treatment of the subterranean termites and repairs to the house Johnson wrote checks payable to Suncoast in the amount of One Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars and Forty-Five Cents ($1,822.45) and One Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Five Dollars ($1,155.00). Pace was not an emergency pest control operator until July 10, 1974. The deposition of Mrs. Annie Symons, admitted pursuant to stipulation of the parties, indicates that in October, 1974, an employee of Suncoast Pest Control known only as "Joe" to Mrs. Symons inspected her residence for termites. Mrs. Symons had recently purchased the house and obtained a termite inspection and certificate prior to purchase certifying there was no evidence of termite infestation. The Suncoast employee inspected Symons' residence and advised her that her house had an active termite infestation showing her a piece of wood with live termites. Mrs. Symons called Southern Labs, the pest control firm which had conducted the original inspection. Michael Spokes, an employee of Southern Labs, reinspected Symons' residence and found no evidence of termite infestation. Concerned at the conflicting reports, Mrs. Symons contacted the Division of Health and her house was inspected by David Jones, an etomologist qualified and accepted as an expert witness at hearing and employed by the Division of Health as an inspector. Jones inspected Symons' house and could find no evidence of termite infestation. In October, 1974, Pace was the emergency certified pest control operator for Suncoast. There was no evidence introduced that Suncoast was advised of the Symons matter and that Pace was on notice of the conduct of his employee. On or about July 23, 1975, Robert A. Pace, Philip Nicholson and Rick Draper went to the residence of Irene Shipley, 301 East Lake Fern, Lutz, Florida. Mrs. Shipley was offered a free inspection by Mr. Pace which she accepted. While Pace talked with her outside of her house, Rick Draper inspected her house and a mobile home belonging to her son located to the rear of her property. According to Mrs. Shipley, Draper went under both structures and produced insects which he identified as termites. Mrs. Shipley and Pace stood outside during the inspection and discussed and negotiated a price for treating both structures. Pace stated that he would spray under both homes, the woodwork and the attic for One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) for each home. Eventually a price of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) was negotiated to treat by spraying both homes. The area under and around both homes was sprayed, and an attempt to spray the attic was made but was thwarted by an inner roof. After completing the Work, Mrs. Shipley gave a check to Pace payable to him in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00). Pace gave her a contract for pest control treatment. Subsequently, Mrs. Shipley became concerned and asked the assistance of the Division of Health. William Bargren, identified above, conducted an inspection of both houses. Under Mrs. Shipley's home he could find no evidence of subterranean termite infestation but did discover dry rot, and under the mobile home, Bargren found evidence of a prior subterranean termite infestation. Bargren stated that in his opinion the treatment given both homes was insufficient because there was no evidence trenching around the house supports or boring in the pilings which he discovered under the mobile home. In October, 1975, Frank Logan contacted Robert A. Pace, while Pace was treating a home for subterranean termite infestation. Logan stated that he was impressed with the work being done and asked for Pace's card. Logan stated that he knew that his home was infested with termites and later called Pace and asked for Pace to inspect his home. Pace conducted an inspection of Logan's home and advised Logan that he had a subterranean termite infestation. Pace testified that he also saw no evidence of what he took to be an inactive dry wood termite infestation in Logan's attic. Subterranean termite treatment was made of Logan's home; however, when Logan's problems were unabated for a year, he contacted the Division of Health. William Bargren, identified above, inspected Logan's residence and found evidence of subterranean termite infestation, a substandard treatment for subterranean termites, and an active dry wood termite infestation in Logan's attic. The subterranean termite treatment was substandard in that the voids in the concrete block foundation had not been drilled and treated. Bargren also testified that the signs of dry wood termites which Pace described as having seen would not indicate an inactive infestation but an active infestation. Bargren did not offer any opinion as to whether the dry wood infestation was over a year old. Bargren stated that dry wood termites are not effected by control treatment for subterranean termites because they do not require contact with the ground. Pace and his colleague, Nicholson, who had assisted Pace on the job, each thought that the other had treated the foundation. ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pace is charged with the violation of Section 482.161 (5) and (6) and Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code, arising out of his conduct in providing pest control services to Melvin Redlin. Because Mr. Redlin demanded that the employees of Suncoast cease treatment of his home prior to their having completed the job, a charge of negligently treating the Redlin residence cannot be sustained. Because live termites were shown to Mrs. Redlin, strong evidence did exist of an active infestation if the termites were from the bathroom plumbing service access. If the termites were introduced by Pace into the Redlin home, clearly Pace would be guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 482.161(5) Florida Statutes. Based on Bargren's testimony that no evidence was found in the bath plumbing service access area of a prior subterranean termite infestation, together with the fact that treatment of that area was done rapidly without opportunity to substantially clean the area, the Hearing Officer finds that such a false representation was in fact made by Pace. Evidence introduced by DHRS clearly indicated that Pace was not an emergency certified pest control operator until July 10, 1974. The treatment of the Johnson residence occurred on July 1, 1974. Rule 10D-55.35, Florida Administrative Code, applies only to certified pest control operators; therefore, Pace cannot be held accountable under that rule for his own activities or the activities of Suncoast employees with regard to the termite control treatment of the residence of John A. Johnson. Bargren found evidence of a prior subterranean termite infestation at the Johnson residence; therefore, there could have been no misrepresentation of an infestation. Bargren did find that the foundation of the Johnson residence was not properly drilled and protected with pesticide. Therefore, Pace did not use methods suitable for the treatment of subterranean termites in violation of Section 482.161(5), Florida Statutes. Although the certified pest control operator for Suncoast on July 1, 1974, would have been responsible for Pace's failure, Pace himself cannot avoid responsibility for his failure to properly treat the Johnson residence by virtue of the provisions of Rule 10D-55.35, supra. There is clear evidence that an employee of Suncoast other than Pace misrepresented the facts of an infestation to Annie G. Symons contrary to Section 482.161(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code, in October, 1974. At that time Pace was an emergency certified pest control operator. There was no evidence introduced that Pace was contacted by Symons or by DHRS regarding misrepresentation to Annie G. Symons by an employee of Suncoast. Pace cannot be vicariously liable under the provisions of Section 482.161(5) or Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code, where knowledge of a misrepresentation is required. Although responsible for the pest control treatments as a certified operator, Pace cannot be considered liable for the misrepresentations of a Suncoast employee when Pace was not aware a contract had been made. Pace clearly violated Rule 10D-55.05(2), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to give Mrs. Shipley a copy of the contract before the work was done and payments made. It was clear that the nature of the treatment Pace was to perform was clearly explained to Mrs. Shipley prior to the commencement of the work. Bargren found prior evidence of subterranean termite infestation under one of the homes, and damage to the wood under the other as a result of dry rot. In any event, the inspection of the premises was by Rick Draper, and although Pace sold Mrs. Shipley the contract, it is clear that Mrs. Shipley knew that Pace did not conduct the inspection of the houses because she was talking with Pace outside while watching Draper inspect the house. Bargren's testimony was that the treatment was substandard, and he also testified that the prior infestation of subterranean termites under the mobile home had been stopped. The testimony indicated that bargaining went on between Pace and Shipley regarding the treatment that would be applied and the price for the treatment. Treatment in accordance with this agreement was performed or a good faith effort made. Considering the circumstances there is not substantial and competent evidence of a violation of Section 482.161(5) or (6), Florida Statutes, or of Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code. Pace is charged with not providing adequate subterranean termite treatment and not treating an active dry wood termite infestation at the residence of Frank Logan. Bargren's inspection revealed evidence of a prior subterranean termite infestation which had been controlled and an active dry wood termite infestation in Logan's attic. Bargren's inspection took place over one year from the date of Pace's initial inspection and treatment. Pace stated that he saw evidence of what he took to be an inactive dry wood infestation when he initially inspected Logan's residence. No evidence was obtained concerning whether the infestation of dry wood termites was over one year old. Testimony was received that dry wood termites will not be affected by subterranean termite control measures; and, further, dry wood termites may fly into a building and start a colony if preventive measures have not been taken. Logan testified that the initial treatment by Pace did not control the termites because he kept seeing them. Pace was negligent in treating for subterranean termites in that he failed to assure that the foundation voids were treated contrary to Section 482.161(6), Florida Statutes. The length of time between Bargren's inspection and Pace's treatment together with the manner of infestation of dry wood termites creates sufficient doubt regarding the allegation of Pace's failure to properly identify the dry wood infestation to find the allegations not proven. The individual allegations proven above are not significant when taken singularly; however, the evidence taken as a whole presents a picture of high pressure salesmanship by Pace and those with whom he was associated, together with poor workmanship in application of treatments. In one instance the evidence is clear that Pace made a misrepresentation of a termite infestation where evidence was lacking. He did solicit contracts on occasions in which another employee made the inspections and he lacked specific knowledge of the conditions found. As part owner of Suncoast, Pace had the responsibility to oversee his employees which he failed to do. Pace should have taken greater care to insure his employees had properly inspected homes, and were dealing honestly and forthrightly with customers. As an employee, Pace did not treat homes in a workman like manner in accordance with accepted practices. The course of conduct engaged in by Suncoast and Pace's failure to control his employees cannot be overlooked.
Recommendation Considering the findings of fact generally and the conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services deny Pace's application to take the examination to become a certified pest control operator on the basis that Pace has not actively worked in pest control for some months, that substantial and competent evidence exist which indicates that Pace's expertise in pest control is lacking, and that his prior conduct raises questions of his business reputation and his ability to supervise employees. The Hearing Officer would further reand that Lewis S. Hall's request for an identification card for Pace be disapproved on the specific basis that Pace misrepresented an infestation to Mrs. Marian Redlin, which reflects adversely on Pace's business reputation and good character. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Wollett, Esquire Nixon E. Farnell, Esquire 521 Oak Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 Barbara Dell McPherson, Esquire Post Office Box 2417 F Jacksonville, Florida 32231
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the administrative complaints against Byron Bales (Case No. 83- 1224), Aubrey L. Blocker (Case No. 83-767), Colonel Matthew Bales (Case No. 83- 762), and Robert M. Bales, Jr. (Case No. 83-766) be dismissed; That the identification card of Stanley E. Fryer (Case No. 83-778) be suspended for ninety (90) days and that a fine in the amount of $100.00, payable within thirty (30) days, be assessed against Fryer; That the identification card and certificate of John H. Witherspoon (Case-No. 83-777) be suspended for six (6) months and that a fine in the amount of $250.00, payable within thirty (30) days, be assessed against Witherspoon; That the Company's Jacksonville business license (Case No. 83-776 and 84-0855) be suspended for six (6) months and that a fine in the amount of $250.00, payable within thirty (30) days, be assessed against the licensee; and That the Company's Live Oak/Wellborn license (Case No. 83-765 and 84- 0038) be suspended for twelve (12) months and that a fine in the amount of $500.00, payable within thirty (30) days, be assessed against the licensee. RECOMMENDED this 7 day of August, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 7 day of August, 1984.
