The Issue Whether Petitioner violated Sections B-13 A (4), B-13 A (6), B-13 A (22), B-13 A (26), B-13 A (32), B-13 A (33), and B-13 A (34) of the Emerald Coast Utility Authorities’ (“ECUA”) Human Resources Manual (“the Manual”).
Findings Of Fact Chapter 2001-324, Laws of Florida, declared the Escambia County Utilities Authority an independent special district with transferred assets and enumerated powers. Chapter 2004-398, Laws of Florida, changed the Escambia County Utilities Authority’s name to ECUA. By law, ECUA provides utility services throughout Escambia County, Florida, and has the power to appoint, remove, and suspend its employees. ECUA’s mission statement specifies that ECUA and its employees “are committed to providing the highest quality service” and that “ECUA will always provide cost-effective services.” ECUA has adopted standards set forth in the Manual in order to govern employee conduct. Ms. Berry began working for ECUA on November 24, 2017, as a Sanitation Equipment Operator I. On November 13, 2017, Ms. Berry received an ECUA document memorializing certain expectations of all sanitation equipment operators. One of the requirements mandated that “[a]ll Garbage and Recycle cans must be left in the upright position with the can lid closed.” ECUA promoted Ms. Berry to a Sanitation Equipment Operator II on November 13, 2018. ECUA’s description of the Sanitation Equipment Operator II position describes the “essential job functions” as follows: Operates a heavy duty, highly technical, and specially designed, one-person automated residential or commercial refuse collection truck equipped with a hydraulically operated container loading and waste packing mechanism in order to remove solid waste on an assigned collection route. Required to manually load yard trash, brush, or bulk waste when assigned to yard-trash duty. Operates a heavy duty residential rear-loading, semi-automated refuse collection truck equipped with a hydraulically operated container leading and waste packing mechanism in order to remove solid waste on an assigned collection route, while acting as crew leader for the two/three person assigned crew. Keith Kyles, Sr., has been ECUA’s Sanitation Collection Manager for the last three- and one-half years, and he was responsible for hiring Ms. Berry. Mr. Kyles received a customer complaint regarding Ms. Berry’s job performance. That same customer emailed Mr. Kyles three videos from his door camera of Ms. Berry’s garbage truck picking up trash in front of the customer’s home. The first video was taken on May 7, 2020, and depicts Ms. Berry’s garbage truck using the grabber arm to pick up a trash can while the garbage truck is in motion. According to Mr. Kyles, operating a grabber arm with the garbage truck in motion puts excessive strain on the garbage truck’s engine by causing the rotations-per-minute (“RPMs”) to reach a dangerous level. The first video also depicts the garbage truck coming to a rolling stop, the grabber arm dropping the trash can, and the garbage truck driving away with the trash can left on its side. The video does not depict the garbage truck driver returning in order to place the trash can upright. The second video was taken on June 25, 2020, and depicts Ms. Berry’s garbage truck in motion with the grabber arm in operation. The garbage truck came to a rolling stop and placed the trash can in front of the customer’s next-door neighbor’s house. The video does not depict the garbage truck driver returning the trash can to the customer’s property. The third video was taken on July 2, 2020, and depicts Ms. Berry’s truck coming to a stop in order to pick up the customer’s trash can. With the grabber arm in operation, the garbage truck inexplicably drives in reverse for approximately 20 yards while emitting an audible back-up signal. However, there was no pause between the initiation of the back-up signal and the garbage truck’s backward movement. The garbage truck then moved forward, and the grabber arm returned the trash can to the customer’s property. Mr. Kyles explained that every ECUA garbage truck is equipped with a backup camera and that those backup cameras take approximately five seconds to engage once the garbage truck is put into reverse. While ECUA’s garbage trucks have mirrors, Mr. Kyles testified that the mirrors do not give drivers a complete view of who or what is behind the garbage truck. Ms. Berry’s timesheets indicate that she was working on May 7, 2020, June 23, 2020, and July 2, 2020, and Mr. Kyles credibly determined that she was the driver depicted in the videos. After conferring with Ms. Berry’s direct supervisor, Mr. Kyles decided that Ms. Berry’s ECUA employment should be terminated. Accordingly, Mr. Kyles issued a letter on July 8, 2020, describing the allegations against Ms. Berry and notifying her that a predetermination hearing would be held on July 13, 2020.2 Mr. Kyles issued a letter on July 16, 2020, stating that Ms. Berry’s employment with ECUA was terminated and that the termination would be effective at the close of business on July 16, 2020. Mr. Kyles’s July 16, 2020, letter explained the basis for his decision: During the hearing, you recounted your activities surrounding the events outlined in the Notice of Hearing and stated that you had previously “tagged” the customer’s garbage can in an attempt to have the customer place the can in a different location. You described your unsafe driving practices when you admitted to having your ECUA truck in motion while dumping the customer’s can and, in doing so, failed to properly place the can in its original location. Your actions, as described in the Notice of Hearing, appeared to be deliberate in 2 The letter stated that “[t]he purpose of the predetermination hearing is to avoid an erroneous decision by giving you the opportunity to address your alleged violations referenced above. You have the right to provide any documents, explanations or comments to refute the allegations. Your response may be oral, in writing, or both.” nature. Moreover, they breached the trust placed in ECUA by the public and were a violation of ECUA rules and procedures. Mr. Kyles’s July 16, 2020, letter alleged that Ms. Berry violated the following provisions of the Manual: Sections B-13 A (4), B-13 A (6), B-13 A (22), B-13 A (26), B-13 A (32), B-13 A (33), and B-13 A (34). During her testimony, Ms. Berry neither admitted nor denied the allegations. She testified that she is not the only sanitation equipment operator who has dropped a can and that she always checks her mirrors. Because there was no property damage, she believes that termination of her ECUA employment is too harsh. As discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, ECUA proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Berry violated the aforementioned provisions of the Manual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the executive director of the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority find that Sugar T. Berry violated Sections B-13 A (4), B-13 A (6), B-13 A (22), B-13 A (26), B-13 A (32), B-13 A (33), and B-13 A (34) of the ECUA’s Human Resources Manual.3 DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us 3 The Contract specifies that “[t]he ALJ will issue findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law to the Executive Director within thirty (30) days after close of the hearing record. Based upon the findings of fact and recommended conclusions of law, the ALJ will determine whether the employee has committed the violation as charged, but the ALJ will not comment on, or recommend, any disciplinary penalty.” Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Jessica L. Scholl, Esquire Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A. Post Office Box 13290 Pensacola, Florida 32591 J. Bruce Woody, Executive Director Emerald Coast Utilities Authority 9255 Sturdevant Street Pensacola, Florida 32514 Sugar T. Berry Post Office Box 3684 Milton, Florida 32572 Cynthia Sutherland, Director Human Resources and Administrative Services Emerald Coast Utilities Authority 9255 Sturdevant Street Pensacola, Florida 32514
The Issue Whether Beker Phosphate Corporation should be granted a hermit to construct an industrial waste water facility pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes. By application, dated April 8, 1975, Beker Phosphate Corporation (hereinafter Beker) , sought a permit to construct an industrial waste water facility in Manatee County, Florida, from the Department of Pollution Control (now and hereinafter DER) . The application was received on April 11 and, after advising Beker that the application was incomplete a meeting was held on May 9th between DER and Beker representatives with the result that Beker filed a new application dated June 11, that was received by the DER in July. Further meetings were held in the fall of 1975 and additional in formation was received as to the application. On December 16, 1975, DER secretary. Jay W. Landers, Jr., issued a Notice Of Intent To Grant A Permit With Conditions. The conditions were unspecified in the letter of intent (Exhibit 1.) Subsequently, on December 23 and December 24, 1975, Sarasota County (hereinafter Sarasota) and the Town of Longboat Key (hereinafter Longboat Key), respectively, filed petitions with the DER alleging that their substantial interests would be adversely affected by approval of the permit application and setting forth in their petitions certain disputed questions of fact for determination. After a prehearing conference, Amended Petitions were filed by those parties to clarify and expand on such questions of fact and to resolve procedural matters. Additionally, during this period, George Browning, III, of Sarasota, Florida was granted status as an intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Beker proposes to construct a phosphate rock mine and beneficiation plant on a tract of approximately 11,000 acres in a predominately agricultural and ranching area of Manatee County about 10 miles from Myakka City, Florida. The mining will be performed by two dredges. One will mine overburden and return it to the mined-out area and the other will mine phosphate rock matrix which will be pumped to the beneficiation plant. The plant will consist essentially of two circuits. The first is a washer where the matrix pumped from the dredging operation is partially cleaned of clay and fine sand, and the coarser phosphate particles "pebbles" are separated as a product. The "fines" from the washing operation consist of small phosphate rock particles, sand, and clay. This mixture will be treated in the second section of the plant by "flotation" methods to recover the small phosphate rock particles as a product. During initial operation, the sand and clay will be stored in a temporary waste material storage area, but as the mining proceeds and the dredge pits open up, the sand and clay material will be pumped back to the dredge pits so that sand, and overburden will be mixed and redeposited to reclaim the land. Approximately 8 million gallons of fresh water per day will be drawn from the Floridian aquifer to be used in the flotation circuits. From the plant the water flows in two types of streams--one containing sand suspended in water and one containing clay suspended in water. Both streams flow into a settling pond surrounded by an earthen dam where sand and clay solids settle to the bottom. The clarified water is then decanted through six spillway structures into a hydraulic recirculation ditch outside the dam and flows back to the plant for re-use. The ponds and canals that make up the hydraulic circuit are planned to have sufficient capacity to contain rainwater falling on the site and pond system during the wet season when there are heavy rainfalls (approximately from May to September). Excess water will be decanted from the hydraulic recirculation ditch through a structure into a pipe and then discharged into Wingate Creek. The settling pond will occupy approximately 225 acres and its capacity will be about 8,458 acre- feet. The pond itself can be used to act as a reservoir and water can be built up in the pond during periods of high rainfall. It will not be necessary to release the water at any particular time. It can be released at will when the effluent contains a minimum of pollutant materials (Exhibit 1). Matrix is an unconsolidated mixture of phosphate pebbles and boulders of partly phosphatized limestone, quartz and clay. The washing operation removes unwanted oversized material and fine clays. The purpose of the flotation plant is to recover fine phosphate rock that might otherwise be lost. In the flotation process, flotation reagents, including sulfuric acid, number 2 fuel oil, tall oil, sodium hydroxide, and amines are used for treatment. The wastes are then moved to the settling pond where over a period of time the "slimes", (sands and clays) will settle to the bottom forming an impervious layer which will seal the pond. The settling process removes more than 90 percent of the contaminants from the influent. The coarser clay particles settle first and many of the fine particles settle in a process called "flocculation" by which electrical forces bring the particles together. However, some of the particles will not flocculate and remain suspended in the water. These extremely small particles constitute the total suspended solids that remain in the effluent when it is discharged from the settling area. They probably will not settle out entirely during their course from Wingate Creek into the Myaaka River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. However, even if it were assumed that such materials would settle somewhere between the point of discharge and Charlotte Harbor, over the entire 20 year proposed life of the mine they would form a deposit much less than 1/10th of an inch. Although it is technically possible to treat water to the degree that it would result in distilled water, realistic concepts of treatment establish that an additional settling or "polishing" pond for the proposed facility might not improve the quality of the wastewater finally discharged in state waters to any appreciable degree. Alternative proposals for the reduction of pollutants by additional processing, such as the intentional growth of water hyacinths in settling areas or use of chemical coagulants would result in creating other waste materials and thus be counterproductive (Testimony of Bromwell; Exhibit 1). The applicant's discharge of wastewater to Wingate Creek will average approximately 3.19 million gallons per day. However, since discharge will be effected primarily during periods of excessive rainfall, actual discharges can reach a maximum of about ten million gallons per day during this period. The effluent contained in such discharge will meet the test of at least 90 percent removal of organic and inorganic wastes specified by Rule 17-3.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, when measured by the influent into the settling pond and the effluent leaving that area. This treatment, however, will not produce an effluent equivalent to that produced by the "highest quality municipal waste treatment." The highest degree of treatment that has been reached by municipalities is "advanced waste treatment" as defined in Rule 17-3.04(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The water quality characteristics of the effluent will meet the standards of Rule 17-3.05 as to concentrations of those pollutants reasonably anticipated to be fond in the wastewater based on samples taken where the waters are discharged into Wingate Creek (Testimony of Gilgallon, Davis, Edwards, Heinzman, Bromwell, Bartow, Wellford, Exhibit 1). In preparing the application, no consideration was given to the need of meeting treatment standards for highest quality municipal waste treatment or advanced waste treatment. Neither did the recommending official of the DER, Mr. Edwards, then Regional Administrator for the Southwest Region, consider this standard because he had been advised by the DER legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) did not apply to Wingate Creek since it was not a tributary to one of the bodies of water listed in subparagraph (c) of the rule 17-3.04(2). This determination was based upon Resolution No. 74-83, September 17, 1974, of the Florida Pollution Control Board that was issued after legal challenges had been made to an interpretation by the Department of Pollution Control legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) required advanced wastewater treatment for industrial waste discharges. The Board, in its resolution, determined that since evidence had not been taken concerning treatment standards for industrial waste discharges at the time of adoption of the effluent standards for sanitary waste contained in Rule 17-3.04(2), the advanced wastewater treatment standards in the aforesaid rule would not be enforced against industrial dischargers pending full hearings on a new Rule to clearly express the Board's intent in this regard (Testimony of Gilgallon, Edwards; Exhibit 1). Special conditions that the Southwest Region, Department of Environmental Regulation, recommends should be attached to any issuance of a construction permit, other than standard conditions and those relating to other types of permits, are as follow: Approval by DER prior to the construction of any above grade phosphatic clay storage facility other than the initial settling pond. Removal efficiencies for oil and grease shall be a minimum of 90 percent and shall not exceed 14 milligrams per liter measured in the discharge effluent. Discharge effluent to Wingate Creek shall meet the water quality standards of Chapter 17-3.05(2) at the point of discharge prior to mixing with the receiving stream. Further treatment of the discharge will be required in the event compliance with proviso (c) above cannot be achieved or significant degradation of the receiving stream occurs as determined by the DER. In addition to required routine monitoring, a detailed analysis of the untreated and treated wastewater to be conducted once on representative samples during (1) month of July and (2) month of February. Such analyses shall, as a minimum, include all the parameters listed in 17-3:05(2). Applicants shall conduct an investigation into total retention possibilities of the effluent including, but not limited to, the following areas: recharge wells retention and storage of excess water during the "wet" season with subsequent reuse during the "dry" season for process and/or irrigation purposes. A report of these investigations shall be submitted prior to submission of operation permit application The location of monitoring wells shall be down gradient from the settling pond. Detailed proposal, subject to the DER approval, regarding exact location and number of wells to adequately ascertain the impact of seepage to be submitted no later than 90 days prior to commencement of operation. Bond to be posted for damages that may result from a clay settling area dam failure. Oral and written communications from the public were received at the hearing and included the following: Announcement by the County Attorney, Manatee County, that the county did not plan to appeal the DER Notice of Intent to Grant the permit (Statement of E.N. Fay, Jr.). The Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Natural Resources, fears that the construction of the phosphate mine up-stream from the Myaaka diver State Park poses a serious potential threat to its aquatic habitat due to the possibility of a dam failure. It also fears that pollutants from the project will tend to settle as the river waters flow through the two lakes in the park. It therefore, opposes the construction until assurance can be given that proper safeguards have been taken to prevent such problems (Testimony of Alverez). The Longboat Key Garden Club believes that the project would involve too much water consumption and also that phosphate mining should be halted until further government studies are made to assure that the safety and health of the populace and the environment will not be endangered through polluted runoff and phosphate spills (Testimony of Monroe). The Save Our Bays Association in Manatee County has collected petitions from citizens in Manatee County requesting a referendum on a ballot this November for or against phosphate mining. The Association believes that such a vote should be taken before final decision is made on the subject. Its spokesman fears that if the quality and quantity of the drinking water is disrupted, it will interfere with continued tourist trade (Testimony of Howard Greer). The Palma Sola Parks Association opposes the Beker Application until there is greater assurance of environmentally safe mining (Testimony of Blankenship) A former physical and health education director is concerned about the fact that there has not been sufficient data collected on the effect of radioactive materials in runoff and waste. She believes there should be more research in these areas and asked that the public be protected from such hazards (Testimony of Mary Kay Greer). The Manasota-88 project for environmental qualities of 1968 and 1988 believes that issuance of the permit should be withheld until health implications can be determined concerning potential hazards to the Myakka and Manatee Rivers' watersheds (Exhibit 7). A former member of the Manatee County Planning Commission that approved the Beker application prior to action by the County Commission of Manatee County is in favor of the proposed project because Beker's plan to impound water will augment the water facilities of the county (Testimony of Reasoner). The City of Bradenton believes that since it is being required to meet advanced water treatment standards of discharge for sanitary sewage, Beker Phosphate Corporation should be required to meet similar standards (Testimony of Mayor A.K. Leach). A member of the Myakka City Civic Association who is an adjacent land owner to Beker Phosphate Corporation feels that the project is necessary in order to produce jobs for individuals in that area of the county (Testimony of Mizell). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned that proposed construction of two dams by the applicant will destroy approximately (4) acres of mangrove areas, three acres of pasture land and about 185 acres of bottom land or hardwood habitat. It recommends an alternative method of backup levies constructed around the primary settling bases on the applicant's land to contain any spills and prevent destruction of the streams and associated wetlands (Testimony of Johnston) The Conservation Council of Manatee County believes that Beker's unique mining and reclamation plan will help the farming industry and also create necessary water reserviors and recreation areas, and therefore endorses its proposal to mine in Manatee County (Testimony of Kent, Exhibit 14). Petitions were submitted at the hearing from approximately 3,000 individuals living in Manatee and Sarasota Counties opposing the issuance of the permit because they believe that phosphate mining is dangerous to the quality and supply of the water and endangers the health of the people (Composite Exhibit 9, Testimony of Humphrey).
The Issue The issue presented is whether the application of Respondent Robbie's Safe Harbor Marine Enterprises, Inc., for a general permit to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station should be granted.
Findings Of Fact In April 1998 Respondent Robbie's Safe Harbor Marine Enterprises, Inc., filed an application with Respondent Department of Environmental Protection, seeking a general permit to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station at the end of Shrimp Road on Stock Island in Monroe County, Florida. The application was accompanied by the required supporting documentation, including a site plan and an engineering report. The site plan submitted with the application depicted access to the transfer station by using Shrimp Road. The access road was also designated as a private road. What the site plan and remainder of the application did not reveal is that Shrimp Road, the private road providing access from the public road system to the proposed solid waste transfer station, is not owned by Robbie's. Rather, the road is owned by the adjoining property owner, Petitioner Safe Harbor Enterprises, Inc. Robbie's is the holder of an easement allowing use of Shrimp Road. Robbie's published notice of its application for a general permit to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station. As a result of that notice, the adjoining property owner, Safe Harbor Enterprises, Inc., filed the petition initiating the instant proceeding, objecting to the issuance of a general permit to Robbie's. On February 2, 1998, prior to Robbie's filing its application for a general permit to construct and operate its solid waste transfer station, Robbie's entered into a Consent Order with the Department which resolved the Department's allegations that Robbie's had been operating a solid waste transfer facility without a permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Robbie's Safe Harbor Marine Enterprises, Inc.'s, application for a general permit to construct and operate a solid waste transfer station. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 29th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger M. Bernstein, Vice-President Safe Harbor Enterprises, Inc. Post Office Box 144235 Coral Gables, Florida 33144 Tracy J. Adams, Esquire Tracy J. Adams, P.A. 617 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Department (DER) is the regulatory agency of Florida charged with the duty and authority to administer and enforce Chapter 403 and Sections 376.30-376.319, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Hendry is a Florida corporation that has been conducting business in excess of 60 years. The two main aspects of its business are the dredging operation and the shipyard. Hendry's site can be loosely described as an industrial site. The shipyard division performs approximately one-half its work for governmental entities, particularly the U.S. Coast Guard, which operations are largely ship refurbishing. Hendry has a Coast Guard certificate enabling it to receive mixtures containing oil and oily water waste. A significant portion of Hendry's ship refurbishing work involves repairing/replacing steel on ships which has deteriorated due to salt water exposure. That work frequently requires cutting, welding and burning. Prior to commencing the refurbrushing work, the ships must be certified as safe. In certifying a ship as being safe, the bilge area is pumped of used oil or waste oil which collects in standing waste water and oil. Also, before that works commences, the ship is defueled. Currently, Hendry's practice is to subcontract the pumping of waste oil from the ships bilge, which waste oil is pumped directly into the tanker truck of the subcontractor. Hendry no longer pumps or stores waste oil on site. In the past, the waste oil and water from the ship's bilge was pumped from the ship through a pipeline from the dry dock across the property to a 10,000 gallon above-ground storage tank. During December 1987, the U.S. Coast Guard observed a fuel spill on the water at Petitioner's facility. Based on that observation, Respondent conducted site inspections of Petitioner's facility during March and April 1988. The fuel spill was occasioned by Petitioner's refurbishment of a tuna boat at its site. Petitioner subsequently received a warning notice regarding alleged violations in its petroleum storage tanks and contamination. The transfer pipeline is of steel construction. Between 1980 and 1984, the pipeline leaked. In 1984, the pipeline was rerun with PVC line and in 1986, it was refitted with 4 inch steel pipe. The 10,000 gallon above-ground tank is located in Area 1. The removal of waste oil occasionally resulted in accidental spills. After 1985, a smaller, above-ground tank was installed adjacent to the 10,000 gallon tank to provide a storage tank for draining off water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The small tank was used to receive only water drained from the 10,000 gallon tank. Prior to installation of the small tank, a retention pond was used to drain water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The retention pond had a 2 foot berm with a visqueen liner. In October 1988, Hendry submitted an EDI Program Notification Application, a prerequisite for EDI reimbursement eligibility, under the program for costs associated with cleanup of certain petroleum contamination. In May 1989, Hendry submitted a document entitled Preliminary Contamination Assessment III Specific Areas--Task IV Rattlesnake Terminal Facility--Westshore Boulevard, Hillsborough County prepared by Mortensen Engineering, Inc. That document included reports of analysis of oil and groundwater samples taken from the site in January, March and April 1989, demonstrating extensive contamination of soil and groundwater including "free product" in monitoring wells MW-2, MW-4 and MW-4A. By letter dated November 9, 1989, the Department informed Hendry of its determination that the facility had been denied EDI reimbursement based on specific enumerated findings. Hendry entered into a stipulation with the Department on October 16, 1990, "regarding the conduct of this case and the basis for denial. " Attached to the stipulation is a sketch of the facility grounds showing a rough division of the area into four separate areas. Area 1 has two waste tanks. One was a large 10,000 gallon closed tank approximately 20 feet high and 12 feet in diameter; the other contained a volume of approximately 1,500-2,000 gallons and was an open tank. Petitioner's practice was to pump bilge in the dry dock area, located west of "Area 2" and direct the waste through underground pipes to the 10,000 gallon tank. The smaller tank was used to "bleed" water from the larger tank. Bilge waste is approximately two-thirds water. Area 2 was the location of Hendry's diesel tank farm. In the stipulation, the Department agreed to withdraw two of the seven specific grounds for the denial, namely denial of site access and failure to report discharges. Likewise, Hendry agreed to withdraw "Area 4" from its application for EDI eligibility. In the stipulation, Hendry was informed of a then recent amendment to Section 376.3071(9), which offered certain applicants who had been earlier determined ineligible for participation in the EDI program, standards and procedures for obtaining reconsideration of eligibility. The amendment required the facility to come into compliance, certify that compliance and request reconsideration prior to March 31, 1991. Additionally, compliance was to be verified by a Department inspection. Pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the stipulation, these standards and procedures were specifically to be applied to Areas 2 and 3 at the facility. Hendry did not make a written request for reconsideration of the denial of eligibility with respect to Areas 2 and 3 on or before March 31, 1991 or at anytime subsequently. Hendry also did not come into compliance with the underground or above-ground storage tanks system regulations on or before March 31, 1991 in that Hendry failed to register a 560-gallon above-ground diesel storage tank which was onsite on that date as required by Rule 17-762.400, Florida Administrative Code. Hendry also failed to notify the Department of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC), as the administrator of a designated local program at least thirty days prior to closure of the storage tank system, pursuant to Subsection 376.3073, Florida Statutes. These determinations were made on April 1, 1991 by Hector Diaz, inspector in the HCEPC tanks program. Hendry submitted a registration form for the 560-gallon tank on November 18, 1991, which was of course subsequent to the March 31, 1991 deadline. Hendry stored petroleum products and waste material including petroleum constituents in the above-ground tanks until approximately March 25, 1991 when it initiated tank removal. Hendry's above-ground storage tanks, which were in use at its facility for approximately three years after extensive soil contamination was documented, were without secondary containment. In November 1991, Hendry submitted a document entitled Supplemental Preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, prepared by Keifer-Block Environmental Services, Inc. (Supplemental PCAR). The stated purpose of the study was solely to determine whether hazardous constituents were present in groundwater in Areas 2 and 3. The report included laboratory analysis of groundwater samples taken from the site in August 1991 including monitoring wells located in Area 3. The results of these analysis reflect that Area 3 is contaminated solely with heavy metals, lead and chromium. No petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was detected in Area 3. In the area adjacent to Area 2, seven of eight monitoring wells show chromium or lead contamination. Hendry had, and continues to have, a practice of removing paint from vessels by blasting them with a gritty material known as "black beauty." This practice takes place in the dry dock area near Areas 2 and 3. The waste blast grit/paint chip mixture is vacuumed or shoveled into wheelbarrels or a frontend loader and dumped into an open pile. Occasionally, the waste blast grit/paint mixture is blown about or spilled. Waste "black beauty" has been observed scattered on the ground throughout the facility. Paints sometime contain heavy metals, specifically, lead and chromium. The concentrations and distribution of lead and chromium contamination at the site are consistent with Hendry's long-standing practice of grit-- blasting paint from ships and other vessels and allowing the metal-contaminated paint and waste mixture to fall to the ground. Areas 2 and 3 are contaminated with substances other than petroleum or petroleum products, namely heavy metals. Costs associated with cleanup of lead and chromium are not reimburseable under the EDI program. Paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation allowed Hendry an opportunity to establish eligibility for Area 1 by providing information regarding operating practices at two above-ground storage tanks and a retention pond in that area demonstrating that contamination in that area is predominantly from leaks or unintentional spills of petroleum products from the tanks in that area. Hendry did not provide the required information. On January 27, 1992, Hendry submitted to the Department an affidavit executed by its principal, Aaron Hendry, which Hendry contends fulfills the requirements of paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation. Hendry, the principal who executed the affidavit, is an affiant with a legal and financial interest in the outcome of the EDI eligibility determination. The executed affidavit did not contain specific information with respect to "operating practices at the tanks and retention ponds as required by the stipulation." Specifically, the affidavit is silent as to: What the tanks were made of; When, how and by whom they were installed; What piping, leak detection or overfill protection was associated with them; What repairs or alterations had been made to them; What inventory reconciliation methods were used; Where the materials came from which was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was removed from the tanks; Disposition of material removed from the tanks; When, how, by whom and why the retention pond was dug; How and for what period of time the retention pond was used; How, often and by whom inspections of the tanks were conducted; When and how leaks occurred and were discovered at the tanks; When and how spills occurred and were discovered at the tanks; What records, including reports to state or local agencies, insurance claims, newspaper accounts, and so forth were kept with respect to leaks or spills at the tanks; What cleanup efforts were made at the time of any leaks or spills; Documentation related to registration of the tanks with state or local agencies; and Documentation with respect to any removal of the tanks, including any description of the condition of the tanks when, or if, removed. For years, the facility's retention pit was used as a "waste pit" namely, a rectangular hole in the ground, approximately 30 feet by 120 feet by 3 feet, for direct discharge of bilge waste piped from vessels at the dry dock area to the waste pit, prior to installation of the storage tank systems. After installation of the large tank in Area 1, the retention pit was used to bleed water from the bilge tank. In the past, the Department has denied eligibility to facilities where a retention pond was used for disposal of petroleum related waste and cleanup of contamination resulting from use of a retention pond. Hendry's affidavit nor other documentation submitted to the Department prior to the EDI redetermination or at hearing establishes that the bilge waste taken from the storage tanks was "a liquid fuel commodity" or recycled into such a commodity. By letter dated June 9, 1992, the Department notified Hendry that reconsideration of its EDI eligibility request for Areas 2 and 3 was denied and that the affidavit of Aaron Hendry submitted with respect to Area 1 did not satisfy the requirements of the stipulation. Thereafter, Hendry challenged the Department's denial of reconsideration and EDI eligibility which joins the issue for this proceeding. The hazardous waste allegation discovered during an inspection of Hendry's facility on April 14, 1988, resulted in a consent order which was entered as a final order of the Department on November 21, 1990. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to demonstrate that not all areas at the facility were hazardous waste disposal areas and, thus, not all areas would be subject to closure and cleanup under the permitting requirements of Subsection 403.722, Florida Statutes and the remediation standards set forth in Chapter 17-730, Florida Administrative Code. To establish appropriate remediation standards and procedures which would be applicable to various areas, Hendry was required to prepare a property diagram designating areas at the property exhibiting any of the following types of contamination: Areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products or used oil which is not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by materials which are not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by the past or present disposal of hazardous waste. The consent order allows contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code, for areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 11.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the Department's corrective action and groundwater contamination cases for all areas at the facility contaminated by used oil which is not hazardous waste or by hazardous material. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 12.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to a closure permit with a contingent post-closure plan to close the areas at the facility contaminated by the disposal of hazardous waste. In response to the consent order to delineate areas on the property exhibiting various types of contamination, Hendry submitted the supplemental PCAR. By letter dated March 19, 1992, the Department responded to the supplemental PCAR with a determination that: Area 1 can be assessed and remediated through the standards set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code. Contamination in Areas 2 and 3 includes heavy metals, which are hazardous materials. Thus, Areas 2 and 3 should be assessed and remediated through the corrective action process for groundwater contamination cases. A hazardous waste facility closure permit application should be submitted for assessment and remediation of Area 4, which, because of the presence of Dichloroethylene, a hazardous substance and chlorinated solvent, should be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2. Hendry had a practice of cleaning electrical motors by placing such motors on the ground outside the electrical repair shop near Area 4. The motors were sprayed with Trichloroethylene, a waste solvent, which was allowed to runoff into the soil. At the time of this practice, the intention was to leave the solvent contamination unchecked. The Department, pursuant to directives from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), characterizes the disposition of hazardous waste to the environment as a result of intentional, ongoing industrial practices as "disposal of hazardous waste" within the meaning of Subsection 475.703(21), Florida Statutes and 40 CFR 260.10. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to challenge the Department's determination with respect to delineation of the various areas by filing a petition per paragraph 21 of the order for formal administrative hearings. Hendry filed its petition with respect to the March 19, 1992 letter, which petition is the subject of DOAH Case No. 92-2312.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that 1) the contamination areas at issue herein are not eligible for EDI reimbursement under Subsections 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes; 2) that Petitioner cleanup the contamination in Areas 1, 2 and 3 under the guidance document entitled "Corrective Actions for Groundwater Contamination Cases"; and 3) that Area 4 be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2 and closed through a hazardous waste closure/post closure permit application process. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 14, partially adopted in Paragraph 13, Recommended Order. Paragraph 19, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and speculative. Paragraph 20, rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 21, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 24-28, Recommended Order. Paragraph 22, partially adopted, Paragraphs 13 and 14, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, partially adopted, Paragraph 15, Recommended Order. Paragraph 29, partially adopted, Paragraph 18, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 48, 49, 51, 52, 60, 62 and 73 rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 33, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 38, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 41, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and the two cases cited at hearing where Respondent exercises his discretion are distinguishable from Petitioner's failure to timely apply. Paragraph 43, rejected, unnecessary and/or argument. Paragraph 45, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 50, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 37-39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 54, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 55, rejected, not probative. Paragraphs 56 and 57, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 58 and 59, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 23 and 24, Recommended Order. Paragraph 61, rejected, speculative and unnecessary. Paragraph 63, rejected, speculative. Paragraph 67, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 68, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraph 69, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 70, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 72, rejected, irrelevant and not necessary to the issues posed. Paragraph 74, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and unnecessary. Paragraph 75, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 76, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 77, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 78 and 79, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraph 80, rejected, not probative. Rulings in Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 2 and 3, adopted in part, Paragraph 9, Recommended Order. Paragraph 12, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, adopted in part, Paragraph 32, Recommended Order. Paragraph 27, adopted in part, Paragraphs 38 and 39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 30, rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Patka, Esquire Rory C. Ryan, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT 200 South Orange Ave - Suite 2600 Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Agusta P. Posner, Esquire Lisa Duchene, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400
Findings Of Fact On November 29, 1988, Respondent, Trans Pac, Inc., (Trans Pac), a development company, filed its initial application for a construction permit to build a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility in Escambia County, Florida. Trans Pac's stock is owned by James Dahl of Los Angeles, California. Trans Pac's president is Steven Andrews. Steven Andrews is also president of The Andrews Group, d/b/a Chemical Development Company. Chemical Development Company is in the business of developing hazardous waste facilities. Sometime after filing its application, Trans Pac advertised for interested persons to contact it about the possible sale of the facility. At the time of the hearing, Trans Pac had not had any serious offers for the property and had not finally decided whether it will sell the facility. Trans Pac is seriously considering a joint venture arrangement, although no specifics as to such an arrangement have been formalized or finalized. When consideration is given to the unripe nature of this "proposed sale", it cannot be concluded that the above facts constitute competent and reliable evidence which would support the conclusion that Trans Pac had failed to give such reasonable assurances that the facility would be operated in accordance with Florida law. Too much speculation is required before such a conclusion can be reached. However, Trans Pac has stipulated that it will publish a notice of any sale prior to the closing of that sale if that event should occur. The notice would be published in accordance with the provisions and time periods established in Rule 17-103.15, Florida Administrative Code, and should afford an affected person a reasonable time to challenge the sale before the sale closes. Any contract of sale would incorporate the notice requirements and the sale would be made contingent upon compliance with the above conditions. Such a notice would afford any affected person the opportunity to challenge the ability of the transferee to operate the facility. With the above stipulation made a part of any permit, there is no failure by Trans Pac to provide reasonable assurances that the facility will be operated in accordance with Florida law. Escambia County is within the West Florida Planning Region. The West Florida Planning Region consists of Bay County, Escambia County, Holmes County, Okaloosa County, Santa Rosa County, Walton County and Washington County. The proposed site for the facility is just outside the community of Beulah, on County Road 99, northeast of and adjacent to the Perdido Landfill. The site is not within, but adjacent to the area designated by the West Florida Regional Planning Council as an area on which a hazardous waste temporary storage and transfer facility could be located. 2/ The proposed site is approximately one mile away from the Perdido River, an outstanding Florida water. The area is primarily a rural area. When the proposed location of this facility was announced in the local news, the value of property around the proposed site decreased. One person, who was within a few miles of the proposed site, lost the contract of sale on his property and was advised by the purchasers that no reduction in price would renew their interest. Another individual's property in the same area decreased in value by approximately $10,000. Many people in the Beaulah area had their dreams and the quiet enjoyment of their property threatened by the location of this facility. Some cannot afford to sell their property and relocate. At present there is no mechanism by which any of the property owners in proximity to the proposed site can recoup their losses. Some property owners believe that such a mechanism should include the establishment of some type of independent trust fund funded with enough money to cover an estimate of such losses, and an independent review of any disputed claims of loss. However, there is no provision under Florida law to impose a permit condition which establishes a procedure to cover the pecuniary losses of property owners close to the facility. The proposed facility will be a permanent storage and treatment facility and will have a maximum waste storage capacity of 106,000 gallons and a maximum treatment capacity of 2,000 gallons per day for neutralization, 5,000 gallons per day for organic separation, 2,000 gallons per day for ozonation, and 4,000 gallons per day for solidification. Hazardous waste is a solid waste which exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: a) ignitability, b) corrosivity, c) reactivity, d) EP toxicity. Such waste can be further classified as a toxic waste or as an acute hazardous waste. 3/ An acute hazardous waste is a solid waste which has been found to be fatal to humans in low doses or, has been shown in studies to have an oral, inhalation or dermal toxicity to rats or rabbits at a certain level, or has been shown to significantly contribute to an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness. A toxic waste is any waste containing any one of a number of specified constituents. A "characteristic" of hazardous waste is identified and defined only when a solid waste with a certain type of characteristic may: a) cause or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness, or b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed, and the characteristic can be: a) measured by an available standardized test, or b) can be reasonably detected by generators of solid waste through their knowledge of their waste. Put simply, hazardous waste is very dangerous to both humans and the environment and will kill or permanently incapacitate living beings and/or make the environment unlivable. Such waste has the potential to create a hazardous waste desert. A solid waste has the characteristic of ignitability if: a) it is a liquid, other than an aqueous solution containing 24 percent alcohol, which has a flashpoint of 60.C (140.F), b) it is not a liquid and is capable, under standard temperature and pressure, of causing fire through friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous chemical changes and, when ignited burns so vigorously and persistently that it creates a hazard, c) it is an ignitable compressed gas, or d) it is an oxidizer. A solid waste has the characteristic of corrosivity if: a) it is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5 (strong acids or bases), or b) it is a liquid and corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35 millimeters (0.250 inch) per year at a test temperature of 55.C (130.F). A solid waste has the characteristic of reactivity if: a) it is normally unstable and readily undergoes violent change without detonating, b) it reacts violently with water, c) it forms potentially explosive mixtures with water, d) when mixed with water, it generates toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment, e) it is a cyanide or sulfide bearing waste which, when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5, can generate toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment, f) it is capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it is subjected to a strong initiating source or if heated under confinement, g) it is readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition or reaction at standard temperature and pressure, or h) it is a forbidden or Class B explosive as defined in another federal rule. A solid waste has the characteristic of EP toxicity, if, using certain test methods, the extract from a representative sample of the waste contains certain contaminants (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, endrin, lindane, etc.) at a concentration greater than or equal to specified levels for that contaminant. Although the above definitions sound exotic, the wastes which are defined are more often than not the waste generated by routine, normal living. Such waste is the result of almost any type of motor vehicle or machinery maintenance, such as oil and battery changes, metals manufacturing and finishing services, including auto body repair services, transportation services, construction and building repair services, medical and laboratory services, boat building and repair services, dry cleaning, printing of newspapers and 4/ magazines or agriculture, such as gardening. Further, such waste is generated by almost every commercial business category. Almost every person is either directly responsible through use or manufacture, or indirectly responsible through demand for a product or life-style, for the generation of hazardous waste in small quantities. These small individual quantities of hazardous waste add up to a significant portion of all the hazardous waste generated in this state and a significant portion of this waste is not disposed of properly. Improper disposal includes sending the waste to a local landfill or pouring such waste down the drain. Trans Pac's proposed facility will not be permitted for radioactive waste. The types of waste which will be treated and/or stored at the proposed facility are: Singularly or in any combination: D002 Waste --- A solid waste that exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity, but is not listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261. D003 Waste --- A solid waste that exhibits the characteristic of reactivity, but is not listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261. D004 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant arsenic D005 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant barium D006 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant cadmium D007 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant chromium D008 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant lead D010 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant mercury D011 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant silver Singularly or in any combination: F001 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent halogenated solvents used in degreasing: tetrachloroethylene trichloroethylene, 1,1, 1-trichloroethane, methylene chloride, carbon tetrachloride, and chlorinated fluorocarbons, all spent solvent mixtures/blends used in degreasing containing, before use, 10 percent or more of one or more of the above halogenated solvents or those listed in F002, F004, or F005; still bottoms from the recovery of these solvents and mixtures F002 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent halogenated solvents: tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1- trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1, 1, 2-trichlor-1, 2, 2-trifluoroethane, ortho-dichlorobenzene trichlorofluoromethane, 1, 1, 2 - trichloroethane, spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of one of the solvents listed in F001, F004, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F003 Waste --- IGNITABLE -- Spent non-halogenated solvents: xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, methanol, all spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, one or more of the above non-halogenated solvents and a total of 10 percent or more of the solvents listed in F001, F002, F004, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F004 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent non-halogenated solvents: creosols and cresylic acid, nitrobenzene, spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of the above non-halogenated solvents or the solvents listed in F001, F002, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F005 Waste --- IGNITABLE, TOXIC -- Spent non- halogenated solvents: toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, 2- nitropropane, spent solvent Mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of the above non-halogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F001, F002, F004; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F006 Waste ---TOXIC -- Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating from certain specified processes Singularly or in any combination: F007 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating operations F008 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Plating bath residues from the bottom of plating baths from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process F009 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cleaning and stripping bath solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process F010 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC --Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used in the process F011 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning from metal heat treating operations F012 Waste --- TOXIC --Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used in the process Singularly or in any combination: Petroleum refining: K048 Waste --- TOXIC -- Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the petroleum refining industry K049 Waste --- TOXIC -- slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining industry K050 Waste --- TOXIC -- heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry K051 Waste --- TOXIC -- API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry K052 Waste --- TOXIC --- tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining industry Iron and steel: K062 Waste --- CORROSIVE, TOXIC -- spent pickle liquor generated by steel finishing operations of facilities within the iron and steel industry Ink formulation: K086 Waste --- TOXIC -- solvent washes and sludges, caustic washes and sludges, or water washes and sludges from cleaning tubs and equipment used in the formulation of ink from pigments, driers, soaps and stabilizers containing chromium and lead Secondary lead: K100 Waste --- TOXIC -- wastewater leaching solution from acid leaching of emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting The federal law which governs hazardous waste is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its amendments. The RCRA was part of the initial federal effort to manage hazardous waste and expressed a clear preference for the reduction of hazardous waste over managing such wastes at treatment, storage or disposal facilities. The Act required EPA to develop a national plan to manage and regulate hazardous waste and provide states with incentives to develop state hazardous waste management plans. Most of the incentives were based on the availability of federal funds. The federal funds were contingent on the states assuring EPA that a particular disposal site would be available for disposal of any waste generated by a remedial action taken under the Act. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Emergency Response Liability Act (CERCLA). The Act granted EPA the authority and funds to respond to uncontrolled site cleanup, emergency remedial activities, spills and other incidents due to hazardous waste. 5/ As of November, 1989, five such remedial sites are located in Escambia County. The Act also defines the liability of businesses that generate, transport and dispose of hazardous waste. Generators of hazardous waste, generally, have "cradle to grave" liability for the waste they generate. In 1980, the Florida Legislature enacted the state's first hazardous waste law. The law primarily adopted the federal regulations and guidelines on hazardous waste and established separate procedures for permitting and site selection of hazardous waste facilities. The act also directed DER to develop and implement a state hazardous waste management plan. The portions of the 1980 law relative to site selection (403.723, Florida Statutes) provided a cabinet override of a local decision adverse to the location of a hazardous waste facility. In order to obtain a cabinet override, the facility had to have been issued a permit by DER. Need for a hazardous waste facility was not addressed in either the permitting or site selection processes of the Act. In 1983, the legislature passed the Water Quality Assurance Act. The Act amended 403.723, Florida Statutes, to provide that each county prepare a Hazardous Waste Facility Needs Assessment and "designate areas within the County at which a hazardous waste storage facility could be constructed to meet a demonstrated need." The Act further provided in 403.723, Florida Statutes, that, after the counties had completed their assessments, each regional planning council, likewise, would prepare a regional Hazardous Waste Facility Needs Assessment and "designate sites at which a regional hazardous waste storage or treatment facility could be constructed." The regional Assessment included a determination of the quantities and types of hazardous waste generated in the region, a determination of the hazardous waste management practices in use within the region, a determination of the demand for offsite hazardous waste management services, a determination of existing and proposed offsite management capacity available to hazardous waste generators, a determination of the need for additional offsite hazardous waste facilities within the region, and the development of a plan to manage the hazardous waste generated in the region and/or to provide additional offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facility needs. As noted earlier, these plans and designations were required to be made part of the county and regional comprehensive plans. The regional Assessment was completed by the West Florida Regional Planning Council in August of 1985. The assessment was based on a survey of suspected hazardous waste generators in the region. An overall response rate of 76.8 percent was received. The study showed that all types of hazardous waste, except for cyanide waste, are generated within the West Florida Planning Region. 6/ The quantity of hazardous waste produced annually within the region was estimated to be 14,245,064 pounds. The estimates for each County were as follows: Escambia County, 4,582,872 pounds; Okaloosa County, 3,203,534 pounds; Bay County, 2,433,343 pounds; Santa Rosa County, 1,866,831 pounds; Holmes County, 381,840 pounds; Walton County, 229,984 pounds; and Washington County, 170,244 pounds. Based on the survey responses, the study estimated that 11,903,738 pounds (83.6%) of hazardous waste generated annually within the region was not being properly treated or disposed of. The vast majority of the waste (78.1%) found to be improperly treated was a combination of waste oils and greases, spent solvents, and lead-acid batteries. Neither the waste oil and greases or lead- acid batteries are wastes which will be managed at the proposed Trans Pac facility. The study found that a recycling or reuse market existed for waste oil and greases, spent solvents and lead-acid batteries; and therefore, there was no need for a transfer/temporary storage facility. The remaining 2,602,630 pounds of hazardous waste not being properly managed was generated by both large and small quantity generators and is subject to a variety of appropriate waste management methods. The management plan adopted by the West Florida Regional Planning Council sought to encourage first waste reduction, second waste recycling, reuse or recovery, third onsite treatment or incineration methods, and fourth transporting wastes to offsite temporary storage facilities. One of the goals of the plan was to discourage, as much as possible, the importation of hazardous waste from outside the region, and particularly, with the close proximity of the Alabama state line, from outside the state. The plan concluded that due to the small quantity of mismanaged hazardous waste in the region there was no need for a permanent treatment and storage facility. The only need found to exist within the region was for a temporary transfer and storage facility. That need has since been met by a temporary transfer and storage facility located in Pensacola, Florida. 7/ However, Escambia County issued a Certificate of Need for a hazardous waste transfer, storage and treatment facility to Trans Pac on February 28, 1989. The Certificate of Need was issued pursuant to County Ordinance Number 85-7. The ordinance provides in relevant part that a Certificate of Need may be issued upon the Board's determination that the service or facility for which the certificate is requested "answers a public need, is necessary for the welfare of the citizens and residents of the county, is consistent with any solid waste management plan adopted pursuant to [this ordinance], and will not impair or infringe on any obligations established by contract, resolution, or ordinance." The ordinance further provides that no Certificate of Need may be denied solely on the basis of the number of such certificates in effect at the time. The issuance of that certificate appears to have been granted on the sole representations of need given by Trans Pac to gain issuance of the certificate and at a time when the Board's attention and consideration of the facility was on matters other than the true need as established in the regional plan or the exact service Trans Pac would actually provide. The evidence suggests that no formal or informal investigation of Trans Pac's representations or on the actual need of the region was conducted by the Board. Such an investigation was informally conducted by some of the Board members after the proposed facility became apparent to members of the public. The members of the public raised a great hue and cry of opposition towards the construction of the facility and prompted a closer look at Trans Pac's representations. The Board members who did conduct the informal investigation found there was no need for the facility within the county or region and discovered that the Certificate of Need had been issued in error. No evidence was presented that the County had ever formally rescinded the issuance of Trans Pac's certificate. However, the evidence did show that there was a de facto rescission of Trans Pac's certificate when the County authorized the filing of this administrative action. 8/ Trans Pac would have the ability to treat and store some of the waste generated in the region and some waste which is not generated in the region. Trans Pac would not treat or store a large part of the waste generated in the region. The small amount of regional waste which Trans Pac would be capable of handling would not be profitable. In order to be profitable, most of Trans Pac's waste would have to come from outside the region and/or the State. In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The Act amended CERCLA to provide that, three years after the Act's effective date, a state could not receive any superfund monies unless the state entered into an agreement with the President providing assurance of the availability of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities which would have enough capacity for the treatment, disposal or storage of all hazardous waste generated within the state over the next 20 years. SARA was enacted because Congress did not believe that Superfund money should be spent in states that were taking insufficient steps to avoid creation of more superfund sites. Such steps included some provision for the future secure disposal or management of hazardous waste generated within that state. It was feared that certain states, because of public opposition and political pressure, could not create and permit enough hazardous waste facilities within their borders to properly manage, either through disposal or treatment, the hazardous waste generated within those states. Put simply, SARA requires each state to keep its own house clean and be responsible for the hazardous waste generated within its borders. SARA did not require the states to develop or permit hazardous waste facilities. The Act only required that each state provide assurances that the state possessed the capacity to manage or securely dispose of hazardous waste produced in that state over the next 20 years. Such assurances could take the form of developing hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities within that state's borders or by exporting its waste to another state. However, in order to provide adequate assurances of capacity if a state chose to export its hazardous waste, that state must enter into an interstate or regional agreement with the importing state. Such agreements could include contracts to ship hazardous waste to public or private facilities. Other assurances of capacity could be obtained through programs for the reduction of hazardous waste within the state. Whatever method of assurance adopted by a state, the goal of SARA was to force the states to provide assurances that their legislative program for the management of hazardous waste generated within their borders could work and would be used. In October, 1979, Florida entered into a Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP) with the President. The CAP established and implemented the statewide management plan required under the state statutes described earlier and under the SARA. The CAP is made up of four major components and includes a regional agreement between Florida and the other EPA Region IV Southeastern States. The four major components of the CAP are: 1) an assessment of past hazardous waste generation and capacity at facilities within or outside of Florida; 2) documentation of any waste reduction efforts that exist or are proposed for the future; 3) future projections of waste generation and capacity either within or outside of Florida and an assessment of any capacity shortfalls; and 4) descriptions of plans to permit facilities and a description of regulatory, economic, or other barriers which might impede or prevent the creation and permitting of such new facilities. The data gathered for the CAP showed that Florida currently has and will have a shortfall in its capacity to properly manage and dispose of its own hazardous waste. Therefore, Florida must provide and implement a way to increase its capacity for the management and disposal of the waste it now generates and will generate in the future or lose its funding for cleanup of superfund sites. Florida's plan to meet that shortfall consists of the interstate agreement, a commitment to a multistate treatment and storage facility and underfunded and understaffed incentives to reduce the generation of hazardous waste. The interstate agreement between the EPA Region IV Southeastern States is an effort at cooperative planning between these states for the management of hazardous waste. In reality, every state, including Florida, imports some hazardous waste from other states. Florida's imports are predominantly spent solvents and waste which can be burned as fuel. All of the imported waste was treated at recovery facilities located within the state. The majority of these imports came from Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia and South Carolina. However, even with these imports, Florida is primarily an exporter of hazardous waste. The main recipients of Florida's exports are Alabama and South Carolina. 9/ The agreement, therefore, includes provisions on applicable interstate waste flow characteristics and quantities and on projected exports and imports between and among the participating states. The agreement provides that hazardous waste facilities presently exist or will be created and permitted to manage such exported waste. Besides the interstate agreement, Florida's plan includes a commitment to permit a multipurpose hazardous waste storage and treatment facility. The site selected for the facility is located in Union County. The permit has not yet been issued for this facility. However, the application for the facility is being processed by DER under the special statutes dealing with the Union County facility. Trans Pac's proposed facility is not required for the state to meet its assurances under the CAP entered into with the President. The hoped for benefit of the commitment to a statewide multipurpose facility is to allow Florida to reduce the amount of waste requiring export, but, at the same time allow enough waste to be exported, in accordance with the interstate agreement, to supply a sufficient waste stream to facilities in other states which need such additional waste in order to stay open. Florida's CAP also includes a waste reduction plan. The waste reduction plan is embodied in its Waste Reduction Assistance Program. The philosophy of the program is that recycling (particularly waste oil) and reduction of hazardous waste will produce greater long term across-the-board cost savings to both business and government, as well as the obvious benefit of having less of this very dangerous pollutant around in the environment. The program is not mandatory and is information-oriented. It consists of technical assistance, limited economic incentives (some of which have not been funded by the legislature), research and development, education and a waste exchange program operated by FSU and the Chamber of Commerce. The waste exchange program puts businesses in touch with other businesses who can use their waste for recycling or recovery. Additionally, in conjunction with Florida's CAP, the legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution #1146. The resolution states in part that, except for the siting of the Union County facility, "the Legislature has not and does not intend to enact barriers to the movement of hazardous waste and the siting of hazardous waste facilities for the storage, treatment, and disposal, other than land disposal, of hazardous waste." As can be seen from an overview of Florida's CAP, Trans Pac's proposed facility, while not being directly a part of the CAP, will have an impact on the implementation of that plan should state need not be a criteria for the issuance of a permit. A few of these potential impacts are listed below. First, a facility the size of Trans Pac's proposed facility has the potential to divert some waste away from the proposed Union County facility and may cause that facility to be unprofitable and inoperable. Second, Trans Pac's proposed facility may enable the State to handle more of its waste within its borders, thereby reducing its exports and Florida's dependency on the good offices of other states. Such reduction may or may not have an adverse impact on the interstate agreement contained in the CAP if Florida cannot meet the amount of waste established for export under that agreement. Third, Trans Pac's proposed facility has the potential to decrease the effectiveness of the State's hazardous waste reduction program by encouraging the use of its facilities instead of reduction, recycling or recovery methods. Such a decrease would be highly dependent on the prices charged by various hazardous waste facilities vis. a vis. reduction, recycling or recovery expenses, the cost of transportation to the various types of facilities, and the ease of use among the various types of facilities and reduction methods. Fourth, not considering at least the needs of the State for a hazardous waste facility allows the state to become a dumping ground for hazardous waste generated in other states. 10/ No evidence was presented on any of these points and because of the conclusions of law such an issue is not ripe for consideration in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order granting the application of Trans Pac, Inc., for a permit to construct a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility in Escambia County, Florida subject to a permit condition requiring a pre-sale notice as described in this Recommended Order. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1990.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Angelo's Aggregate Materials, LTD ("Angelo's") is entitled to permits from the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") to construct and operate a Class I landfill in Pasco County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency with the power and duty under chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to review and take action on applications for permits to construct and operate solid waste management facilities, including landfills. Angelo's is a Florida limited partnership authorized to conduct business under the name Angelo's Recycled Materials. Angelo's filed the permit applications which are the subject of this proceeding. Angelo's owns the property on which the proposed landfill would be constructed and operated. Crystal Springs Preserve is a Florida corporation that owns approximately 525 acres in Pasco County, Florida on which is located Crystal Springs, a second magnitude spring that flows into the Hillsborough River. The property is about 10 miles south of Angelo's proposed landfill site. Crystal Springs Preserve's primary business activities are selling spring water for bottling for human consumption and operating an environmental education center that focuses on Crystal Springs and the Hillsborough River. Crystal Springs Preserve hosts approximately 50,000 visitors annually at the environmental education center. Crystal Springs Preserve holds a water use permit which authorizes it to withdraw up to 756,893 gallons of water per day (annual average) from Crystal Springs for production of bottled water. The water is transported about three miles to a water bottling facility operated by Nestlé. Nestlé is a private corporation engaged in the business of bottling and selling spring water. Nestlé purchases spring water from Crystal Springs Preserve. Nestlé's "Zephyrhills Spring Water" brand is composed of approximately 90 percent Crystal Springs water and 10 percent Madison Blue Spring water. The only water treatment applied by Nestlé is filtering the water to remove gross contaminants and passing the water through ultraviolet light or ozone to kill any potential bacteria before bottling. Nestlé has established "norms" for its spring water and would not be able to use the water from Crystal Springs if its chemical composition varied significantly from the norms. WRB is a Florida corporation that owns 1,866 acres in Pasco County known as Boarshead Ranch. Boarshead Ranch is adjacent to the east and south of Angelo’s property and is approximately 3,000 feet from the proposed landfill at its closest point. Boarshead Ranch is currently being used for agricultural, recreational, residential, and conservation purposes, including wildlife management. Nearly all of Boarshead Ranch is subject to a conservation easement held by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). The conservation easement allows WRB to continue agricultural operations. Numerous agricultural water wells are located on Boarshead Ranch. WRB holds a water use permit which authorizes the withdrawal of 820,000 gallons per day (gpd) (annual average) for a number of uses, including production of agricultural products, animal drinking water, and personal use. The City of Zephyrhills is located in Pasco County and is a municipal corporation. Zephyrhills' water service area encompasses Zephyrhills and portions of Pasco County. Zephyrhills owns, operates, and maintains a water distribution and transmission system of pipes, pump stations, and storage tanks within the City and its service area. Zephyrhills holds a water use permit which authorizes nine potable water supply wells with a combined withdrawal of 2.9 million gallons per day ("mgd") (annual average). Zephyrhills has two new production wells located about two miles southeast of the proposed landfill. The City of Tampa owns and operates the David L. Tippin Water Treatment Plant, the Hillsborough River dam, and the City of Tampa reservoir on the Hillsborough River. Flows from Crystal Springs make up a substantial amount of the water in the Hillsborough River, especially during drought conditions when the spring flow accounts for about 50 percent of the flow. The City of Tampa holds a water use permit which authorizes the withdrawal 82 mgd (annual average). The City of Tampa owns, operates, and maintains a water distribution and transmission system of pipes, pump stations, and storage tanks within the City and its service area. Carl Roth, Marvin Hall, and Louis Potenziano own property in Pasco County near the proposed landfill site. Roth's property is 3.5 miles west of the proposed landfill site; Hall's property is located approximately one mile southwest of the site; and Potenziano's property is 1.6 miles to the south/southeast of the site. Roth, Hall, and Potenziano have water wells on their properties. The record does not establish that John Floyd owns property in the area. Floyd and Associates, Inc., owns about 55 acres in the area and holds a water use permit authorizing the withdrawal of water for agricultural uses. The Stipulated Agreement On March 1, 2010, Angelo's filed with DOAH a "Stipulated Agreement" signed by all parties. The Stipulated Agreement states in relevant part: Angelo's shall provide a final design, revised complete permit application and site investigation (referred to jointly as "Revised Submittal") to DEP with copies to all Parties and DEP shall make a completeness determination prior to this proceeding being set for a new final hearing date. * * * Angelo's shall not revise its permit application or supporting information beyond the Revised Submittal prior to or during the final hearing except in response to issues raised by DEP. It appears that the Aligned Parties did not remember the Stipulated Agreement until the commencement of the final hearing. They did not object before then to any of the evidence which Angelo's had prepared or intended to prepare for hearing on the basis that it violated the terms of the Stipulated Agreement. At the commencement of the hearing, Nestlé argued that the Stipulated Agreement barred Angelo's from revising its application or presenting new support for its project at the final hearing. The Stipulated Agreement is unusual and the necessity for Angelo's to make any concessions to the Aligned Parties in order to obtain their agreement to an abeyance was not explained. Allowing an applicant time to amend a permit application is usually good cause for an abeyance. The Stipulated Agreement allowed Angelo's to continue to respond to issues raised by the Department. Angelo's contends that all of the evidence it presented at the final hearing qualifies as a response to issues raised by the Department. The Proposed Landfill Angelo's applied to construct and operate a Class I landfill with associated buildings and leachate holding tanks. Application No. 22913-001-SC/01 corresponds to the construction permit application and Application No. 22913-001-SO/01 corresponds to the operation permit application. A Class I landfill is a landfill authorized to receive Class I waste, which is solid waste from households and businesses. Class I waste does not include hazardous waste, yard waste, or construction and demolition debris. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(13) and (14). The proposed landfill would be approximately 30 acres in size. It is part of a 1,020-acre parcel owned by Angelo's that is west of County Road 35 and south of Enterprise Road in Pasco County. The site is currently leased for cattle grazing and hay and sod production. There are also spray fields, orange groves, and a pond on the 1,020-acre parcel. Angelo's would construct the landfill by first clearing the 30-acre site. It would then excavate and fill to create the design subgrade or floor of the landfill with slopes required for the liner system. The subgrade would be compacted with a vibratory roller. After the subgrade compaction, the grouting plan would be implemented. The grouting plan calls for grouting 39 subsurface locations on the site that have voids, loose soils, or other unstable characteristics. A liner system would be installed after the grouting is completed and the subgrade is finished. From the bottom upward, the liner system would begin with a 12-inch layer of clay, over which a reinforcement geotextile would be installed, followed by another 12-inch layer of clay. This reinforcement geotextile is in addition to the double liner system required by Department rule. Its purpose is to maintain the integrity of the liner system in the event that a sinkhole occurs beneath the landfill. Installed above the reinforcement geotextile and clay layer would be a 60-millimeter high-density polyethylene ("HDPE") geomembrane, followed by a HDPE drainage net. These last two components comprise the secondary leachate collection system. Above the HDPE drainage net would be the primary leachate collection system, consisting of another 60-millimeter HDPE geomembrane and HDPE drainage net, followed by a geotextile, then a 12-inch sand layer for drainage, and an additional 12-inch sand layer for protection against puncture of the HDPE liner. A 48-inch layer of selected waste, free of items that could puncture the liner, would be the first waste placed over the primary leachate collection system. "Leachate" is "liquid that has passed through or merged from solid waste and may contain soluble, suspended, or miscible materials." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(66). Leachate would be collected through a system of perforated pipes that empty into a sloping trench with a leachate collection pipe. The leachate collection pipe would run down the center of the landfill to the lowest point where a pump would send the collected leachate through a force main 0.25 miles to storage tanks. Five above-ground storage tanks would be installed on a concrete pad with capacity to store 90,000 gallons of leachate. The stored leachate would be periodically transported to an offsite location, such as a wastewater treatment facility, for disposal. Sinkholes and Karst The terms "sinkhole" and "sinkhole activity" are not defined by Department rule, but the statutory definitions in chapter 627, a chapter dealing with insurance coverage for homes and other buildings, are generally consistent with the scientific meanings of these terms. The term "sinkhole" is defined in section 627.706(2)(h) as: a landform created by subsidence of soil, sediment, or rock as underlying strata are dissolved by groundwater. A sinkhole forms by collapse into subterranean voids created by dissolution of limestone or dolostone or by subsidence as these strata are dissolved. The term "sinkhole activity" is defined in section 627.706(2)(i) as: settlement or systematic weakening of the earth supporting the covered building only if the settlement or systematic weakening results from contemporaneous movement or raveling of soils, sediments, or rock materials into subterranean voids created by the effect of water on a limestone or similar rock formation. Sinkholes occur throughout Florida. There have been many reported and confirmed sinkholes in Pasco County. The more common type of sinkhole that has occurred on the Brooksville Ridge is a "cover subsidence" sinkhole, which is caused by voids in the limestone and the downward movement--"raveling"--of overlying soils into the cavity. Eventually, the loss of soils in the raveling zone will propagate upward until the soils at the ground surface also move downward and a depression is formed at the surface. Cover subsidence sinkholes develop slowly and are usually small, less than ten feet in diameter. Less common are "cover collapse" sinkholes, which can form in a matter of days or hours as the result of the collapse of the "roof" of a dissolved cavity in the limestone. These sinkholes are usually large and deep. The occurrence of a sinkhole does not always mean that areas near the sinkhole are unstable. However, the occurrence of a sinkhole is reasonable cause for concern about the stability of nearby areas and a reasonable basis for the Department to require thorough geologic investigations. "Karst" refers to limestone that is undergoing dissolution and it is common in Florida. A sinkhole forms in karst. "Epikarst" is limestone that was weathered while exposed above sea level millions of years ago before being submerged again. It is generally softer and more permeable than unweathered limestone. "Paleokarst" refers to karst that is very old in geologic time. Paleosinks are old sinkhole features in the paleokarst. A paleosink may no longer be unstable because it has been filled in for thousands or millions of years. A "lineament," or a "photolineament," is a relatively straight line seen in the topography or aerial photographs of the ground surface in an area. It might be defined by soil color, sloughs, ponds, wetlands, or other land features that follow a linear path. Lineaments are sometimes, but not always, associated with subsurface fractures in the bedrock where one would expect to also find active karst, sinkholes, and relatively rapid groundwater flow. Even where there is no lineament, there can be fractures in limestone that, when extensive enough, will allow for "fractured," "preferential," or "conduit flow" of groundwater. Fractured flow can occur in a small area or may go on for miles. Springs in Florida are usually associated with fractured flow or conduit flow that allows groundwater to move through the aquifer a long distance relatively rapidly, in weeks rather than decades. Geotechnical Investigation The Department's rules require subsurface conditions to be explored and described, including soil stratigraphy, soft ground, lineaments, and unstable areas, but the rules do not require the application of any particular geologic testing technique. An applicant's testing program is primarily a function of the professional judgment of the applicant’s geologist in cooperation with Department staff. The amount of geological testing done by Angelo's during its initial testing was similar to what was done for recent landfill applications. Angelo's conducted additional testing to respond to Department concerns and to prepare for the final hearing in this case, making the total amount of testing at Angelo's proposed site more extensive than is usual for a proposed landfill. The geologic investigation conducted by Angelo's experts to determine subsurface features, including any sinkholes, employed several technologies. Split Spoon Penetrometer Test (SPT) or SPT borings were drilled with a drill rig that advances a split spoon sampler into the ground with a 140 pound hammer. The hammer is dropped 30 inches and the number of blows required to drive the sampler each successive 12 inches is referred to as the "N" value and indicates soil strength and density. The higher the N value, the denser the soil. When the material is so dense the drill rod cannot (essentially) be hammered deeper, the N value is shown as "R," which stands for "refusal." SPT Bore logs also note any observed "weight of hammer," "weight of rod," or "loss of circulation." These terms describe areas where the drilling encounters very soft material or voids. Weight of rod, for example, means the weight of the drilling rod, by itself, with no hammer blow, was enough to cause the rod to fall deeper through the soil or rock. Cone Penetrometer Test ("CPT") borings were also conducted. CPT borings are relatively shallow, performed with a hand-held rod and special tip that the operator pushes into the ground. The CPT equipment continuously measures and records tip resistance and sleeve resistance as the rod moves downward through soils. It is helpful in some applications, but is less precise in determining soil type, strength, and compressibility than SPT borings and cannot be used to explore deep zones. Ground penetrating radar ("GPR") studies were used. GPR equipment transmits pulses of radio frequency waves into the ground. The manner in which the radio waves are reflected indicates the types of soil and rock encountered. It can also detect cavities and other features that would suggest karst activity. When the GPR identifies geologic features of interest, they can be further investigated with SPT borings. Another investigative tool used by Angelo's was Multiple Electrode Resistivity ("MER"). MER uses a grid of wires and electrodes and the equipment interprets the resistivity of electrical signals transmitted through the subsurface. MER data can be displayed in a two dimensional or three dimensional format, depending on the software program that is used to process the data. Like GPR, MER is useful for indentifying geologic features of interest that can be further explored with SPT borings. However, GPR generally has good resolution only near the ground surface, while MER has good resolution to a depth of 100 feet. The Regional Geology The proposed site is in a geologic transition zone on the eastern flank of a regional, geological feature known as the Brooksville Ridge. It is a transition zone for both the Suwannee Limestone and Hawthorn Group. The Brooksville Ridge was formed when it was part of the coastline. In its geologic past, the Brooksville Ridge experienced sea level changes, weathering, erosion of sediments, and beach reworking. The general layering of geologic features on the Brooksville Ridge, from the top down, begins with topsoil and a layer of sand. Under the sand layer is the Hawthorn Group, an older geologic layer consisting of a heterogeneous mix of limestone, clays, and sands which generally range in depth from slightly under 60 feet to 80 feet or more. It was formed by river and wind erosion, flushing, and re-deposition in a beach dune environment. Below the Hawthorn Group is the Suwannee Limestone Formation, which is present throughout eastern Pasco County. The upper surface of the Suwannee Limestone Formation is undulating, due to a gradual chemical weathering of its upper surface, representing a "paleokarst environment." Underlying the Suwannee Limestone Formation is the Ocala Limestone Formation. It extends throughout most of Florida. It is composed of nearly pure limestone and is considered the Floridan Aquifer. It extends across the site’s subsurface. Angelo's used the Florida Geologic Survey's data base to determine there are six sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill. A seventh sinkhole, not in the data base, is the 15- foot sinkhole at the Angelo's Enterprise Road Facility landfill, a Class III landfill (yard waste and construction and demolition debris) about a mile northwest of the proposed site. Angelo's contends that the sinkhole at its Class III landfill was "induced" during construction of the facility by the diversion of stormwater runoff to an area where overburden had been removed. The average diameter of the seven sinkholes is 11.9 feet. The Geology of the Proposed Site Rule 62-701.410(2)(c) requires a geotechnical site investigation and report, which shall: Explore and describe subsurface conditions including soil stratigraphy and ground water table conditions; Explore and address the presence of muck, previously filled areas, soft ground, lineaments, and sinkholes; Evaluate and address fault areas, seismic impact zones, and unstable areas as described in 40 C.F.R. 258.13, 258.14 and 258.15; Include estimates of the average and maximum high ground water table across the site; and Include a foundation analysis to determine the ability of the foundation to support the loads and stresses imposed by the landfill. It may include geotechnical measures necessary to modify the foundation to accommodate the imposed loads and stresses. The foundation shall be analyzed for short-term, end of construction, and long-term stability and settlement conditions. Considering the existing or proposed subgrade conditions and the landfill geometry, analysis shall include: Foundation bearing capacity; Subgrade settlements, both total and differential; and Subgrade slope stability. Angelo's conducted a geotechnical site investigation, but it was not adequate, as discussed below and in sections I. and J. The proposed landfill site is geologically complex, having features that are discontinuous horizontally and vertically. The site has karst features or areas where the limestone has dissolved. There is a clay layer in some areas, but it is not continuous and its depth and thickness vary. There are deposits of hard and soft sands at various depths. There are pinnacles of limestone surrounded by softer materials. Photographs from a quarry called the Vulcan Mine, located on the western flank of the Brooksville Ridge, show exposed features in the top 20 to 30 feet of the Suwannee Limestone in the region. The features at the Vulcan Mine are roughly similar to features at the Angelo's site. There are a number of shallow depressions on the surface of the ground on the Angelo's site. The origin and significance of these depressions was a matter of dispute. The Aligned Parties believe they represent sinkhole activity, but the evidence presented did not rise to the level of proof. However, Angelo's did not prove they were unassociated with geotechnical issues that could affect the proposed landfill. Angelo's offered no reasonable explanation for the depressions. Determining the exact cause of the depressions may not be possible even with more extensive investigation, but it was Angelo's responsibility as the permit applicant, pursuant to rule 62-701.410(2)(c), to make a greater effort to account for them. Angelo's initial permit application identified two intersecting lineaments on Angelo's property, based on aligned lowlands, enclosed valleys, and ponds. Angelo's contends the lineaments do not reflect an unstable subsurface or fractured limestone. The Aligned Parties contend that the lineaments are regional features and reflect fractures in the bedrock. They also contend that the onsite pond, which is located along the lineament, is an old sinkhole. The Aligned Parties did not prove the proposed landfill site is above an area of fractured bedrock, but the evidence presented by Angelo's was incomplete and insufficient to show there are no fractures. The limestone on the site was not adequately investigated for voids and fractures. Angelo's did not refute the possibility that the lineaments reflect a significant subsurface feature that could affect both site stability and groundwater movement. The Regional and Local Hydrogeology Rule 62-701.410(1) requires a hydrogeological investigation and site report, which shall: Define the landfill site geology and hydrology and its relationship to the local and regional hydrogeologic patterns including: Direction and rate of ground water and surface water flow, including seasonal variations; Background quality of ground water and surface water; Any on site hydraulic connections between aquifers; For all confining layers, semi-confining layers, and all aquifers below the landfill site that may be affected by the landfill, the porosity or effective porosity, horizontal and vertical permeabilities, and the depth to and lithology of the layers and aquifers; and Topography, soil types and characteristics, and surface water drainage systems of the site and surrounding the site. Include an inventory of all the public and private water wells within a one-mile radius of the proposed landfill site. The inventory shall include, where available: The approximate elevation of the top of the well casing and the depth of each well; The name of the owner, the age and usage of each well, and the estimated daily pumpage; and The stratigraphic unit screened, well construction technique, and static water levels of each well. Identify and locate any existing contaminated areas on the landfill site. Include a map showing the locations of all potable wells within 500 feet of the waste storage and disposal areas to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 62- 701.300(2)(b), F.A.C. Angelo's conducted a hydrogeological investigation, but it was not adequate, as discussed below. Angelo's and the Aligned Parties disputed the hydrogeological characteristics of the proposed landfill site and region. The principal disputes related to the direction and velocity of groundwater flow. Angelo's contends that groundwater flows from the landfill site to the west, making the proposed landfill site part of the Withlacoochee River groundwater basin. The Aligned Parties contend that groundwater flows south toward Crystal Springs and, therefore, the site is within the "springshed" of Crystal Springs. A United States Geological Survey map of the Crystal Springs springshed shows Angelo's proposed landfill site within the springshed. A springshed study done for SWFWMD also indicates the site is within the Crystal Springs springshed, but the District has not always been consistent in its statements about the groundwater basin boundaries in this area. A water chemistry analysis of the groundwater in the area of Angelo's proposed landfill indicates that the site is an area of higher recharge and within the Crystal Springs springshed. The springshed boundary can shift, depending on rainfall. Angelo's hydrogeological evidence was not sufficient to refute the reasonable possibility that the proposed landfill site is within the Crystal Springs springshed. Therefore, the Department's determination whether Angelo's has provided reasonable assurances must account for the threat of contamination to Crystal Springs and the other public and private water supply sources to the south. There are no creeks or streams and only a few lakes in the area between Crystal Springs and the Angelo's site. The absence of surface runoff features indicates it is an area of high recharge to the groundwater. Crystal Springs is in an area of conduit flow. The hydrologic investigation conducted by Angelo's was not thorough enough to characterize surficial aquifer flow and flow between aquifers. The preponderance of the evidence shows more groundwater recharge to the Floridan Aquifer in the area than estimated by Angelo's. Angelo's hydrogeological investigation was inadequate to refute the possibility of fractured flow or rapid groundwater movement at the proposed landfill site. Angelo's contends there is a continuous clay confining layer that would prevent contamination from moving into deep zones, but the preponderance of the evidence shows discontinuity in the clay and large variations in thickness and depth. The landfill's impermeable liner will impede water movement downward from the landfill, but groundwater will still recharge from outside the landfill to carry any contaminants deeper. If fractured flow or conduit flow extends south from the proposed landfill site, any leachate released into the groundwater beneath the landfill could travel rapidly toward the water supply sources of the City of Zephyrhills, Crystal Springs, Nestlé, and the City of Tampa. Whether the Proposed Landfill is in an Unstable Area Rule 62-701.200(2)(a) prohibits the storage or disposal of solid waste "[i]n an area where geological formations or other subsurface features will not provide support for the solid waste." However, the Department has adopted by reference a federal regulation, 40 C.F.R. 258.15, which allows a landfill to be constructed in a geologically unstable area if the permit applicant can demonstrate that engineering measures are incorporated into the design to ensure that the integrity of the landfill’s structural components "will not be disrupted." The parties presented evidence on many disputed issues of fact at the final hearing, but most of the case involved two ultimate questions: whether the proposed landfill site is unstable and, if so, whether Angelo's has proposed measures that would eliminate the unstable conditions and make the site suitable for a landfill. as: An "unstable area" is defined in 40 C.F.R. § 258.15 A location that is susceptible to natural or human-induced events or forces capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible for preventing releases from a landfill. Unstable areas can include poor foundation conditions, areas susceptible to mass movements, and Karst terrains. There is overwhelming evidence that the proposed landfill site is an unstable area. A considerable amount of evidence presented by Angelo's supports this finding. For example, Angelo's experts agreed there are loose soils, evidence of raveling, and sinkhole activity. These conditions make the site susceptible to natural or human-induced events or forces capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible for preventing releases from the proposed landfill. The Department's landfill permitting staff requested a sinkhole risk assessment from the Florida Geologic Survey ("FGS"). The State Geologist and Director of the FGS, Dr. Jonathan Arthur, believes the potential for sinkhole formation at the proposed site is moderately high to high. That potential is consistent with the characterization of the area as unstable. Whether the Proposed Engineering Measures Are Adequate Because the site is unstable, Angelo’s must demonstrate that engineering measures have been incorporated into the landfill's design to ensure that the integrity of its structural components will not be disrupted. See 40 C.F.R. § 258.15(a). The engineering measures proposed by Angelo's are discussed below. Because it was found that Angelo's hydrogeological and geotechnical investigations were not sufficient to characterize all potentially unstable features of the subsurface, it was not demonstrated that the proposed engineering measures would overcome the instability and make the site suitable for a landfill. Roller Compaction Angelo's would use roller compaction on the graded floor of the landfill to compact the soils to a depth of about five feet and eliminate any voids within that depth. The Aligned Parties did not contradict Angelo's evidence that its proposed roller compaction will be done in a manner exceeding what the Department usually requires as far as roller force and the number of roller "passes." However, roller compaction will not affect deep voids. Liner System In order to ensure that the landfill’s liner system components will not be disrupted in the event of a sinkhole, Angelo’s proposes to include the reinforcement geotextile discussed above. The Department previously approved the use of geotextile reinforcement, combined with grouting, to demonstrate site stability for the Hernando County Northwest Landfill, which had a comparable risk of sinkhole formation according to the Department. The reinforcement geotextile can span a 15-foot diameter sinkhole without failure. As found above, the average diameter of the seven sinkholes within five miles of the proposed landfill is 11.9 feet. Angelo's proved that the proposed liner system meets all applicable criteria, except the requirement of rule 62- 701.400(3)(a) that the liner be installed upon a geologically stable base. Grouting Plan Angelo's grouting plan would be implemented to fill voids and stabilize areas of loose or weak material. The grouting plan was first designed to grout all locations where there was a Weight of Hammer, Weight of Rod, Loss of Circulation, or loose sands, as indicated by a low blow count. Angelo's revised the grout plan to include several more areas of concern identified later, for a total of 39 locations. Each grout location would have seven grout points, one in the center and six others equally-spaced on a ten-foot radius from the center. If more than ten cubic yards of grout is needed, additional grout points further outward would be injected until the void or loose soils are filled or stabilized. Although Angelo's proposes to grout every boring of concern, that still ties the integrity of the grouting plan to the thoroughness of the borings. The geologic evidence indicates that there are unstable areas which the grouting plan does not address. The Aligned Parties' MER analysis was persuasive in identifying potential areas of instability that were omitted from Angelo's investigation and from its grouting plan. There are other unstable areas existing on the site that should be grouted or otherwise engineered to provide support for the landfill. The grouting plan does not provide reasonable assurance that the integrity of the structural components of the landfill will not be disturbed. Other Issues Raised by the Aligned Parties The Aligned Parties raise a number of other issues, some of which begin with the assumption that the site is unstable and a large sinkhole would form at the landfill. This sometimes mixes issues inappropriately. It has been found that Angelo's did not provide reasonable assurance that the site will support the proposed landfill, but other project elements must be reviewed on their own merits where possible, assuming the site was engineered for stability. Leachate Collection System There is a single leachate collection trench in the center of the two landfill cells, which makes the landfill operate much like a single cell. The two halves of the cell slope toward the center, so that leachate will drain to the leachate collection trench, and the entire landfill slopes to the west, so that the trench will drain to a sump from which the leachate is pumped to storage tanks. At full capacity, the landfill will generate about 40,000 gallons of leachate per day. Careful cutting and grading of the earth is necessary to create the slopes that are essential to the proper functioning of the project’s leachate collection system. Settlement analyses are necessary to assure that the slopes are maintained. Rule 62-701.410(2)(e) requires a foundation analysis which must include a study of "subgrade settlements, both total and differential." "Total settlement" refers to the overall settlement of a landfill after construction and the loading of solid waste. "Differential settlement" compares settlement at two different points. Angelo's did not meet its burden to provide reasonable assurance on this point. The settlement analysis conducted by Angelo's was amended two or three times during the course of the final hearing to account for computational errors and other issues raised by the Aligned Parties. The analysis never came completely into focus. The final analysis was not signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The settlement analysis is dependent on the geologic analysis, which is inadequate. Without adequate settlement and geologic analyses, it cannot be determined that leachate collection would meet applicable criteria. Storage Tanks The Aligned Parties contend that the leachate storage tanks cannot be supported by the site. Because it was found that Angelo's geologic investigation was not adequate to identify all unstable areas, it is also found that Angelo's failed to provide reasonable assurance that the site would support the leachate storage tanks. In all other respects, the Aligned Parties failed to refute Angelo's demonstration that the storage tanks would meet applicable criteria. Groundwater Monitoring Plan The Aligned Parties contend that there is an insufficient number of monitor wells proposed by Angelo's to detect a leak from the landfill and the wells are too shallow. Because it was found that Angelo's did not adequately characterize the geology and hydrology of the proposed landfill site, the monitoring plan does not provide reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable criteria. Cell Design The Aligned Parties contend that the "mega-cell" design proposed by Angelo's provides less flexibility to respond to and isolate landfill problems than other landfill designs with smaller cells, and the mega-cell design could generate more leakage. No evidence was presented to show whether Angelo's design was one that had been approved or rejected in the past by the Department. Although it is not the best landfill design, the Aligned Parties did not show that the proposed design violates any permitting criteria. Operation and Closure The evidence presented by the Aligned Parties in support of their issues regarding the operation of the proposed landfill, such as noise, odor, and traffic, was not sufficient to refute Angelo's evidence of compliance with applicable criteria, with one exception: Angelo's has not provided an adequate contingency plan to show how it would respond to a sinkhole or other incident that required the landfill to be shut down and repaired. Assuming the site was engineered to support the landfill, there is nothing about the Closure Plan that the Aligned Parties showed does not meet applicable criteria.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection deny Angelo's Permit Application Nos. 22913-001-SC/01 and 22913- 002-SO/01. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Carl Roth, Qualified Representative 8031 Island Drive Port Richey, Florida 34668-6220 Christopher M. Kise, Esquire Foley and Lardner, LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7732 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A. Suite 150 245 Riverside Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4931 Janice M. McLean, Esquire City of Tampa 7th Floor 315 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-5211 Joseph A. Poblick, Esquire City of Zephyrhills 5335 8th Street Zephyrhills, Florida 33542-4312 Doug Manson, Esquire William Bilenky, Esquire Brian A. Bolves, Esquire Manson Bolves, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2637 Jacob D. Varn, Esquire Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler, White, Boggs, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1547 David Smolker, Esquire Smolker, Bartlett, Schlosser, Loeb and Hinds, P.A. Suite 200 500 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602-4936 Stanley Warden, Esquire Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William D. Preston, Esquire William D. Preston, P.A. 4832-A Kerry Forest Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309-2272 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0248 may be recovered from Petitioners pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes. Spill Response, Inc. (Spill Response) is a corporation which was formed in approximately 1986 or 1987, and is presently inactive and without any assets. At all times material to the instant case, George Gordon has been the sole owner, president and director of Spill Response, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation. Spill Response was previously in the oil spill response business, as its name suggests. At such time, it had an office in Port Everglades and stored its equipment on fenced and gated property located at 3211 Southwest 50th Avenue, Davie, Florida, on which approximately a dozen large aboveground petroleum storage tanks (surrounded by concrete containment areas) also were situated. At all times material to the instant case, the property located at 3211 Southwest 50th Avenue, Davie, Florida (FPR site) has been owned by Florida Petroleum Reprocessors, Inc. (FPR), an inactive corporation that previously was in the waste oil recovery business. The FPR site, which is presently FPR's only asset, is the subject of a pending foreclosure action initiated by Charles Green, who, at all times material to the instant case, has held a first mortgage on the property. At all times material to the instant case, George Gordon has been the president and director of FPR, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation. In the latter part of 1994, the storage tanks on the FPR site were no longer in commercial use. At that time, Gordon, on behalf of FPR, hired Fred Rice to clean and maintain the site in preparation for its closure. Rice was instructed to remove the petroleum residue and sludge from the tanks and from the containment areas. Rice engaged in these petroleum and sludge-removal activities on a part-time basis until the spring of 1995, when he stopped working on the project after not having received timely payment for work he had performed. Rice placed the petroleum residue and sludge that he had removed, as well the rags and other materials that he had used in the removal process, in 55-gallon drums. He filled approximately six or seven such drums. A number of other 55-gallon drums containing petroleum residue and sludge (that some person or persons other than Rice had filled) were already on the FPR site. Rice put the six or seven drums that he had filled on a truck that was parked on the site and had “Spill Response, Inc.” and “Florida Petroleum Reprocessors, Inc.” markings on its sides. The truck was owned by Spill Response and had been on the site for some time. It had no battery and was inoperable. Rice told Gordon that he had put the drums he had filled with petroleum residue and sludge on the Spill Response truck. The next time Gordon went the FPR site, in late May of 1995, he discovered that the locks on the gates had been changed and that there were vehicles and equipment on the property that did not belong there. Gordon telephoned the Davie Police Department to complain about the unauthorized use of the FPR site. A police officer was dispatched to the site to investigate. When the officer arrived on the scene, he encountered Gordon outside one of the gates. Although the gate was locked, Gordon and the officer gained access to the site by squeezing through an opening in the gate. Upon entering the site, they looked around. Based upon what they saw, they correctly "figured out" that Certified Crane and Rigging, Inc., d/b/a Certified Equipment Management Company (Certified) was storing its crane equipment and trucks on the site. At all times material to the instant case, Certified has been owned and operated by William "Skip" Walton. Walton is an acquaintance of the aforementioned Charles Green, the holder of the first mortgage on the FPR site. Certified's telephone number was painted on the equipment and vehicles it was storing on the FPR site. The police officer called the number and spoke with Walton. Following his telephone conversation with Walton, the officer informed Gordon that Walton had indicated, during the conversation, that he was leasing the FPR site from Green. Gordon advised the officer that he did not want to press criminal charges (for trespassing) against either Certified or Walton. Gordon subsequently telephoned Green. Green told Gordon that it was true that he had leased the FPR site to Walton. Green explained to Gordon that he "needed to earn some money from the property." (It had been some time since Green had received any mortgage payments from FPR or Gordon.) Gordon contacted his attorney to discuss with her what legal action, if any, he could take to regain possession of the FPR site and be compensated for the unauthorized use of the property. Gordon's attorney advised him that he "would have recourse if [he] wished to pursu[e] the matter in court," but that it might not be cost-effective for him to do so. Gordon took no action, "in court" or otherwise, to regain possession and control of the FPR site; nor did he take any action to retake possession and control of the Spill Response truck or the filled drums that were in the truck and elsewhere on the site. Furthermore, he made no effort to make sure that the drums and their contents were stored and disposed of properly, believing that the proper storage and disposal of these items were now the responsibility of the new occupant of the site. He did not return to the FPR site for over a year. On or about June 6, 1995, the Department was notified (after its regular business hours) that the Spill Response truck had been discovered abandoned on the side of the road a few blocks from the FPR site. The following day,1 Ann Meador, an Environmental Specialist III with the Department, went to the location where the truck had been abandoned and served as the Department's on- scene coordinator. The truck was in poor condition and still inoperable. It had been brought (not driven) to the location by someone other than Gordon. The truck contained 37 sealed 55-gallon drums, which were in poor condition (but not yet leaking) and had oil residue on the outside. It could not be reliably determined exactly what was in the drums without removing them from the truck and examining and analyzing their contents. Meador made arrangements for OHM Remediation Services Corporation (OHM), with whom the Department had a contract to perform such services on an emergency basis, to assist in the removal of the drums from the truck. OHM personnel (with "Level B" protective clothing and equipment) responded to the scene and removed all 37 drums from the Spill Response truck. After the drums were unsealed, their contents were examined and sampled to the extent possible2 (as were the contents of three additional drums which were filled with the "Level B" protective clothing and equipment that OHM personnel had used during the cleanup operation and then discarded). Each of the drums was assigned a number for identification purposes. To save time and money, samples from some of the drums were composited. The drums were then overpacked and taken to the Department’s hazardous waste storage facility in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Department paid OHM $7,046.93 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services OHM performed. In requesting OHM to perform these services and in paying OHM $7,046.93 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid OHM was not excessive. The Department hired Laidlaw Environmental Services (Laidlaw) to analyze the samples that OHM had collected and to then properly dispose of the drums and their contents. Laidlaw's analysis revealed the following: drums numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 contained oily sludges, oil, oil mixed with water, or oily residues; drum numbered 6 contained benzene and had a flash point between 73 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit; drum numbered 29 contained benzene and lead and had a flash point of less than 73 degrees Fahrenheit; drums numbered 10 and 11 contained benzene and lead; drums numbered 7, 8, 31, 32, 33 and 39 contained benzene, lead, and cadmium. Laidlaw properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid Laidlaw $21,163.90 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services it performed. In requesting Laidlaw to perform these services and in paying Laidlaw $21,163.90 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid Laidlaw was not excessive. The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $129.82 in connection with its response to the report it had received concerning the abandonment of the Spill Response truck. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have the drums on the truck properly removed and disposed of was $28,340.65. It was not until Gordon received a letter from the Department advising him of the costs the Department had incurred and requesting that Spill Response and he reimburse the Department for these costs that Gordon became aware of the fact that the truck and the drums had been moved from the FPR site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that it is entitled to recover from Petitioners, pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the $28,340.65 in costs the Department reasonably incurred in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0248. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1998.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether a permit should be issued, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, authorizing TLA-Cambridge, LLC (“Cambridge”), to construct and operate a “waste processing facility” (“facility”) on a site (“site”) located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners (Kate Wright, Joette Hill, and Jimmy Walker) are individuals who live in Miami-Dade County. The Respondent, DERM, is a division of Miami-Dade County. The Respondent, Cambridge, is a limited liability company authorized to do business in Florida. On January 4, 2008, Cambridge filed an application with DERM pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710, for the Permit authorizing the construction and operation of the facility. Cambridge’s application was reviewed by DERM pursuant to an agreement (“Operating Agreement”) that delegates certain authority from DEP to Miami-Dade County. The Operating Agreement requires DERM to follow DEP’s rules and procedures when determining whether to issue a permit for a waste processing facility. On August 18, 2008, DERM issued its ("Intent to Issue") the Permit to Cambridge. The Site Cambridge intends to construct and operate the facility on a site that is approximately 5.7 acres in size and located at 3250 N.W. 65th Street, in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Florida. The site is owned by Florida East Coast Railway L.L.C. (“FEC”). Cambridge has entered into a 20-year lease agreement with FEC that authorizes Cambridge to use the site for the proposed facility. The site is located in an industrial warehouse district. Warehouses are adjacent to the north, south, and west sides of the site. The warehouses are served by trucks and railcars. A railroad track is adjacent to, and enters the south end of the site. Other warehouses, rail yards, and railroad tracks are located west of the site. The industrial district extends north, south, and west of the site. The eastern side of the site is bounded by N.W. 32nd Avenue, a four-lane road that runs in a north-south direction. Across the street from the site, on the east side of N.W. 32nd Avenue, is a business district. Even farther to the east is a residential area where the Petitioners live. The site previously was paved with asphalt and enclosed with a chain-link fence. An old gatehouse is located at the entrance to the site, where N.W. 65th Street dead-ends into the site. The Facility Cambridge intends to construct: (a) a one-story building (“transfer station”) that will be used to receive and process construction and demolition (“C&D”) debris; (b) a one- story office building; (c) a weigh station for weighing trucks; (d) extensions of the existing railroad tracks; and (d) a new railroad track that will pass through the transfer station. Cambridge also will renovate the gatehouse. The existing pavement on the site will remain intact, except where the new improvements will be located. The chain-link fence will be retained and enhanced to restrict access to the site. Trees and shrubs will be planted along N.W. 65th Street and N.W. 32nd Avenue to screen the public’s view of the facility and to help alleviate airborne dust. The Transfer Station will be approximately 30,000 square feet in size. It will have a roof, 4 walls, and a concrete floor that is 10 inches thick. The north side of the transfer Station will have 10 bay doors to allow access for trucks and one smaller utility door. There also will be one door on the southeast side and one door on the west side of the Transfer Station to allow railcars to move through the building. Proposed Operations C&D debris is the material that is generated when a building is constructed, renovated, or demolished. C&D debris includes concrete, lumber, wallboard, asphalt shingles, metal pipes, glass, plastic, and similar materials. Other types of solid waste cannot be accepted by the facility; they are prohibited by the Draft Permit. Cambridge’s customers will deliver C&D debris to the facility in trucks. The trucks will approach the facility from the west (i.e., the industrial district) on Northwest 65th Street and they will enter the site at the gatehouse. There will be no access to the site from Northwest 32nd Avenue. A trained attendant will perform a preliminary visual inspection of the trucks and interview the truck drivers at the gatehouse to determine whether the trucks are carrying C&D debris. If the gatehouse attendant determines that the truck is hauling garbage or other types of solid waste that cannot be accepted at the Transfer Station, the truck will be denied access to the site. Upon entering the site, some trucks will be weighed on the truck scales and then directed to the transfer station. Trucks that do not require weighing will proceed directly to the transfer station. A Cambridge employee will direct the truck to an appropriate bay door for entry into the transfer station. The truck then will back up an inclined grade into the transfer station, the tarpaulin (tarp) will be removed from the truck’s load, and the truck will dump the load onto the floor (i.e., “the tipping floor”) of the transfer station. The unloading and processing of C&D debris will only occur inside the transfer station. Cambridge will employ trained spotters and operators to process the C&D debris. DEP’s rules require that at least one spotter and one operator must be present whenever C&D debris is received at the facility. By comparison, Cambridge typically will have 4 to 6 spotters present whenever the facility is receiving C&D debris. Cambridge employees will spread the load on the tipping floor with mobile equipment and then determine how the load should be processed. “All incoming C&D debris shall be tipped, processed and stored entirely under roof in the enclosed building . . . and . . . evaluated through visual inspection by trained spotter(s) for any unacceptable solid waste (e.g., furniture, tires, etc.) or prohibited wastes (e.g., garbage, treated or painted wood, hazardous wastes, etc.)” in compliance with the Draft Permit. Unacceptable and prohibited wastes will be removed from the C&D debris and placed in separate containers (e.g., metal dumpsters), which will be removed from the site and taken to appropriate disposal facilities. Dense non-recyclable material (e.g., asphalt shingles) will be moved to an area on the tipping floor where it will be loaded directly into a railcar for transportation to a disposal site. Potentially recyclable material will be processed in a shredder, which will reduce the material to a size of approximately 12-inches by 12- inches. After the material is shredded, smaller pieces will be removed from the C&D debris with a mechanical screen and placed in a bunker with non-recyclable material. The remaining, larger materials will be placed on a conveyor belt. Recyclable materials (e.g., aluminum, copper, ferrous metal, clean lumber) will be removed from the conveyor by hand, placed in separate bunkers, and then hauled off-site and sold to recycling facilities. Materials that are not removed from the conveyor will be placed in a bunker with other non-recyclable materials. If necessary, Cambridge employees will drive a compactor over the non-recyclable materials to reduce the size and increase the density of the material. The non-recyclable materials will then be loaded into railcars inside the transfer station. The facility is designed to process C&D debris at a rate of 100 tons per hour, which equates to 1,000 tons (approximately 4,000 cubic yards) during a 10-hour operating day. The Draft Permit prohibits Cambridge from accepting more than 4,000 cubic yards per day. The facility has the capacity to process all of the C&D debris on the same day that it is delivered to the facility, so that the tipping floor can be empty at the end of each day. The Draft Permit requires Cambridge to process all of the C&D debris within 48 hours after it is delivered to the facility. . Recyclable and non-recyclable materials will be removed from the site quickly. Each container of recyclable material will be removed from the site when the container is filled, which typically will occur several times each week. When a railcar is filled with non-recyclable material, the railcar will be removed from the transfer station and staged on a railroad track on the south end of the site. The filled railcars will be removed from the site by FEC on a daily basis, Monday through Friday. The railcars will be taken to a landfill in Alabama where the C&D debris will be disposed. If rail service to the facility is interrupted and cannot be resumed in a timely manner, any railcars that are staged on the site will be taken back inside the transfer station. Cambridge will unload the cars and arrange for the C&D debris to be shipped by truck to an appropriate disposal facility. Under such circumstances, Cambridge will stop receiving C&D debris at the facility until rail service is resumed. Cambridge expects to recycle at least 9% of the C&D debris and hopes to recycle as much as 30%. The exact amount of material that will be recycled will depend on market conditions— i.e., whether there is a viable market for the materials in the C&D debris. Garbage The facility will receive only “de minimis” amounts of garbage as essentially accidental, very minor contents of loads of C&D debris. Cambridge’s gatehouse attendant and spotters will reject any truck that contains identifiable quantities of garbage. Nonetheless, a bag or small quantity of garbage may be hidden in a load of C&D debris that is dumped onto the tipping floor. If that occurs, the garbage will be removed from the C&D debris and placed in an enclosed container inside the transfer station. If garbage is mixed with a load of C&D debris on the tipping floor, the affected part of the load will be placed in an enclosed container. The garbage will be taken off-site for disposal, as quickly as necessary to ensure that the garbage does not generate objectionable odors. In all cases, Cambridge must remove the garbage (“Class I waste”) from the site within 48 hours, in compliance with the Draft Permit and related rules. Odors The facility will not cause objectionable odors in any off-Site areas because the C&D debris, recyclable materials, and non-recyclable materials received at the facility will not generate objectionable odors. Incidental garbage could be a potential source of objectionable odors, but garbage is prohibited at the facility, the facility will receive very little garbage, and Cambridge’s plan to segregate and quickly remove garbage will ensure that objectionable odors are not created inside the transfer station. In the unlikely event that objectionable odors occur outside of the transfer station, Cambridge will use a deodorizing or odor-neutralizing agent to treat any odorous portions of the tipping floor. If necessary, Cambridge also will use the "DustBoss," water-misting machines to spray odor control agents throughout the transfer station. The Petitioners’ expert witness, Joseph Fluet, agreed that Cambridge’s odor control plan, as described in the Respondent's testimony by Mr. Enriquez, would be adequate, if implemented. This is in addition to the operational plan proposed to DERMA and should be required to be implemented as a permit condition. Vectors The facility is not expected to attract rats, bugs, or other disease-carrying vectors because C&D debris is not a food source for vectors. Nonetheless, Cambridge will hire a professional pest control firm to take all necessary measures to control vectors on the site. These measures, combined with the other components of Cambridge’s operations plan, will control disease-carrying vectors on the site and thus ensure that the facility does not pose a public health hazard. Dust The Draft Permit provides that “dust resulting from the processing operation is not allowed beyond the property boundary [of the site].” The term “dust” in the Draft Permit is synonymous with “visible emissions” or “particulate matter” (“PM”). The Draft Permit also provides that a “dust control system shall be utilized to eliminate dust throughout the storage and working areas [inside the transfer station].” Cambridge will comply with these requirements by implementing a comprehensive dust control program at the facility. Dust Control Inside the Transfer Station The transfer station is fully enclosed on four sides and thus it can effectively control any dust that is generated by the activities conducted inside the transfer station. In order to minimize the potential for dust to escape from the transfer station, Cambridge will: (a) keep all of the transfer station’s doors closed at night and when the facility is not operating; (b) minimize the number of doors open during operations; and (c) require its staff to be judicious when deciding whether to open doors, and to give due regard to wind direction and velocity. Only three bay doors will be open during normal conditions when the facility is receiving and processing its maximum C&D volume of 1,000 tons per day (i.e., an average of approximately 15 trucks per hour). Fewer doors will be open when there are fewer delivery trucks or the wind hinders Cambridge’s ability to control the dust generated inside the facility. Cambridge will use two "DustBoss" machines to eliminate dust generated inside the transfer station. The DustBoss machines will spray a fine mist (fog) of water, which will physically impact and knock-down the dust in the air. The DustBoss machines will be deployed inside the transfer station, near the bay doors, but they can be moved within the building to where they are most effective. The DustBoss machines are fully adjustable--they can oscillate automatically or be directed toward a specific location where dust is being generated. The amount of mist generated by the DustBoss can be increased or reduced, as necessary. Each DustBoss machine is designed to blow mist up to 200 feet and control dust in an area up to 20,000 square feet. The two DustBoss machines in the transfer station will have the combined capacity to control dust in an area of approximately 40,000 square feet, which is substantially more capacity than is needed in the transfer station (30,000 square feet). Dust Control Outside Of The Transfer Station In order to minimize the potential for dust outside of the transfer station, Cambridge normally will require a hauler to keep its load of C&D debris covered with a tarp until the hauler’s truck is completely inside the transfer station. Cambridge may allow a hauler to remove its tarp immediately before the hauler’s truck enters the transfer station, but this will only occur if there are trucks waiting to enter and the winds are calm. The removal of a tarp, by itself, will not release a significant amount of dust because any dust that may have been on the tarp at a job site will be blown off while the truck is driving to the facility. To further minimize the potential for dust, Cambridge will use a piece of mobile equipment to collect and remove dust from the pavement outside of the building. This mobile equipment will be fitted with a moist broom and a water tank, thus allowing it to function like a street sweeper. Cambridge will use this equipment as often as necessary to control dust outside the transfer station. Mr. Fluet, the Petitioner's expert, agreed that using a "moist broom" to remove soil and mud on the site “would deal with virtually all the issues” concerning the control of dust outside the transfer station. Dust From Railcars Railcars will enter and leave the transfer station through two doors. These doors normally will be open only when Cambridge is bringing railcars into the building for loading or taking them outside after they are filled. The DustBoss misting system will prevent dust from escaping out of these railroad doors. The C&D debris will not be loaded above the sides of the railcars and thus will not be exposed to the wind when the railcars are taken outside the transfer station. In addition, the filled railcars will be covered with a mesh tarp before they are taken outside. The mesh tarp will prevent dust from blowing out of the railcars while they are staged on the railroad track next to the transfer station. The Ventilation System The transfer station will be equipped with an emergency ventilation system to prevent the build-up of carbon monoxide (“CO”) or nitrogen dioxide (“NO2”) on the tipping floor. The ventilation system will discharge CO and NO2 through exhaust fans located approximately 30 feet above the tipping floor on the north wall of the transfer station. Fresh air will be drawn into the building through louvers located approximately 27 feet above the tipping floor on the south side of the building. The ventilation system will turn on automatically if CO or NO2 sensors detect unsafe levels on the tipping floor. It is anticipated that such levels will not be reached and the ventilation system will operate “rarely, if ever.” The ventilation system also could be operated manually, but Cambridge does not intend to do so. Dust will not be emitted from the louvers at the transfer station. The DustBoss misting system will knock-down the dust inside the transfer station before the dust reaches the louvers, which are high above the tipping floor. Moreover, the louvers will be covered with a mesh that will further reduce the potential for dust emissions. Finally, the prevailing winds at the site are from the south/southeast and they will blow into the louvers (not out) most of the year, thus preventing dust from escaping. Reasonable Precautions To Prevent Fugitive Emissions DEP Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-296.320(4)(c), requires “reasonable precautions” to be used to control fugitive emissions of PM, such as the dust generated by truck traffic on the site. Cambridge will satisfy this requirement by: (a) having pavement on the site in areas where there will be truck traffic; (b) using mobile equipment and a moist broom to remove dust from the paved areas of the site; (c) planting vegetative buffers on the site; (d) placing mesh tarps on the railcars before the railcars are taken outside the transfer station; (d) limiting the height of the C&D debris in the railcars; and (e) keeping tarps on the delivery trucks when the trucks are outside the transfer station during windy conditions. Analysis Of Potential Airborne Emissions Dust may be generated inside the transfer station when C&D debris is unloaded, moved, processed, or loaded into trucks or railcars. Dust may be generated outside the station by vehicular traffic on the site. Cambridge quantified these potential PM emissions by using standard procedures and reference documents approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Cambridge’s analysis was based on conservative (“worst-case”) assumptions, which were designed to overestimate the actual emissions from the facility. Using this approach, Cambridge determined that the maximum emissions of PM from the entire facility will be approximately 4 pounds per hour during those hours when the facility is operating. Four pounds per hour is approximately one ounce per minute. The insignificance of this emission rate can be appreciated by imagining three people standing in the bay doors of the transfer station (i.e., one person in each of the three open bay doors during normal operations) while each person pours one-third of one ounce (1/3 oz.) of flour into the air over a 60 second interval. This emission rate will result in total annual emissions of approximately 6 tons per year (TPY), but the instantaneous emissions will be negligible. Facilities that emit less than 10 TPY of PM are exempt from the DEP requirement to obtain an air permit. Consequently, Cambridge will not need a DEP air permit for the facility. A comparable facility would be a fast food restaurant, which has airborne emissions from cooking, but is not required to obtain a DEP air permit. The facility’s emissions of PM will be so small that Cambridge will not be required by DEP to prepare an analysis of the facility’s impacts on ambient air quality. An impacts analysis would not be required unless the facility’s PM emissions were expected to be greater than 250 TPY. There are no ambient air quality standards or other DEP requirements applicable to the airborne emissions from the facility, except for the requirement to use reasonable precautions to control fugitive emissions in the areas of the site located outside of the transfer station. There are no DEP emission limits or other standards applicable to the CO and NO2 emissions, if any, from the facility’s ventilation system. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-296.711 governs crushing and grinding operations in certain areas of the state, but this rule is not applicable in Miami-Dade County. Similarly, DEP does not consider tailpipe emissions from mobile equipment and trucks on the site when DEP evaluates the airborne emissions from the facility. DERM will regulate the opacity (visible emissions) of the facility’s PM emissions (dust) at the property line. DERM also will regulate the mass emissions from the facility. The applicable DERM limit for opacity is 20% and the limit for mass emissions of PM is 40 pounds per hour. The facility will comply with these DERM standards. As noted above, there will be no visible emissions of PM at the property line or beyond and the mass emissions will be no more than 4 pounds per hour under worst-case conditions. The facility will have an insignificant impact on air quality on Northwest 32nd Avenue. The facility’s impacts on the ambient air quality on Northwest 32nd Avenue will not be measurable or discernable. The prevailing winds in Miami-Dade County are from the east and southeast most of the year. When the wind is from the east or southeast, the wind at the site will blow away from the Petitioners’ residences, which are located east-northeast of the site. For these reasons, it will be physically impossible for any dust or odor from the Site to reach the Petitioners’ residences approximately 90% of the time. The prevailing winds in Miami-Dade County blow from the north only about 4% or 5% of the year. Consequently, 95% or 96% of the time the facility will have no impact on the air quality at the Martin Luther King Park, which is located south of the site. Petitioners’ Allegations Regarding Dust The Petitioners’ witness, Mr. Fluet, acknowledged that “judicious use of the misters [DustBoss] and the door positions will effectively provide reasonable assurance” concerning the dust inside the transfer station. Nonetheless, the Petitioners are concerned because nothing explicitly prohibits Cambridge from opening more than three of the bay doors to the transfer station and causing excessive emissions of dust. The Petitioners’ concerns about this issue are not established by preponderant evidence, however, because (a) the Draft Permit prohibits Cambridge from causing visible emissions beyond the property boundary, (b) Cambridge has demonstrated that it will operate the facility in compliance with the Draft Permit, and (c) DERM will inspect the facility at least once each month to ensure that the facility is operated properly. Cambridge’s obligation to comply with the Draft Permit will effectively limit the number of doors that are open and the amount of dust that is emitted at any given time. Even if the bay doors are open, the enclosed design of the building prevents the wind from blowing through the transfer station. Further, Cambridge’s expert on air issues (David Buff) explained that, when the wind is calm, Cambridge will be able to control dust emissions effectively with the DustBoss machines, even if all the bay doors are open. His testimony in this regard, is accepted as persuasive. Mr. Fluet opined that Cambridge may manually turn on the ventilation system if the temperature inside the transfer station becomes too hot. Mr. Fluet acknowledged, however, that misting systems are used to cool the public at amusement parks and the mist from the DustBoss machines will have the same cooling effect in the transfer station. This acknowledgment somewhat belies his suggestion that the ventilation system will need to be activated. Mr. Fluet’s opinion also is countered by the fact that Cambridge’s application and witnesses have confirmed that the ventilation system will be used only for emergencies, and not for hot weather ventilation or evacuation of dust. Finally, even if it is assumed, hypothetically, that the ventilation system may be turned on for Cambridge’s convenience, the Petitioners failed to prove that the operation of the ventilation system will cause violations of any applicable air quality standard. Should such become the case, as revealed by the monthly inspections, the use of the filters referenced by Mr. Fluet should be implemented. Mr. Fluet expressed concern that contamination problems may occur if painted or treated wood is shredded at the facility. This concern has been alleviated because the Draft Permit and the Respondent's testimony shows that the acceptance for processing of painted or treated wood will be prohibited. Prohibited and unacceptable waste must be removed from the C&D debris stream and taken off-site for disposal. Leachate Water that comes in contact with C&D debris is deemed to be “leachate.” Since C&D debris is generally non-hazardous and not water soluble, C&D debris is not expected to produce leachate that is harmful to groundwater. The transfer station has been designed with a roof and four walls. The design of the station will minimize the potential for generating leachate and minimize the potential for standing water inside the facility. Cambridge’s “design strategy for the facility is to prevent contact between rainfall or stormwater and C/D materials [C&D debris] at all times, thereby entirely preventing the generation of leachate.” C&D debris is relatively dry material. If a container of C&D debris is exposed to rain before the container is brought to the facility, the rainwater typically will (a) be absorbed by the C&D debris or (b) leak out of the container before the container reaches the facility, because the containers used to collect C&D debris are not water-tight. Even if some liquid is spilled on the tipping floor with a load of C&D debris, the liquid will be absorbed by the C&D debris when the load is moved across the floor. Liquids normally will not be tracked into the transfer station by trucks. Trucks will enter the transfer station by slowly backing up an inclined grade, through the bay doors, and onto the tipping floor. Although some rainwater may be tracked into the station by the trucks or truck tires, it will only be a negligible amount. Even less water will be tracked out of the transfer station. The mist from the DustBoss machines is not likely to cause puddles to form on the tipping floor. The C&D debris will absorb any mist that lands on it. Mist landing on the tipping floor will be absorbed when the C&D debris is pushed across the floor. After each truck unloads, the tipping floor must be cleared to make space for the next truck. If there is a puddle on the floor, the C&D debris will be pushed through the puddle to absorb it. In the alternative, the puddle will be pushed into the C&D debris. Cambridge employees will monitor the tipping floor for liquids. The employees will use mobile equipment (i.e., a skid- steer) fitted with a rubber-edged blade to push the liquids, like a squeegee, if necessary. Since the facility will receive up to 1,000 tons of C&D debris per day, there will be a substantial amount of material available to absorb any liquids on the floor. The tipping floor will be equipped with a sump that can hold approximately 359 gallons of liquid. In the event there are liquids on the tipping floor, Cambridge’s employees can push the liquids into the sump by using the rubber-edged blade on the skid-steer equipment. The sump will be used rarely, if ever. One of Cambridge’s solid waste experts, Kenneth Cargill, testified that he had never seen liquids in the floor drain (sump) at a C&D debris transfer station in Ft. Myers, even though that transfer station is open on one side (170’ wide and 40’ high) and rain can blow onto the tipping floor. The sump in Ft. Myers is empty during the rainy season, as well as the dry season. If any liquids are collected in the facility’s sump, a third party contractor will pump the liquids out of the sump, as frequently as necessary, to ensure that the sump is never overtopped. Any liquids removed from the sump will be taken by the contractor to a permitted disposal facility, such as a wastewater treatment plant (“WWTP”). The liquid in the sump is not expected to upset the operation of the WWTP, so the DEP does not require the liquid to be tested before it is delivered to the WWTP. The railcars used to transport C&D debris from the facility will be fully sealed at the bottom. The railcars will not leak if rainwater falls into them. Mr. Cargill, Mr. Leonard Enriquez (Cambridge’s General Manager), and Mr. Hardeep Anand (the Chief of DERM’s Pollution Regulation and Enforcement Division (“PRED”)) collectively established that the Transfer Station is well-designed and has a generally satisfactory leachate control system. The leachate will be controlled and contained inside the Transfer Station by using an enclosed building, a concrete floor, a sump, a good operating plan, and diligent employees. Petitioners’ Contentions Regarding Leachate Mr. Fluet contended that (a) the leachate control system is not adequate, (b) leachate will escape from the transfer station and enter the environment, and (c) the tipping floor will not minimize standing water. According to Mr. Fluet, all of these problems will occur primarily because the tipping floor is flat—i.e., it is not sloped toward a drain and has no lip, berm or raised edge to contain liquids. It was undisputed, however, that the DEP rules do not require a sloped floor. Although Mr. Cargill always designs transfer stations with a sloped floor, he concluded that Cambridge’s transfer station is “well designed” and can be operated successfully by using conscientious employees. Indeed, even Mr. Fluet acknowledged he could operate the transfer station in compliance with the FDEP rules, without having a sloped floor. Mr. Fluet would install a “lip” (raised edge) around the tipping floor, but he agreed the transfer station could be operated in compliance with the applicable rules. Petitioners contend that the tipping floor must be washed weekly, and allege that this activity may result in water escaping from the transfer station. This contention is fatally flawed because (a) the DEP rules do not require routine washing of the floors at C&D debris transfer stations, (b) washing is not necessary to control odors, and (c) Cambridge plans to use other odor control measures, rather than washing, in the unlikely event there are odors at the facility. When asked whether Cambridge had provided reasonable assurances that it would minimize the amount of leachate produced in the Transfer Station, Mr. Fluet implied the answer is yes, “to a great extent by the fact that it’s [the transfer station] enclosed.” He also agreed that the design of the building (i.e., the roof) will minimize the amount of standing water on the tipping floor. Nonetheless, Mr. Fluet suggested that the use of the DustBoss machines may be inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710(3), which requires an applicant to minimize standing water in a waste processing facility. He raised the possibility that liquids may accumulate on the tipping floor because the two DustBoss machines are capable of using approximately 30,000 gallons of water per hour while producing mist. He acknowledged, however, that “a lot” of the mist (water) will evaporate before it reaches the tipping floor. Mr. Fluet’s concerns about this issue are not entirely supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Mr. Cargill and Mr. Enriquez established that the mist will evaporate or be absorbed by the C&D debris. Moreover, the DustBoss machines can be adjusted to reduce the amount of mist that is produced and thus reduce the potential for creating puddles on the tipping floor. The DustBoss machines presumably will not need to run continuously at maximum capacity because the two machines have the combined capacity to cover approximately 40,000 square feet of building space, and the transfer station is only about 30,000 square feet. On balance, in consideration of this testimony concerning flexibility in use and management of the DustBoss machines, and Mr. Fluet's concern about standing water on the tipping floor, reasonable assurances can best be established by a slight design alteration to provide for a lip or berm around the tipping floor. The fact that the rail track traverses the building also serves to render this appropriate. The permit should be so conditioned. Mr. Fluet postulated that the DEP rules will be violated if rainwater (a) drips off of the C&D debris in the delivery trucks while the trucks are on the site and then (b) flows into the stormwater management system on the site or enters the groundwater. According to Mr. Fluet, the rainwater will constitute leachate, because the water came into contact with C&D debris, and the DEP rules prohibit the mixing of any leachate with stormwater or groundwater. Mr. Fluet conceded, however, that the same problem occurs at every transfer station in Florida when rainwater/leachate drips from delivery trucks. Mr. Fluet claimed that the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County will contain more demolition debris and residential waste than the C&D debris in other parts of Florida and thus the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County will produce worse leachate. However, Mr. Fluet acknowledged the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County already is being handled in the County’s existing C&D debris facilities and he has no evidence of groundwater contamination at any of those facilities. Moreover, Mr. Fluet could not identify any C&D transfer station where there were violations of DEP standards for groundwater or surface water because of the scenarios he described, or the concerns he raised about Cambridge’s Facility. Mr. Fluet's opinions were based on his expertise and experience. The Petitioners offered no empirical data to support their claims or concerns. Mr. Fluet admitted that he did “not perform any studies, calculations, or engineering analyses” concerning the proposed Facility. Mr. Fluet and the Petitioners did not quantify the amount of leachate that allegedly will be released into the environment from the tipping floor, or the amount of leachate that will drip from delivery trucks, or the amount of water that may accumulate on the tipping floor when the DustBoss machines are operating. They presented no information concerning the chemical constituents or chemical concentrations in any of the liquids that allegedly will be released under any of their potential scenarios. No data was presented concerning the quality of the liquids collected in the sumps at other transfer stations. They did not present any evidence demonstrating that DEP’s groundwater or surface water quality standards will be violated as a result of the quantity or quality of the leachate that allegedly will enter the environment as a result of the facility’s operations. Mr. Anand explained that DEP does not evaluate the possibility that rainwater will drip from delivery trucks, or that trucks will track liquids out of a transfer station, when DEP is determining whether to issue a permit for a waste processing facility pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701. Even if these impacts were considered, the likelihood of these events causing contamination is “negligible.” Mr. Anand testified that DERM currently has eight (8) C&D debris transfer stations in Miami-Dade County. Groundwater monitoring data are collected at some of the sites, but DERM has no evidence of groundwater contamination at any of those sites. Similarly, Mr. Cargill was unaware of any cases in Florida where a transfer station for C&D debris caused contamination of groundwater or stormwater as a result of liquids dripping from the trucks that are entering or leaving the facility. C&D debris is not expected to be water soluble or hazardous. The leachate from C&D debris is not expected to cause groundwater contamination. Accordingly, the DEP rules do not require C&D debris to be placed inside water-tight containers when the C&D debris is stored at a job site. The DEP rules do not prohibit the permanent disposal of C&D debris in unlined disposal facilities. There is nothing to prevent rainwater from passing through the C&D debris and entering directly into the groundwater at a job site or an unlined C&D disposal facility. Given all of the foregoing facts, Mr. Cargill and Mr. Anand testified that the Cambridge Facility should have “little or no impact” on the quality of the soils, surface water, or groundwater at the site. Their testimony is credible, persuasive, and accepted. Comparison To Other Transfer Stations The design of the Cambridge Facility is a significant improvement over the typical design of a C&D debris transfer station. The measures that Cambridge will use to control dust and liquids at the facility are superior to the measures used to control dust and liquids at typical C&D transfer stations. There are 8 C&D debris transfer stations lawfully operating in Miami-Dade County. Only one of these facilities is enclosed. Some C&D debris facilities have a roof, but no walls. A transfer station within one mile of the site has no roof and no walls. At most transfer stations, dust is controlled by manually spraying the C&D debris with a hose. None of the transfer stations in Miami-Dade County use DustBoss machines to control dust. None of the facilities in Miami-Dade County use a moist broom and sweeper equipment on a routine basis to control dust. Although the existing facilities in Miami-Dade County comply with the DEP rules, the Cambridge facility has gone beyond the minimum requirements established by DEP. Stormwater Permits DEP issued an Environmental Resource Permit for the construction and operation of a stormwater management system serving the facility. Miami-Dade County issued a Class VI Drainage Permit for the construction and operation of an exfiltration trench that will handle the stormwater from the facility. No one challenged or otherwise appealed the DEP Environmental Resource Permit or the Miami-Dade County Class VI permit. Site Assessment A “Phase I” (preliminary) environmental assessment of the site was conducted by Cambridge and further investigations were recommended; however, Cambridge has not yet conducted a “Phase II” assessment or collected any field data. Mr. Fluet speculated about potential “indications” of contamination, but he had no data to prove that any contamination actually exists. In the absence of any field data, he admitted that “we don’t know” whether the site is a “Brownfield” site and “cannot speak” to whether the site is contaminated. Financial Assurance The cost of closing the facility was estimated by Cambridge to be approximately $231,000. Cambridge’s estimate did not include the cost of pumping the liquids (if any) out of the sump, which may be $2,000 to $3,000 (i.e., less than 1% of the financial assurance provided by Cambridge). This omission is insignificant, it can be corrected before Cambridge commences operations of the facility, and it does not warrant the denial of Cambridge’s application for the Permit. Irresponsible Applicant Cambridge Project Development, Inc., is the minority partner in Cambridge. TLA-Miami, Inc., is the managing partner. TLA-Miami, Inc., is an affiliate of Transload America, Inc. (“TLA”). None of these entities or their affiliates have previously owned or operated a solid waste management facility in Florida, or violated any environmental laws, permits, or other requirements in Florida. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.320(3), DEP considers the applicant’s prior operations in Florida when determining whether an applicant for a solid waste processing facility permit is an “irresponsible applicant.” The applicant’s operations in other states are not considered. In this case, DERM properly concluded that Cambridge is not an irresponsible applicant. Cambridge’s Operating Plan And Building Design Cambridge submitted a written operating plan (the “Operating Plan”) with its application to DERM. The Operating Plan sets forth Cambridge’s plan for operating the facility in compliance with the applicable DEP requirements. Additional details concerning Cambridge’s method of operation were provided by preponderant evidence at the hearing, in a de novo context. The Operating Plan satisfies the DEP requirements. During the hearing, Mr. Enriquez explained that the design of the transfer station will be better than the design initially proposed in Cambridge’s application to DERM. The sump will be bigger, the concrete in the tipping floor will be thicker, and the strength of the concrete will be greater than originally proposed. DEP’s Review Of Permit Applications The Petitioners contend that DEP and DERM should have evaluated a variety of issues that are of interest to the Petitioners. However, it was undisputed that DEP does not consider the following issues when deciding whether to issue a permit for a solid waste processing facility: zoning and comprehensive plan designations; land use compatibility; traffic; noise; public benefits; aesthetics; geotechnical issues, such as differential settlement; structural design issues, such as the structural design of a tipping floor or push wall; the adequacy of a fire control system; the adequacy of a ventilation system; the economic or ethnic makeup of the areas near a proposed site; whether the proposed location is the best site; or whether there is a need for the proposed facility. In the instant case, many of these issues were addressed by other governmental entities, such as the Building Department for Miami-Dade County. Public Notice Cambridge provided two notices to the public concerning the facility. On January 15, 2008, notice of Cambridge’s application was published. On August 26, 2008, notice of DERM’s proposed agency action was published. These notices satisfied the applicable DEP requirements. Reasonable Assurances Cambridge has provided reasonable assurances that the facility will be constructed and operated in compliance with all of the applicable DEP requirements in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701, for a waste processing facility. Cambridge also has provided reasonable assurances that it will comply with all of the conditions contained in the Draft Permit, and established by the preponderant evidence.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order granting Cambridge's application to construct and operate the facility on the site, including the conditions contained in the Draft Permit and in the above findings and conclusions, to include a design alteration providing for a slight lip or berm around the tipping floor, as supported by the preponderant, persuasive evidence. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Quick, Esquire Michelle D. Vos, Esquire Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2009. Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L. 525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 700 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Peter S. Tell, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Miami-Dade County 111 Northwest 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128 David S. Dee, Esquire Young Van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael W. Sole, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On November 16, 1988, Industrial Waste Service, Inc. (IWS), obtained approval to provide garbage and trash collection services to the City of Pembroke Pines (City) when the City passed and adopted Resolution No. 1876 approving the assignment of the contract for such services between the City and Citywide Sanitation Company, Inc. (Citywide), to IWS. Citywide's contract was to expire June 30, 1993. On November 6, 1991, the city amended Chapter 112 of its Code and passed and adopted a solid waste franchise ordinance, called the "City Solid Waste Franchise Ordinance," Ordinance No. 975, effective November 6, 1991. The Ordinance provides in pertinent part: Sec. 112.39 FRANCHISE REQUIRED TO OPERATE; RESTRICTIONS ON OPERATING IN THE CITY; AWARD OF FRANCHISE It shall be unlawful to commence or engage in the business of collecting and disposing of solid waste originating in the city without a franchise issued by the franchising authority in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter. It shall be unlawful for any hauler operating in the city to dispose of solid waste collected in the city at any location other than to the Resource Recovery System transfer station or facilities designated in the plan of operation under the Solid Waste Disposal Agreement, as defined in section 94.22 of the code, the City's Flow Control Ordinance. (Underscore and strike through omitted) On February 13, 1992, the City and IWS entered into a "Solid Waste Collection & Disposal Agreement" (Agreement). The Agreement provides in pertinent part: 2. DEFINITIONS Contract Collection Area shall include all of the City of Pembroke Pines, Florida, as the boundaries of said City shall exist at all times during the life of this Contract. * * * 4. TERM & EFFECTIVE DATE The term of this Contract shall be for a five (5) year period beginning February 1. 1992 and termi- nating January 31, 1997. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by the parties hereto. On April 1, 1992, the Agreement was amended, "First Amendment to Solid Waste Collection & Disposal," which provides in pertinent part. DEFINITIONS * * * Commercial Service shall mean the collection and disposal of Garbage, trash, Solid Waste and Processable Waste for all Business, Commercial, Industrial, hospital, school, governmental and quasi-governmental establishments, including the collection and disposal of Construction and Demolition Debris. * * * Processable Waste shall mean that portion of Waste Stream that is capable of being processed in the Corporation's resource recovery and compost facility, including but not limited to materials which are recyclable and all acceptable Waste other than Non- Processable Waste (as defined herein). * * * Solid Waste shall mean all waste accumulations consisting of garbage, residential/household trash, commercial/business trash and construction and demolition debris, including but limited to all materials which are recyclable. * * * CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS (D) The City further grants to Contractor the exclusive right to service all Residential Curbside, Apartment, Condominium, Business, Industrial, and Commercial establishments that are certified for occupancy after February 1, 1992, provided, however, a certificate of occupancy issued as a result of remodeling with no change in ownership shall not require the owner to change service to the Contractor except for the Solid Waste (i.e. Construction Demolition and Debris) created thereby. * * * The City grants to the Contractor the exclusive right to provide Solid Waste collection and disposal services to any Residential Apartment, Business, Commercial or Industrial establishments for the following customers as of February 1, 1992: For CONTRACTORS's existing customers; and For customers that have a change in ownership after the City's approval of the Agreement; and For customers which received Solid Waste collection and disposal services in the City prior to the City's approval of the Agreement and whose contract for such services expires and is not renewed with the same provider in the future. (Underscore and strike through omitted) On November 4, 1992, the City passed and adopted an ordinance, Ordinance No. 1016, amending Chapter 94 of its Code providing for a new subchapter entitled "Garbage Collection" and providing new sections. The Ordinance provides in pertinent part: Sec. 94-10 Agreement with Private Collector. The City acting by and through its City Commission, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 112.37 through 112.41 of the Code, approved a Solid Waste Collection & Disposal Franchise Agreement dated January 15, 1992, as amended by the First Amendment dated April 1, 1992 ("Agreement") between the City and Industrial Waste Service Inc. ("Collector"). All providers of Solid Waste collection and disposal services other than Collector who provide such services within the City boundaries shall be referred to herein as "Haulers". All terms not otherwise defined in this Subchapter shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Agreement. The Agreement is specifically made a part hereof as Appendix A, and a copy of same will be maintained at the City Clerk's Office at City Hall. Pursuant to the Agreement the City has granted the Collector the following rights and obligations to provide Solid Waste collection and disposal services: * * * The exclusive right and obligation to provide solid waste collection and disposal services within the City boundaries, present and future, for all Residential Curbside, and all Apartment, Condominium, Business, Industrial and Commercial establishments that are certified for occupancy after February 1, 1992, and govern- mental establishments to the extent permitted by law, provided, however, that a certificate of occupancy issued as a result of remodeling with no change in ownership of the property shall not require the Customer to change to Collector except for construction/remodeling demolition and debris created thereby; and The exclusive right and obligation to provide solid waste collection and disposal services within the City boundaries for all construction or remodeling demolition and debris within the City; and As of February 1, 1992, the exclusive right and obligation to provide solid waste collection and disposal services within the City boundaries for; [sic] Collector's existing Customers; Customers/property owners in the City that have a change in ownership; and customers/property owners whose contract for solid waste collection and disposal services expires and is not renewed with the same provider. Sec. 94.14 Certain Acts Prohibited. * * * (C) It shall be a violation of this subchapter for any person, firm, corporation or other entity, other than Collector to collect and/or dispose of Solid Waste originating in the City except to the extent the same is specifically permitted by the terms of this subchapter. (Underscore and strike through omitted) By letter dated June 10, 1992, IWS notified South Florida State Hospital that it (IWS) was the exclusive contractor for solid waste collection and disposal. South Florida State Hospital (Hospital) is a state mental health treatment facility operated and administered by the Division of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) pursuant to Chapter 394, Florida Statutes. The Hospital is located on state property and is situated within the city limits of the City of Pembroke Pines (City), Broward County, Florida. In December 1993, HRS published an Invitation To Bid (ITB) on Bid # 595-591 for waste disposal services at the Hospital. Browning Ferris Industries, IWS, and Southern Sanitation Service submitted bids. On December 8, 1993, a pre-bid conference was held which included an opportunity for questions and answers. At this conference, HRS pointed out, among other things, that the City had an exclusive contract with IWS for waste disposal services but it (HRS) was also obligated by Florida Statutes to ensure the bidding remained competitive and that all waste collected from the Hospital had to be deposited at land fill sights designated by the City. In or around January 1994, HRS notified the bidders of Bid # 595-591 that, due to the bid document being flawed, a contract would not be awarded. All the bidders filed protests but none raised the City's exclusive contract with IWS as an issue. Ultimately, the contract was awarded to IWS but for only a six-month period. In April 1994, HRS published another ITB on Bid # 595-594 for waste disposal services at the Hospital. In the section entitled "SECTION A. INTRODUCTION," the ITB provides in pertinent part: STATEMENT OF NEED [T]he department requires the services of a qualified waste disposal company to provide waste disposal services to maintain sanitary conditions essential to the health, safety and well being of residents and staff living and working at the hospital. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 287, this Invitation to Bid is being issued by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, South Florida State Hospital, to obtain the services of a suitably qualified provider to enter into a contract for the removal and disposal of garbage from the hospital campus, and related services; in keeping with hospital requirements and the waste flow control ordinance of the City of Pembroke Pines. In the section "SECTION B. ITB SPECIFICATIONS: MINIMUM DEPARTMENTAL REQUIREMENTS," the ITB provides in pertinent part: PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS Method of Service Delivery 13) The provider will dispose of waste collected from the hospital at disposal site(s) specified by the City of Pembroke Pines, in keeping with the city's waste flow control ordinance. * * * Other Special Requirements * * * 2) Bidders Eligibility Requirements The successful bidder, in order to contract with the department to provide the services requested by this Invitation to Bid, must have all licenses and/or permits in accordance with city and county ordinances, rules, regulations, and provisions. All licenses and/or permits must be obtained at provider's expense. All costs for tests and inspections shall be paid for by the provider. GENERAL INFORMATION * * * Acceptance of Bids [T]he department reserves the right to reject any or all bids or waive minor irregularities when to do so would be in the best interest of the State of Florida. Minor irregularities are those which will not have a significant adverse effect on overall competition, cost or performance. In the section entitled "SECTION E. BID EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BID TABULATION," the ITB provides in pertinent part: 1) Evaluation Committee An evaluation committee of at lest three (3) members will be established to select the lowest responsive and qualified bidder. * * * 3) Evaluation of Bids Following the bid opening, the committee will review bid packages, beginning with the lowest cost bid, for compliance with the ITB requirements. A Fatal Items Checklist (Appendix IX) will be used to evaluate all bid packages. All items on the checklist MUST be met in order for the proposal to be considered. Receipt of a "No" response for any item will result in automatic rejection of the bid. All references will be checked. Only bidders with a good record of satisfactory performance will be considered. The contract will be awarded to the lowest responsive and qualified bidder who meets all the criteria specified in this ITB. The section entitled "General Conditions" of the ITB Contractual Services Bidder Acknowledgment form provides in pertinent part: 7. AWARDS: As the best interest of the State may require, the right is reserved to make award(s) by individual service, group of services, all or none, or a combination thereof; to reject any and all bids or waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received. Bidders are cautioned to make no assumptions unless their bid has been evaluated as being responsive. In response to the ITB, HRS received bids from Browning Ferris Industries which had previously bid on Bid # 595-591, Coastal Carting, Ltd., IWS which had also previously bid on Bid #595-591, Son Mar South Sanitation, Inc. (SON MAR), and Southern Sanitation Service which had also previously bid on Bid # 595-591. SON MAR was the apparent lowest bidder with a bid of $72,200.48 for the first year, $79,420.52 for the second year, and $87.362.57 for the third year, totalling $238.983.57, and IWS was the apparent second lowest bidder with a bid of $106,739.84 for the first year, $112,734.46 for the second year, and $121,971.12 for the third year, totalling $341,445.42. Subsequently, IWS' bid was recalculated due to HRS discovering a calculation error by IWS. The recalculation was performed without a reconvening of the Evaluation Committee and resulted in IWS' bid being $113,579.84 for the first year, $119,814.46 for the second year, and $129,291.12 for the third year, totalling $362,685.42. The Evaluation Committee reviewed all the bids and evaluated them using, among other things, the Fatal Items Checklist. If one item in the checklist were not satisfied, a bid would be disqualified. Pertinent to this case, both SON MAR and IWS satisfied the Checklist and all other evaluation criteria used by the Committee. On May 12, 1994, the Bid Tabulation sheet was posted. HRS indicated its intent to award Bid # 595-594 contract to SON MAR as the apparent lowest and responsive bidder. At that time, HRS was aware that SON MAR had no licenses or permits issued by the City. The Evaluation Committee considered the absence of a license or permit as not material to awarding the bid 1/ and were aware that an awardee obtaining a license or permit would involve a simple process of the awardee completing an application for and paying a fee to the City. By letter dated May 20, 1994, HRS requested that the City advise it of any permits and/or licenses required by the City for an awardee to provide waste removal services to the Hospital. HRS did not receive a written response to its letter. Instead, the City orally advised HRS that it (the City) would issue SON MAR a special permit which would be issued upon SON MAR making application for an occupational license and paying a franchise fee. SON MAR was agreeable to complying with the City's terms and conditions. SON MAR dispatched one of its representatives to the City to obtain an application for the license. However, the City refused to provide SON MAR an application. By letter dated June 13, 1994, IWS filed its formal bid protest of Bid # 595-594 with HRS alleging, among other things, that SON MAR did not have a license from the City to provide waste removal services because it (IWS) had the exclusive waste removal contract with the City, that, without a license, SON MAR could not comply with the bid eligibility requirements and that, therefore, the bid should be awarded to it (IWS). On or about June 28, 1994, SON MAR notified the City that its refusal to issue it (SON MAR) an occupational license was unconstitutional per a U.S. Supreme Court case and requested immediate issuance of the license. SON MAR forwarded HRS a copy of this notification and request. By letter dated June 30, 1994, the City notified SON MAR that it would not issue it (SON MAR) a permit to provide waste removal services in the City, as such an action would violate the exclusive franchise agreement that it (the City) had with IWS. On or about June 30, 1994, HRS was aware that the City would not permit SON MAR to provide waste removal services in the City as it received a copy of the City's letter to SON MAR. On July 14, 1995, HRS and IWS settled the protest filed by IWS, without involving SON MAR in the negotiations. The terms of the settlement, which were communicated to SON MAR on July 15, 1995, were that IWS would dismiss its protest if, within ten days, 2/ SON MAR obtained a license/permit from the City, produced the license to HRS and otherwise remain qualified for the award and that, if SON MAR was unable to obtain a license from the City, HRS would declare SON MAR unqualified and declare IWS the lowest responsive and qualified bidder and award the bid to IWS. SON MAR was unable to obtain a license from the City. Moreover, the City refused to provide SON MAR with an application, remaining consistent with its letter of June 30, 1994, to SON MAR. As SON MAR was unable to obtain a license within the prescribed ten- day period, by letter dated July 29, 1994, HRS notified all bidders to Bid # 595-594 that it was declaring SON MAR unqualified and of its intent to award the bid to IWS, as the next lowest and qualified bidder. Further, HRS notified the bidders that the bids of IWS and another bidder were recalculated to correct a calculation error, which would not affect the order of the bids. By letter dated August 9, 1994, SON MAR notified HRS of its intent to file a formal protest. On or about August 24, 1994, SON MAR filed its formal protest. At no time material hereto, has SON MAR pursued any civil action to challenge the validity of the exclusive contract between the City and IWS or the constitutionality of the City's Ordinance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order awarding Bid # 595-594 to Industrial Waste Service, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of March 1995. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March 1995
