Findings Of Fact Petitioner Robert R. Waszak, a resident of Broward County, Florida, purchased Lot 258-A, a 1.25-acre lot in an unrecorded subdivision, Pinetree Estates Subdivision, in Parkland, Broward County, Florida. He cleared the property of a major portion of the sawgrass, pine trees, willows and other types of vegetation and placed thereon fill consisting of sand, rock, shell and other porous material. He obtained a test boring report from Nutting Engineers of Florida, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On December 16, 1980 he filed an application for a septic tank permit on a form provided by the Broward County Health Department together with residential plans and a survey of the property, which application was subsequently denied on January 15, 1981 by the environmental engineering section of the health department. Respondent made an on-site inspection of the Petitioner's lot on December 18, 1980 and at least one other inspection subsequent thereto. A report was filed as part of the notification of denial (Respondent's Exhibit 1). The uncompacted fill placed on the subject property by Petitioner created a mound considerably less than six (6) feet in depth on the obviously low, swampy property. Under the fill and the layer of top soil on the lot there is a layer of cap rock overlying the property. The largely impervious cap rock is visible in areas where the fill does not cover it (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Samples of the fill material and also of the cap rock were examined at the hearing by the Hearing Officer. The fill placed on the property has many rock fragments and rock fines in it which, according to the uncontroverted testimony of the Respondent's witness, are subject to chemical reaction which "cements up" a drainfield area when it comes in contact with septic tank effluent. This "cementing" would take from one to two (2) years after installation on the subject property. There was no evidence presented as to the depth of the water table at the wettest season. Petitioner did not dispute the testimony and evidence presented by the Respondent but was interested in further improvement so that he could use his property as a residential site. He noted that a new subdivision was being built near his property. Respondent pointed out that said subdivision had a central disposal system planned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the application of Petitioner Robert R. Waszak for a septic tank permit be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert R. Waszak 60 NW 56th Court Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Alan W. Ludwig, Esquire Broward County Health Department 2421 SW Sixth Avenue Post Office Box 14608 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of several acres of land which are a part of a platted subdivision in Orange Park, Florida. At an undisclosed date in 1979, Petitioner orally applied to the Clay County Health Department for septic tank permits for Lots 3, 4, 5N, and 5S. The only documentation submitted with his application was a site plan for Lot 5S. By letters of March 26 and 30, 1979, the Clay County Health Department advised the Petitioner that his application was denied because the lots were not in compliance with specified provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. By letter of May 3, 1979, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to contest the denial of his application. At the hearing, officials of the Clay County Health Department predicated the denial on the fact that the lots in question were not sufficiently large to permit the required setbacks imposed by law and regulation. (Testimony of Bray, Hickey, Exhibits 1-3) A stream runs in an easterly direction across the property in question to the St. Johns River which lies approximately 300 years to the east of the property. A curved extension of the stream located on Lot 4 has been filled at some time in the past. A pond is located at the center of Lots 5N and 5S. The size of the lots vary from over one-third to less than one-half acre. The City of Orange Park has a 20 foot wide easement on both sides of the stream bed for maintenance purposes. The easement precludes the construction of permanent structures but does not proscribe other uses of the land area. There is not a public water supply or sewage disposal system available at the present time, although an artesian well located on adjacent Lot 2 provides water for homes which have previously been constructed on that lot and adjacent Lot 1. It is adequate to supply water needs of the lots in question. However, local health officials informed Petitioner that the artesian well cannot be used as a central water supply for the additional lots. Petitioner proposes to install individual septic tanks and drainage fields on each of the lots. Service easements are also located on Lots 4,5, and 5S. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibits 1,4) By exclusion of the easement area on all four lots, together with the pond area of 4,000 square feet on Lot 5N and 3,000 square feet on Lot 5S, the remaining land area of Lots 3 and 4 is more than one-third but less than one- half acre each in size. Lot 5S is slightly less than one-quarter acre in size. Lot 5D is slightly less than one-quarter after exclusion of the pond and easement area. (Testimony of Bray, Exhibit 4) There is sufficient area in Lots 3 and 4 to provide for set back requirements for individual sewage disposal facilities, i.e., not within five feet of property line or within fifty feet of the high water line of lakes, streams, or other waters, as provided in Rules 10D-6.24(3) and (4), F.A.C., respectively. There is sufficient area in Lots 5N and 5S to meet the above setback requirements when consideration is given to the area necessary for septic drain fields. (Testimony of Bray, Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for septic tank permits be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Woolverton 3551 St. Johns Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire District IV Counsel Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231
Findings Of Fact The Application Respondent; Manatee County (County), has applied to Respondent; Department of Environmental Regulation (Department), for a permit to construct a deep injection well in Manatee County. On July 9; 1985; the Department issued a Notice of Intent to issue the permit with certain conditions. In 1983, the County updated its Federal 201 Facilities Plant for treatment and disposal of waste to take into consideration both growth that had taken place in the southwest part of the county and the needs of the rest of the unincorporated area of the county. It was determined to expand the southwest treatment plant as part of the amendments. As before, the County planned to dispose of effluent from the southwest treatment plant by land application to agricultural lands and public golf courses. However; the Environmental Protection Agency requires a twenty year guarantee that effluent can be disposed of in the manner proposed in the 201 plan. The County could not make such a twenty year guarantee for the land application system because it only has a ten-year lease with the Manatee Fruit Company allowing-application on its agricultural fields. The additional cost to purchase or lease land to enable the County to make a twenty year guarantee made land use plus a back-up deep injection well the most cost effective alternative. The County included such a well in its amended 201 Plan. The County plans to continue to use land application as long as it is available. However; even with current land application capacity; land application and existing storage facilities will not enable the county to handle all of the effluent produced during rainy weather. The County estimates that this shortage of capacity will exist on an average of 27 days per year on which approximately 4 million gallons per day (MOD) would be disposed of by deep well injection. After the first several years of operation, it is expected that the rate of injection on these days during the rainy season will increase to approximately six MGD. Effluent from the County's southwest treatment plant is secondarily treated. It has the capability of controlling pH and being disinfected. The plant also can be modified to add a filtration system to filter suspended matter and viruses if necessary. The site of the proposed deep injection well is the Cortez Peninsula in Manatee County. The proposed site is virtually the westernmost point of land in Manatee County other than the barrier islands off the coast. Under the construction permit for which the County has applied, the County would first construct a monitor well on the same construction pad as, and approximately 70 feet away from, the deep injection well. The County does not propose to construct an exploratory well at the proposed site. The County previously constructed an exploratory well approximately three and a half miles east of the proposed site at the County's southwest treatment plant. That exploratory well will also be used to monitor background water in the aquifer above the confining formation above the proposed injection zone. The purpose of the proposed deep injection well is for testing preliminary to an application for a permit to operate the deep injection well to dispose of secondarily treated wastewater or effluent. During construction of the proposed well, water quality; geophysical and hydrological tests will be conducted. The results of the tests will be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Based on the tests results, the TAC will either approve or disapprove testing the well with fresh water. These tests will yield additional information concerning the transmissivity of the injection zone and pressure build-ups. The results of these additional tests will again be presented to the TAC. Based upon the results of the tests, the TAC will either approve or disapprove further testing under operating conditions; i.e., using secondarily treated wastewater or effluent. This last testing period probably will last between three and six months. (The representations of the County and the Department in this Finding Of Fact are not specified in the draft permit which the Department noticed intent to issue.) Manasota-88 Petitioner, Manasota-88; Inc.; opposes the granting of the County's application. Manasota-88 is properly and currently incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida and took proper corporate action to commence its petition in this case. Manasota-88 is a citizen with standing to petition in opposition to the granting of the County's application. The Injection Zone The proposed well will be approximately 1700 feet deep. At that depth; the injection zone will consist of the Avon Park limestone formation which begins approximately 1000 feet deep. The proposed injection zone consists of brown, finely crystalline, massive dolomite with well developed solution cavities and fractures. Above the injection zone lies the Ocala limestone formation; the confining bed; which occurs at depths of approximately between 1000 and 700 feet. The Ocala limestone confining bed consists of friable or chalky limestone or calcareous clay. Above the confining bed is the Suwannee limestone formation, which occurs at depths of approximately 700 to 425 or 350 feet. Like the Avon Park limestone formation, the Suwannee limestone formation is an aquifer however, unlike the Avon Park limestone formation, Suwannee limestone formation is used as a source of water in Manatee County, primarily for agricultural irrigation purposes. Like the exploratory well, the monitor well will monitor water occurring at the bottom of the Suwannee limestone formation aquifer. This will enable both the monitor well and the exploratory well to observe water quality at those locations. D Water Quality In The Injection Zone The water quality at the top of the injection zone at the exploratory well; following pumping and sampling, stabilized at about 14,000 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids (TDS). The water quality in the rest of the injection zone at the exploratory well ranged from 15,290 TDS to 37,700 TDS. Generally, water quality improves as one moves up, south and east within the aquifer. As a result, there is an approximate interface within the aquifer at which water quality equals 10,000 TDS. This saltwater interface or wedge at the top of the Avon Park aquifer is approximately four miles east of the exploratory well. The interface is a dynamic interface which moves with stress or recharge the aquifer. It may, for example, move in a band during the wet season and dry season. If the recharge is great into the zone somewhat further out to the east, the interface may move to the west. In a drought period, the zone is stressed to the west, and it may move to the east as a function of recharge and discharge. But in any event, the inter-face at the top of the injection zone is east of the exploratory well. Apparently contrary evidence suggesting that water quality improves as one moves west is limited to the Suwannee limestone aquifer, which is used for irrigation purposes. Discharge of water from the Suwannee aquifer for irrigation creates hydrauli gradients which can cause artificial water quality findings. The Avon Park aquifer is unaffected by irrigation or any other use of the aquifer. Since the proposed test injection well is located approximately two and a half miles west of the exploratory well; water quality throughout the proposed injection zone can be expected to be greater than 10,000 TDS. If, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence presented at the final hearing in this case, water quality at the proposed injection zone is less than 10,000 TDS, that fact would be revealed during the construction of the test deep injection well and during the various tests to be conducted after construction. There is no environmental reason to construct another exploratory well at the proposed site instead of the test injection well. Water quality tests would be just as accurate as, if not more accurate than; with an exploratory well. The practical use of an exploratory well is that the smaller (six inch versus twenty-four inch casing) exploratory well costs approximately one tenth the cost of a test injection well; allowing an applicant to reduce the potential losses in the event the well proves unsuitable. Based upon the findings at the exploratory site; there is not even an economic reason for digging another exploratory well at the new proposed site. Confinement In The Injection Zone The proposed confining zone is the Ocala limestone formation which occurs from approximately 700-1000 feet deep and consists of friable or chalky limestone or calcareous clay. The Ocala limestone has very low permeability, particularly vertical permeability; and would act as a proper confining zone. The permeability of the Ocala limestone is on the order of 3000 to 5000 times lower than that of the injection zone. In additional to permeability, the rate and manner of injection into the injection zone affects the ability of the confining zone to confine the injectant. It is easier for a confining zone to do so if the injection occurs periodically rather than continuously. When water is injected periodically, the pressure associated with buoyancy is dissipated rather quickly, decreasing pressure build-up. Although 15 million gallons per day (MOD) is the operational capacity of the well, the average rate of injection to be used by the county will be approximately 6 MGD. The 6 MGD average will not be reached during the first several years of operation. At the beginning of operations, the rate of injections will be approximately between 3 and 4 MGD. Aquifer pressure also is affected by the transmissive qualities of the injection zone. Based upon tests run at the exploratory well, it is estimated that the injection zone at the exploratory well can transmit between 500,000 and 1 million gallons per day per foot. Those estimates were made in part by adjusting actual transmissivity figures of between 100,000 and 150,000 gallons per day per foot for friction loss in the six- inch exploratory well which would not be experienced in a twenty-four inch test injection well. Based upon the geology of the area; it can be expected that the transmissivity of the proposed injection zone will approximate the transmissivity of the injection zone at the exploratory well. Again, if, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence presented at the final hearing of this case, transmissivity of the proposed injection zone is significantly lower than 500,000 to 1 million gallons per day per foot, the actual transmissivity of the proposed injection zone will be indicated by tests run during construction of the test infection well and during tests run after construction. Since the test injection well will be able to run tests under operational conditions; transmissivity values from the test well will be more accurate than any similar tests that could be run at another exploratory well at the proposed site. There also will be no need to estimate an adjustment for friction loss. Again, there is no environmental reason to construct an exploratory well instead of a test well at the proposed site. Using a constant injection rate of 6 MGD and a transmissivity value of 500 thousand gallons per day per foot, the travel time through the confining zone would be approximately 130 years. Using a transmissivity value of one million gallons per day per foot, the travel time through the confining zone would be approximately 225 years. As previously mentioned; the proposed Well actually is intended to be used periodically; not constantly. With this type of use; the travel time through the confining zone would extend many hundreds of years. The effect of variations in the actual injection rate from the proposed injection rate can be controlled during operational permitting. The Ocala limestone extends westward into the Gulf of Mexico about 100 to 150 miles. Fluid injected at the proposed injection zone would travel a predominantly westward direction; consistent with the regional hydraulic gradient in the injection zone. If the effluent travels through the confining zone during the 130 or more years; it would be filtered by the fine grain limestone which would remove all the suspended matter and; over that period of time, the biodegradation of the effluent would render it virtually inert. Under the conditions and pressures under which Manatee County proposes to operate the deep injection well, none of the injected fluid would come through the confining zone and there would be no salinity changes above the confining zone attributable to the injection well. No aquifer or any part of an aquifer which is or may be used as an underground source of drinking water will be affected by the proposed injection of treated effluent. No Need For Filtration Filtration of effluent being injected into the proposed deep well does not require filtration for removal of viruses. The suspended matter to which viruses attach themselves will be filtered out of the effluent by the rock matrix and particles of the injection zone and especially the confining zone. Filtration also probably will not be necessary for operational efficiency of the proposed well. The transmissivity of the injection zone is high enough for the proposed well to be expected to operate at less than 70 pounds per square inch (psi) pressures; well below the approximate confining zone fracture pressure of 1000 psi. Because of the transmissivity of the injection zone, it is not anticipated that filtration will be necessary. In any event, the need for filtration is an operational concern which can be governed in operation permit procedures in light of the better information which will be obtained as a result of testing during and after construction of the proposed well. If pressure build-ups do occur as a result of unexpected plugging of the well, the problem can be eliminated by more frequent (and costly) maintenance cleaning of the well or by adding a filtration system. Financial Responsibility The cost to plug the proposed well if, for some reason, it could not be operated ranges between $10,000 and $100;000.$10;000 would cover the cost of pumping cement down the well; the simplest plugging technique. It would cost about $100,000 to set up a complete rig. The rig system would be the better system for plugging the well. The County has approximately 3.5 to 4.5 million dollars of-uncommitted reserves which could be used to pump the well; if necessary. In addition; the County has money in contingency funds as part of its overall 201 Facility Plan construction program. The County has sufficient funds available on a day-to-day basis to pay for plugging the well. The Department does not usually require a county government to post a performance bond as financial assurance of its ability to plug an abandoned well; at least where the county government's financial resources approximate those of Manatee County. The Department's rationale for this policy is that a county government is a subunit of the state government. The County maintains financial responsibility and resources to close, plug and abandon the proposed well if necessary without posting a performance bond. But the draft permit which the Department noticed intent to issue does not require the County to certify continued maintenance of this financial ability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent; Department of Environmental Regulation; enter a final order granting the application of Respondent; Manatee County for a permit to construct a Class I deep injection/test well in Manatee County and issuing a permit as previously drafted; with all specific and general conditions; plus additional conditions: (1) that no testing of the completed well will be done without prior Department approval, upon recommendation of the Technical Advisory Committee: (2) that no testing of the completed well with waste water be done before completion of testing with freshwater: and (3) that Manatee County be required to certify that it will continue to maintain at least $150,000 of its reserves uncommitted and available for use in closing, plugging, and abandoning the well if necessary. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1986.
The Issue Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the primary factual issues are as follow: whether the application for a variance was a minor deviation from the standards established by Rule 10D-6.45(3), Florida Administrative Code; Whether the Petitioner clearly showed that the public health would not be impaired or that pollution of surface or groundwater would not result; and whether the petitioner would suffer a hardship if the variance were not granted. Both parties submitted posthearing findings of fact, which were read and considered. Those findings not incorporated herein are found to be subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary, or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact On January 11, 1983, the petitioner, George F. Conley, applied for an individual sewage disposal system (septic tank) permit to the Hillsborough County Health Department, a part of the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This application appears to be for one of two adjoining lots owned by the Petitioner. By letter dated January 11, 1983, signed by William Dickson of the Hillsborough County Health Department, the petitioner's application was denied. The grounds for denial, as stated in Dickson's letter received as Joint Exhibit 1, were lack of sufficient soil depth and severely limited soil. The Petitioner applied for a variance as provided for in Joint Exhibit On January 24, 1983, a hearing was held before the Variance Board pursuant to Section 10D-6.45, Florida Administrative Code. The transcript of said proceeding reflects that the Board unanimously recommended approval of a "mound" septic tank system which would be elevated at least three feet above the existing grade and be oversized. The application for the variance was for one of the Petitioner's two lots; however, the Board's approval was for a variance on both lots. On or about February 1, 1983, Robert Roush, soil conservationist for the United States Department of Agriculture, conducted a soil identification at the Petitioner's proposed construction site. In Roush's letter of February 1, 1983, he reported that test borings indicated the soil at the test site was Bradenton fine sand, thin surface phase, as described in the Soil Survey for Hillsborough County, Florida, Series 1950, No. 3, of September 1958, USDA--Soil Conservation Service. Roush further reported that the Soil Survey Supplement of the USDA--Soil Conservation Service, Seffner, Florida, June 1981, indicated said soil constituted a severe hazard, with wetness being the chief limiting factor. By letter dated February 14, 1983 (Joint Exhibit 5), Stephen H. King, State Health Officer, denied the Petitioner's request for a variance for a septic tank system in relationship to both lots. Dr. King's letter stated in pertinent part as follows: granting of variances from established standards is for relieving or preventing excessive hardships and may be granted where minor deviations will not result in pollution of ground- water or impairment of public health. The Hillsborough County Health Unit has stated that a history of failing systems has been noted in the Ruskin area in soil conditions similar to those existing on your lots. Although the Review Group for Individual Sewage Disposal has recom- mended approval of your variance appli- cation, the site specific conditions on your lots, including soil, seasonal high water table and potential flooding conditions, do not appear suitable for the installation of onsite sewage dis- posal systems. Therefore, I must hereby disapprove your request for variance. The Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing on the denial of his application and request for a variance. In the manner by which the water table is computed under the Respondent's rules, the perched water table normally lies at six inches beneath the surface. C. K. Satyapriya was accepted as an expert in civil engineering and geo-technical engineering. Satyapriya described a mound septic tank system for treatment of gray water waste which met the minimum criteria for soil depth as provided in Rules 10D-6.42(12) and 10D-6.45(2), Florida Administrative Code, and could be installed on the site. See Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1. According to Satyapriya's plan, the existing soil would be excavated, a soil with good absorptive qualities would be used as fill in the area excavated, and additional material added to form a mound. Black water would be dealt with separately, retained onsite, and removed from the site for disposal. The pictures taken by the parties and the weather information presented by the Petitioner indicate that January/ February 1983 was a period of exceptionally high rainfall in the Tampa Bay area within which Ruskin is located. The system described by the Petitioner's expert would not have flooded for any significant period during these exceptional conditions. Dickson, a sanitarian with the Hillsborough County Health Department for 22 years and supervisor in the area of administration of septic tank applications, was called to rebut Satyapriya's testimony. Dickson had worked for many years in the area of Ruskin, Florida, where the Petitioner's lots are located. Many problems with septic tanks, including flooding and breakdown of the system, occur in this general area because of a layer of impermeable material near the ground surface. This impermeable layer prevents the waste water from dissipating within the drainfield and, when it rains, acts as a basin to retain rainwater above the impermeable layer. Any excavation into, but not through, this impermeable layer traps the water, creating a bathtub effect. The bathtub effect creates problems when the area floods during heavy rains and the replaced material within which the drainfield has been installed becomes saturated. When saturated with water, the septic tank system is unable to accept any more waste product, which in turn backs up sewage into the waste line of the home or business. These conditions constitute a health hazard to the public and a potential health hazard to ground and surface water. Dickson interpreted the rule to require digging through the impermeable layer to permit the water to move down into absorptive material below. The existing water tables in the area of concern are a result of the subsurface impermeable layer described above. This layer retains the water above the layer and prevents it from sinking deeper into the ground. It also forms a cap on top of the water beneath it, which water table may be restrained by it. The resultant water pressure causes artesian wells. Therefore, this impermeable layer causes two water tables in this area, one perched on top of the impermeable layer and another underneath the impermeable layer. It is the water table perched on top of the impermeable layer which lies close to the surface. However, the impermeable layer keeps this "surface" water from mixing with water beneath the layer. Drinking water is not obtained from the upper water table, but from the water table under the impermeable layer. The impermeable layer would not be penetrated by the proposed gray water system, which meets the Respondent's guidelines of 54 inches beneath the drainfield. According to Dickson, a mound made of absorptive materials would soak water up into the mound from the groundwater level. This would saturate the drainfield in the mound above the normal water table. Satyapriya testified that the use of course material would prevent this absorption through capillary action. Satyapriya's testimony is accepted as the most credible, and the gray water treated in the mound would not pollute the upper water table.
Recommendation Having found it is a minor deviation from the rules to install a septic tank system in an area of limited soil; having found the denial of the Petitioner's application is a substantial hardship; having found that a mound system can be installed within the physical limitations provided in the rules; and having found that a system separating gray and black water properly installed would not endanger public health or pollute water, it is recommended that the Respondent approve an alternate system for one of the Petitioner's lots, constructed in accordance with plans certified by a Florida engineer to be installed in accordance with the approved design and installation requirements to provide for onsite treatment of gray water waste and retention and removal of black water waste from the site for disposal. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: DAMON C. GLISSON, ESQUIRE 5908 FORTUNE PLACE APOLLO BEACH, FLORIDA 33570 AMELIA PARK, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 4000 WEST BUFFALO AVENUE TAMPA, FLORIDA 33614 DAVID H. PINGREE, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On July 5, 1978, Gulfside applied to DER for the issuance of a permit to operate a wastewater treatment plant on property owned by it on Perdido Key in Escambia County, Florida. The proposed plant is designed to serve a condominium complex consisting of 64 units, with the expectation that 350 gallons of water per day per unit will be discharged into the system, thus requiring a minimum plant capacity of 22,400 gallons per day. The plant described in the application has a capacity to handle 24,000 gallons per day. The proposed plant will use an extended aeration process whereby effluent is routed from the individual units through a filter within the proposed plant and then discharged into two percolation ponds associated with the facility. The plant is designed to remove 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids. In addition, the plant is designed with duplex blowers and pumps to insure continued operation in the event of failure of one of the units. An emergency generator is included to provide back-up power for the entire plant, including blowers, pumps and chlorinators. Perdido Key, where the proposed plant is to be located, is a barrier island located off the coast of Escambia County, Florida, near the Florida- Alabama border. There is substantial residential development presently on Perdido Key, but no central sewer system exists to service the area. Currently, only septic tanks and package sewer plants are available for waste treatment purposes on the island. Adjacent to Perdido Key is Old River, which has been classified a Class III water. Soils on Perdido Key are primarily sandy, and as a result, have a high percolation rate. The problem of high percolation rate through the soils of Perdido Key was adequately addressed by Gulfside in the design of percolation ponds associated with the proposed plant. The two percolation ponds are designed to be located at a minimum of four feet elevation above maximum high ground water level. In fact, during DER's review of this application, Gulfside agreed to raise the bottom elevation of these percolation ponds in response to a concern regarding their initial location in close proximity to the water table. The problem of the expected fast percolation rate was addressed in designing the size of these percolation ponds, and also taken into consideration in designing the method of distributing effluent across the bottom surface of the ponds. With regard to the latter consideration, initial design of the project contemplated a single point for discharge of effluent into each percolation pond. However, Gulfside has agreed to redesign these percolation ponds in such a fashion to discharge effluent more evenly throughout the bottom area of the ponds too combat the problem of the excess percolation rate. The proposed percolation ponds are designed with surface areas in excess of 15,000 square feet. The ponds were initially designed utilizing a six-to-one slope, which would have given twice the bottom surface area of the three-to-one slope eventually required by DER in the process of reviewing the application. The three-to-one slope shown in the plans and specifications results in a bottom surface area of 2,974 square feet. However, the engineering report submitted with the application indicates that percolation ponds will have a bottom surface area of 4,480 square feet. From the evidence, it would appear appropriate for the ponds to have a minimum bottom surface area of 4,480 square feet. From the evidence, this problem can easily be rectified by raising the bottom elevation of the percolation ponds by approximately one foot. This requirement should be imposed as a condition to the granting of the requested permit. The proposed plant, although designed to remove 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids, is not designed to remove nutrients from the effluent. However, the evidence establishes that these nutrients. Will be removed by a combination of filtration through soil substrata and biological action in the percolation ponds. Gulfside has also agreed to install a spartina marsh waterward of the percolation ponds to act as a final nutrient scrubber. The system design is reasonably calculated to assure removal of harmful quantities of nutrients, and no competent evidence was adduced to indicate that the system design was not sufficient for this purpose. Thus, although the treatment plant is proposed to be located only 50 feet from Old River, there is no indication that it will, in fact, result in any adverse impacts to that water body. In addition, DER has no rules or guidelines regulating distances from which package sewer plants, such as that proposed in this application, should be located from bodies of water such as Old River. It should be noted here that the application which is the subject of this proceeding is solely for the purpose of construction of the proposed facility. DER has imposed a permit condition requiring an initial four months operation for appropriate testing to determine compliance with the rules and regulations promulgated by DER before issuance of an operation permit. If testing demonstrates noncompliance with DER's rules and regulations, the operating permit for the facility can be denied. Testimony adduced at the hearing established that members of Petitioner, Southest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc., own property in the vicinity of the proposed facility, and that they utilize waters surrounding Perdido Key for sailing, swimming, crabbing and other recreational uses. Both Petitioner and Gulfside have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 have been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. Gulfside's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 5 have also been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. To the extent that Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by either Petitioner or Gulfside are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent Seanic Corporation's application for an operating permit for a domestic wastewater treatment facility should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On January 20, 1994, Respondent Seanic Corporation submitted to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection an application to construct a wastewater treatment and disposal facility. The application requested approval to construct a facility with a design capacity of 15,000 gallons per day and to discharge its treated effluent to G-III groundwater through two Class V injection wells. Although the Department had no rules with specific depth requirements for such wells, the plans that accompanied the application contemplated wells with a total depth of 90 feet below land surface, which would be cased down to a depth of 60 feet below land surface. On February 23, 1994, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue the requested construction permit. Petitioners did not challenge the issuance of the construction permit, and the Department issued the permit on April 22, 1994, with an expiration date of five years after the issuance of the permit. On February 17, 1999, Seanic began construction of the permitted facility, including the construction of the two Class V injection wells. At the time the wells were first drilled, there were no statutes or rules regarding the appropriate depth of underground injection wells at a facility like Seanic's. Construction of the Seanic facility was completed before April 12, 1999, as reflected by the Certificate of Completion of Construction for the permitted facility. On April 21, 1999, Seanic filed with the Department its application to operate the facility. Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, became effective on June 18, 1999, approximately two months after the facility was constructed and the operating permit application was submitted. Section 5 of Chapter 99-395 defines the term "existing" to mean "permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection or the Department of Health as of the effective date of this act." Chapter 99-395 imposes different effluent limitations for "existing sewage facilities" than those that are applied to new facilities. For facilities that have a design capacity of less than 100,000 gallons per day, new facilities must provide treatment that will produce an effluent that contains no more, on a permitted annual basis, than the following concentrations: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) of 10 mg/L Suspended Solids of 10 mg/L Total Nitrogen of 10 mg/L Total Phosphorus of 1 mg/L These standards are frequently referred to as the "10-10-10-1 Standard." In accordance with Section 6(4) of Chapter 99-395, "existing sewage facilities" have until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Prior to that date, "existing sewage facilities" must meet effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and must monitor their effluent for concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus. The Seanic facility is an "existing" facility, as that term is defined in Chapter 99-395, and, therefore, has until July 1, 2010, to comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard. Section 6(7)(a) of Chapter 99-395 requires Class V injection wells for facilities like Seanic's to be "at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet or to such greater cased depth and total well depth as may be required by Department of Environmental Protection rule." The Department has not promulgated any rules requiring Class V injection wells to be deeper than the depth prescribed in Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida. As of January 26, 2000, the total depth of Seanic's injection wells measured 92 and 94.5 feet, respectively. On November 24, 1999, the Department entered its notice of intent to issue the operating permit applied for by Seanic and attached to the notice a "draft permit" with the conditions and effluent limitations that would be applied to the facility. In issuing the notice, the Department determined that Seanic had provided reasonable assurance that the facility will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of applicable statutes or the Department's standards or rules. The draft permit included effluent limitations of 20 mg/L for both CBOD5 and suspended solids and required Seanic to monitor its effluent for total nitrogen and total phosphorus, in accordance with Chapter 99-395, Laws of Florida, and the Department's rules for existing sewage facilities. The draft permit notes that Seanic must comply with the 10-10-10-1 standard by July 1, 2010. Because Seanic's condominium development has not been completed and the wastewater treatment facility is not expected to go into operation for approximately one year, the draft permit also requires that the facility be re-inspected and re-certified immediately prior to going into operation. The Seanic facility was designed to create an effluent that is several times cleaner than required by Department rules. The facility uses an extended aeration process that is expected to reduce levels of both biological oxygen demand ("BOD") and total suspended solids ("TSS") to lower than 5 mg/L, concentrations that are 75 percent lower than the effluent limitations in the draft permit. Similar facilities in the Florida Keys have shown that they can achieve BOD and TSS concentrations of less than 5 mg/L. The Seanic facility has also been designed to provide a greater level of disinfection than required by law. While the draft permit requires only that the facility maintain a chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/L after fifteen minutes' contact time, the facility has been designed with larger chlorine contact tanks to provide a chlorine contact time of approximately one hour at anticipated flow rates. The facility operator can also increase residual chlorine concentrations. These facts, along with the reduced TSS levels at this facility, will provide considerably greater levels of disinfection than the law requires. Although the draft permit does not contain effluent limitations for total nitrogen or total phosphorus, the levels of these nutrients expected to be present in the Seanic facility's effluent are approximately 5 mg/L and 2-3 mg/L, respectively. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of phosphorus in the subsurface indicate that some of the phosphorus is rapidly immobilized through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. Specifically, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys report that 95 percent of the phosphorus is immobilized within a short time after entering the injection well. Studies conducted on the rate of movement of nitrates in the subsurface indicate that some nitrate migration is also retarded through chemical reactions with the subsurface soil matrix. More specifically, studies conducted with injection wells in the Florida Keys report that denitrification removes approximately 65 percent of the nitrates within a short time after the effluent enters the injection well. In addition to the chemical reduction of phosphorus and nitrogen levels in the groundwater, studies conducted on injection wells in the Florida Keys with a total depth of 90 feet and a cased depth of 60 feet have reported extremely high dilution rates by the time effluent injected into such wells would appear in surrounding surface waters. More specifically, studies using chemical and radioactive tracers have reported dilution rates on the range of seven orders of magnitude, i.e., 10 million times. After undergoing chemical reduction in the groundwater as well as extremely high dilution rates, the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that would be expected to enter Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals will be infinitesimal, i.e., less than one part per trillion. Such levels would be several orders of magnitude below detection limits of currently available analytical methods. The surface waters in the artificial canals and in Captain's Cove surrounding the homes of Petitioners' members are classified by the Department as Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The permitted levels of fecal coliform bacteria in the facility's effluent (as restricted in the draft permit) are identical to the discharge limits for fecal coliform bacteria in Class III waters that are predominantly marine. The operation of Seanic's facility will not result in discharges of fecal coliform bacteria in excess of the applicable effluent limitations. Petitioners' expert witnesses agree that the facility, as designed, will comply with all of the conditions and effluent limitations in the draft permit. No Department rule or standard will be violated by this facility. The Department has not promulgated any effluent limitations or standards for viruses to be discharged to G-III groundwater or Class III surface waters that are predominantly marine. Petitioners' members use and enjoy the clear waters in their canals and in Captain's Cove. They have had the water quality tested four times a year since 1988. Captain's Cove, along with the adjacent canals, has remained a clear, oligotrophic water body with minimal algae growth. Petitioners' members fear that the introduction of viruses and other microorganisms through the facility's effluent will cause swimming in Captain's Cove and the adjacent canals to be harmful to their health. Their fear has been heightened by newspaper stories about viruses and a publicized study which erroneously claimed that Captain's Cove had high levels of harmful bacteria. Petitioner Port Antigua Property Owners Association ("PAPOA") received notice of the Department's intent to issue an operating permit to Seanic. The president discussed the permit with another resident, a microbiologist, who in turn discussed the facility with geologists and reviewed studies performed in the Florida Keys. Their serious concern over the depth of the injection wells and the possible release of viruses and bacteria harmful to the marine environment and to the public health was expressed throughout PAPOA's petition, and a copy of one of the tracer studies upon which they relied was attached to the petition. The president of Petitioner Port Antigua Townhouse Association, Inc. ("PATA"), who is also a member of PAPOA, discussed the Department's notice of intent with the president of PAPOA and the microbiologist. He also discussed the project with a member of PATA who oversees Broward County's wastewater treatment facility, which has the same effluent limitations as the Seanic facility. PATA members believed they should join with PAPOA and the Lower Matecumbe Key Association in requesting a hearing on Seanic's operating permit. PATA and others have also filed litigation in the Circuit Court against Seanic Corporation and others. That litigation is still pending. Petitioners were not able to cite any statute or rule that would be violated by the Seanic facility's discharge. They believe that since the facility is not yet operating, it should be required to adhere to the stricter effluent standards required for new facilities. They also believe that the Department should consider the harmful effects of viruses and bacteria on the marine environment and on the public health. Petitioners did not file their petitions for any improper purpose. They did not file their petitions for any frivolous purpose or to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or to increase Seanic's costs in obtaining an operating permit for its facility. They believed the language in the Department's notice of intent to issue the permit which advises substantially affected persons that they have a right to an administrative hearing and that the Department could change its preliminary agency action as an result of the administrative hearing process. They believe they are simply exercising a right that they have under the law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Seanic's application for an operating permit for its domestic wastewater treatment facility but denying Seanic's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2000, 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 13th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Evan Goldenberg, Esquire White & Case, LLP First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-5309 Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Post Office Box 500252 Marathon, Florida 33050 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is the reasonable cost to be reimbursed Petitioner, under the provisions of Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, for the development of a Monitoring Only Plan (MOP) program for the Dagam Oil Company (DEP Facility No. 138504146), at 331 23rd Street, Miami Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Panhandle Industries, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of consulting, engineering and construction. George M. Hidle, a professional geologist licensed in the State of Florida, is the president and sole owner of the Petitioner corporation. In September 1992, Dagam Oil Company, doing business as Sierra Fina, employed Petitioner to do environmental assessment work and prepare a Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) under the then existing Rule 17-770.630, Florida Administrative Code, for a site located at 331 23rd Street, Miami Beach, Florida (DEP Facility No. 138504146).4 That CAR was submitted to DERM (Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Environmental Resources Management) July 13, 1993. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Pertinent to this case, the CAR provides the following background or historical information: . . . PHYSICAL SETTING . . . Sierra Fina is located at 331 23rd Street in Miami Beach, Florida . . . The facility is bordered to the north by Collins Canal, to the east by the light commercial properties, and to the south/southeast by property that once contained Chevron and Fina service stations. . . . * * * . . . FACILITY HISTORY AND OPERATION Sierra Fina was built in 1963. The station originally operated as a Sunoco service station with a 3 bay garage. Dagam Oil Company purchased the facility in March 1981 from Charles Rosenblatt. At the time the station had five underground fuel tanks. . . . * * * . . . PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Dagam Oil Company contracted with another environmental company in November 1988 to collect groundwater samples from . . . five monitoring wells at the facility. Groundwater samples were collected on November 9, 1988 and analyzed by EPA Method 602. Monitoring well MW-3 was also analyzed by EPA Method 610. All five of the wells had hydrocarbon contaminant concentrations in excess of state guidelines. . . . A discharge notification form was mailed to the DER and DERM on December 9, 1988, the date of receipt of the analytical results from the November 9, 1988 groundwater sampling event. . . . * * * . . . INITIAL REMEDIAL ACTIONS [IRA] [The F]ive underground storage tanks [and associated piping] were removed from the facility during March and April 1989 [, and replaced with four new cathodically protected underground petroleum storage tanks]. Approximately 400 cubic yards of contaminated soil was also removed at that time. On March 31, 1989 a composite sample of the soil was collected for analysis . . . Because of limited space at the station, the contaminated soil was hauled to a Metro Trucking Inc. storage yard located at 112th Avenue and 143 Street in Miami. The contaminated soil was landfarmed at this Metro Trucking facility for a period of seven months, during which time the soil was spread onto visqueen and tilled on a regular basis. On November 21, 1989 the soil was resampled and analyzed . . . Results of this second round of analyses met clean fill criteria. Also at the time of tank replacement, a sheen of free floating hydrocarbons was observed on water in the tank pit. A vac truck was used to skim this product from the pit prior to tank replacement. Approximately 2100 gallons of oily water were removed, transported, and disposed of by Cliff Berry, Inc. . . . Other than these IRA activities, no other assessment or remediation work had been performed at the facility until Petitioner was employed in September 1992. Petitioner's CAR concluded that: Soil and groundwater at Sierra Fina are contaminated with gasoline and diesel hydrocarbons. Excessively contaminated soil is confined to an area at the western end of the station building that is approximately 20 feet in width by 30 feet in length, extending down to a water table of between 6 and 8 feet below land surface. No free phase floating product is present on the groundwater underlying this facility. However, dissolved hydrocarbon contamination is present in the groundwater. A dissolved hydrocarbon plume is present in the western half of the site. This plume measures 80 feet in length by 60 feet in width and extends to a depth of less than 22 feet below land surface, yielding approximately 134,640 gallons of hydrocarbon contaminated water. Volume calculations are based on an average depth to groundwater of 7 feet below land surface and an effective soil porosity of 25%. The highest benzene (53.3 ppb) and total napthalenes (752 ppb) concentrations were detected in MW-12. * * * Groundwater within the Biscayne Aquifer beneath Sierra Fina is nonpotable because of salt water intrusion from the Atlantic Ocean. For this reason there are no private or public potable wells in the area. Contamination at Sierra Fina is limited onsite to the western half of the station, and poses no threats to sensitive receptors in the area, with the possible exception of Collins Canal. The cause of hydrocarbon contamination was never determined; however, the most probable source, i.e. previous petroleum tanks and lines, were removed in March and April of 1989. Based on these findings and the data presented about or elsewhere in this report, it is known that soil and groundwater contamination does exist at this facility in concentrations that exceed guidelines specified in Section 17- 770.730(5)FAC; however, the levels of contamination may not warrant the need for any extensive remediation activities at this site. Petitioner's CAR was approved by DERM on October 8, 1993, and Petitioner was directed to submit a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) within 60 days.5 At the time, Mr. Hidle (Petitioner) was aware that the levels of contamination were low or near target levels, and that it was likely that the contamination levels would decrease naturally over time. Consequently, Petitioner elected to seek approval of a Monitor Only Plan (MOP), as opposed to a RAP. Such choice was favored based on the nature and location of the contaminants. In this regard, it was observed that the soil contamination consisted of both gasoline and diesel fuel, with much of the contaminated soil abutting or underneath the building. Excavation and removal of the soil was not an alternative because it would undermine the structural integrity of the building. Moreover, given the fuel mix, vapor extraction was not a viable option. Given Petitioner's choice to pursue approval of a MOP, it gave notice to the Department and DERM on October 18, 1993, as well as November 12, 1993, and December 2, 1993, of its intention to undertake groundwater sampling and soil sampling on the site. Groundwater sampling was undertaken by Mr. Hidle between 1:30 p.m., November 30, 1993, and 2:30 a.m., December 1, 1993,6 at which time he drew water samples for laboratory analysis from 10 monitor wells (MW) and one deep well (DW). A duplicate sample was also retrieved at MWs 12R and 14, and equipment blanks were also obtained for laboratory analysis. Between 8:25 p.m., December 4, 1993, and 3:40 a.m. December 5, 1993,7 Mr. Hidle and a senior technician (Martin Hidle) augured 6 soil borings for use in preparing the MOP and collected one soil sample for laboratory analysis. Petitioner delivered the water samples to the laboratory (Envirodyne, Inc.) on December 2, 1993, and the soil sample on December 6, 1993, for analysis. The laboratory completed its analysis of the water samples on December 13, 1993, and of the soil sample on December 14, 1993, and rendered its written reports (analysis) to Petitioner.8 Upon receipt of the laboratory data, Mr. Hidle completed his preparation of the MOP. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) That MOP contained the following conclusions and recommendations: The initial dissolved hydrocarbon plume dimensions were based on data from groundwater sampling events of January and February 1993. Laboratory results from a more recent sampling event (11/30/93) indicate that plume size and hydrocarbon compound concentrations therein have decreased substantially (Table 4-2). Maximum groundwater contaminant concentrations decreased as follows: benzene from 53.3 ppb to 11.1 ppb; BTEX from 111.7 ppb to 20.6 ppb; total naphthalenes from 752 ppb to 246.1 ppb. During the contamination assessment program task a small area of contaminated soil was found to be abutting the western end of the station building (CAR, Fig. 3-1, p. 35). Because of the presence of diesel compounds in the groundwater, it was assumed during preparation of the CAR that the soil too was contaminated with diesel. In early December 1993 PI Environmental personnel installed six additional soil borings (Figure 3-1, SB-16 through SB-21) and collected one soil sample for laboratory analyses. The soil borings were augered in the immediate area of the previously defined contaminated soil plume, and soil samples were analyzed in the field by using a Foxboro OVA 128. Soil samples were collected vertically every two feet, beginning at one foot below ground surface and continuing until the water table was encountered. A soil sample was collected from boring SB-17 at a depth of six feet below land surface. A net OVA reading of 160 ppm was observed from a duplicate sample taken from the same depth. The soil sample was tested by EPA Methods 3540/8100 (diesel compounds) and 9073 (TRPH). Laboratory results indicated that all diesel compounds were below laboratory detection limits, and the TRPH concentration was below normal background readings. Soil contamination was reclassified as being gasoline in origin, because no diesel compounds were detected in the soil sample from SB-17. Section 17-770.200(2) Florida Administrative Code defines excessively contaminated soil, associated with gasoline contamination, as those that have a net OVA/FID reading equal to or greater than 500 ppm. From December 1993 sampling event, a maximum net OVA/FID reading of 316 ppm was obtained from a sample that was collected at five fee below land surface in SB-17. Based on these results, no excessively contaminated soil was found during the most recent sampling event. It is the recommendation of PI Environmental Inc. that a Monitoring Only Plan be implemented at Sierra Fina. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1) Absence in the study area of any potable water wells within the Biscayne Aquifer because of salt water intrusion from the Atlantic Ocean 2) Absence of free phase hydrocarbons 3) Absence of excessively contaminated soil 4) Substantial decrease in concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbon compounds within the groundwater during the last year, and 5) relatively low levels of hydrocarbon contamination in the groundwater, i.e., based on the November 30, 1993 sampling event, maximum benzene of 11.1 ppb, maximum BTEX of 20.6 ppb, and maximum total naphthalenes of 246.1 ppb. It is our recommendation that groundwater from monitoring wells MW-8, MW-12R, MW-6, and MW-17 be sampled on a quarterly basis. Groundwater from the source area wells, MW-8 and MW-12R, should be analyzed quarterly by EPA Methods 602 and 610. Groundwater from the perimeter wells, MW-6 and MW-17, should be analyzed quarterly by EPB Method 602 and semiannually by EPA Methods 602 and 610. Petitioner submitted the MOP to DERM on January 24, 1994. Pertinent to this case, it is observed that the MOP was a brief document, consisting of only 13 pages of textual material, much of which was a restatement of material contained in the CAR. The balance of the report consisted of 5 "Figures" (three of which were contained in the CAR and one of which is an updated version of a CAR Figure); 2 "Tables" (an update of the Water Table Elevation table contained in the CAR to include the November 30, 1993, data, and an update of the Summary of Groundwater Analyses contained in the CAR to include the November 30, 1993, and December 1, 1993, data); 6 "Geologic Log[s]" (a restating of the soil boring results noted in the field notes for December 4 and 5, 1993); copies of the laboratory (Envirodyne, Inc.'s) reports of groundwater analysis; and the laboratory's report on the soil analysis. In all, while apparently adequate and nicely presented, the MOP does not address a complex or unique issue, and does not evidence the expenditure, or need to expend, an inordinate amount of effort to produce. Petitioner's MOP was disapproved by DERM on May 11, 1994, for the following reasons: A complete round of groundwater analyses, no greater than six months old, is required. Therefore, all wells at this site must be sampled for EPA Method 418.1, and monitoring wells numbered MW-6, MW-9, MW-10, MW-11, MW-13, MW-16, and MW-17 must be sampled for EPA Method 610. Because diesel contamination is present at this site, soil OVA readings above 50 ppm are considered to indicate excessively contaminated soil. Based on this OVA readings obtained for your Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) and this MOP, excessively contaminated soil does exist at this site. Since this coil could be a continuing source of contamination, it must be removed prior to the approval of a MOP. Consequently, Petitioner was directed to submit an addendum to the MOP to address those issues. On June 1, 1994, Petitioner gave notice to the Department and DERM of its intent to collect groundwater samples to address issues raised by DERM's MOP review letter. These samples were collected by Mr. Hidle and a technician (Leo Iannone) between 1:15 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., June 15, 1994.9 Petitioner delivered the water samples to the laboratory (Envirodyne, Inc.) on June 16, 1994. The laboratory completed its analysis and delivered its written reports to Petitioner on or about June 23, 1994. Upon receipt of the laboratory data, Mr. Hidle completed the Monitoring Only Plan Addendum (Petitioner's Exhibit 8), and submitted it to DERM on July 5, 1994. The addendum addressed the additional groundwater analysis that was performed, and with regard to the diesel contamination it observed, as follows: Soil analytical results (MOP, Page 62) are below laboratory detection limits for EPA 610 compounds; however, because groundwater at this facility is contaminated with both gasoline and diesel, we are concurring with DERM by reclassifying excessively contaminated soil as any soil that exhibits net OVA/FID readings of 50 ppm or greater, per Chapter 17-770 FAC. OVA/FID soil analyses were performed in accordance to Panhandle Industries, Inc. approved Comp QAP. Net OVA/FID soil results obtained during the CAR program task are shown in Figure 1-5. A maximum net OVA/FID reading of 887 ppm was obtained during CAR soil assessment activities which ended on November 29, 1992. Figure 1-6 shows net OVA/FID results obtained during the MOP program task. These MOP analyses are current through December 5, 1993. A maximum net OVA/FID of 316 ppm was obtained during this latter event. As is shown in comparison of Figures 1-5 and 1-6, it can be seen that the size of the soil contaminant plume and OVA/FID net soil readings therein have decreased significantly since initiation of the CAR. Also, by observing Figure 1-6, which has a scale of 1" = 20', it is evident that very little soil, if any can be excavated without jeopardizing the structural integrity of the station building. Furthermore, there exist the possibility that some soil contamination may underlie the building itself; therefore, soil excavation would most likely result in only partial removal of the contaminated soil plume. The addendum concluded by recommending that the MOP be implemented as originally proposed, but with additional monitoring to assure a continuing decline in contamination. The addendum, like the MOP, was a brief document and contains only 6 pages of textual material. The balance of the addendum contains 6 "Figures" (all of which appeared in the CAR or MOP); 2 "Tables" (an update of the Water Table Elevations table contained in the MOP to include June 15, 1994, data, and an update of the Summary of Groundwater Analyses contained in the MOP to include the June 15, 1994, data); and the laboratory reports of groundwater analyses. As with the MOP, the addendum did not appear to address any complex or unique issues, and did not evidence the expenditure, or need to expend, an inordinate amount of time to produce. On August 16, 1994, and August 26, 1994, DERM and the Department, respectively, approved the "monitoring only" proposal. The request for reimbursement Petitioner submitted its reimbursement application on or about August 23, 1994, and it was apparently complete on or about April 18, 1996. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11). That application sought recovery of the following sums for the items noted: 6. REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN [MOP and MOP Addendum] PREPARATION . . . Personnel 31442.55 Capital Expense Items Rentals 1127.45 Mileage 68.05 Shipping 35.00 Well Drilling Permits Analysis 3680.00 Miscellaneous 1601.25 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN PREPARATION TOTAL 37954.30 * * * 13. REIMBURSEMENT APPLICATION PREPARATION Supplementary Forms Personnel 795.00 Capital Expense Items Rentals 15.00 Mileage .80 Shipping 86.81 Well Drilling Permits Analysis Miscellaneous 60.75 APPLICATION PREPARATION TOTAL 958.36 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT REVIEW FEE 500.00 APPLICATION GRAND TOTAL 39412.66 By letter (Order of Determination of Reimbursement) of June 27, 1996, the Department responded to Petitioner's reimbursement request as follows: We have completed review of your Reimbursement Application for expenses incurred during the Remedial Action Plan/Monitoring Only Plan program task at this site and have determined that $13,198.70 of the total $39,412.66 requested is allowable for reimbursement. This amount will be paid to the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation when processing is completed by the Comptroller's Office. Some adjustments to the amount of reimbursement requested have been made. The following list details these adjustments. Citations refer to the specific sections of the enclosed Reimbursement Application Summary Sheets: 1. $24,766.25 in Section 6A, $259.95 in Section 6C, $28.20 in Section 6D and $63.25 in Section 6I were deducted because the total personnel hours (413.15 hours) and the total cost of $39,412.66 claimed for performing a limited scope of work consisting of 78.34 hours of field activities, two rounds of analyses (59 samples) and two letter reports have been determined to be excessive. However, actual field activities (including a reasonable amount of preparation), two rounds of analyses and a reasonable amount of personnel time to prepare two letter reports have been allowed. 2. $162.50 in Section 6A, $9.00 in Section 6E and $331.15 in Section 6I were deducted for costs associated with providing backup for the Contamination Assessment reimbursement application. These costs are not reimbursable in this application which is for the Remedial Action Plan/Monitoring Only Plan program task. $184.80 in Section 6A and $394.56 in Section 6I were deducted for field supplies, ice, conducting database modifications and purchasing office supplies, which are considered to be overhead. These costs are not justified in addition to the loaded personnel rates which already include overhead and profit. $11.76 in Section 6I was deducted because the rate for reproduction ($0.99 per page) has been determined to be excessive. However, $0.15 (per page) has been allowed based on the predominant rate claimed in other reimbursement applications for similar rates. $19.56 in Section 13E was deducted for costs added to the application preparation claimed as a markup. Reimbursement for application preparation is limited to actual costs only. $17.02 was added to the application grand total to cover the cost of reproducing the reimbursement application and invoices and shipping the replacements to the Department. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12.) Petitioner filed a timely challenge to contest the Department's decision. That challenge disputed the Department's action, as set forth in paragraphs numbered 1 through 4 of the letter, but Petitioner did not then, or at hearing, dispute the Department's action with regard to the matters contained in paragraphs numbered 5 and 6 of the Department's letter. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13). Subsequently, at hearing, Petitioner withdrew its request for reimbursement regarding the items contained in paragraph 3 of the Department's letter. (Transcript, page 101). The claim for the cost of preparing the reimbursement application Petitioner's claim for the cost of preparation of the reimbursement application totalled $1,458.36 (including the certified public accountant review fee). The Department proposed to deduct $19.56 (in Section 13E), and to add $17.02 to cover certain costs, as noted in the Department's letter. (Petitioner's Exhibits 12 and 13). Petitioner offered no objection to the Department's decision and, therefore, Petitioner should be awarded $1,455.82, without the need for further discussion, as the cost of preparing the reimbursement application. The claim for the cost of preparation of the MOP and MOP Addendum Petitioner's application for reimbursement claimed 413.15 personnel hours ($31,442.55) were dedicated to the development of the MOP (329.42 hours/$25,500.95) and the MOP Addendum (83.73 hours/$5,941.60). (Respondent's Exhibit 7, and Transcript, pages 188-190). In its initial review, the Department approved 55.67 hours ($3,790.45) for the MOP and 41.92 hours ($2,538.55) for the MOP Addendum, for a total award of $6,329.00. Subsequently, the Department resolved to accept as reasonable, 89 hours ($6,308.00) for the MOP and 83.73 hours ($5,941.60) for the MOP Addendum, for a total award of $12,249.60 for personnel costs.10 The 83.73 hours ($5,941.60) agreed to by the Department for the MOP Addendum was the precise amount Petitioner requested in its reimbursement application; however, the 89 hours ($6,308.00) accepted by the Department for the MOP is clearly less than the 329.42 hours ($25,500.95) Petitioner had requested. With regard to the difference, the Department views the request as excessive. In contrast, Petitioner contends the time requested was reasonable. Here, the Department's view has merit. To support the reasonableness of the hours (labor) claimed, Petitioner pointed to the "Daily Time Log[s]" which were contained within the reimbursement application, and which it contended contain an accurate recording of the hours worked and the task performed. (Petitioner's Exhibits 11, and Transcript, pages 29 through 31). According to Mr. Hidle, all employees of the company were required to keep a notepad on which they were to record the job (customer), hours worked, and task performed. At some future date, perhaps up to a week or more, those entries were ostensibly transferred to the "Daily Time Log." (Transcript, pages 29 through 31, and page 84). Consequently, Mr. Hidle contends Petitioner's "Daily Time Log[s]" may be relied upon to accurately reflect the hours actually worked, and that those hours were reasonably expended. Here, considering the record, Mr. Hidle's testimony is rejected as not credible or, stated otherwise, inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. In so concluding, it is observed that there is nothing of record, either in the exhibits or testimony offered at hearing, that could possibly explain the dichotomy between the number of hours claimed for development of the MOP (329.42) and the number of hours claimed for development of the MOP Addendum (83.73). Notably, neither project was particularly complex, and the tasks performed were reasonably alike. Similarly, it is inherently improbable, given the limited field work and the product produced (the MOP), that production of the MOP could require 329.42 hours or, stated differently, eight and one-quarter weeks, at 40 hours per week. Finally, most of the entries for which substantial blocks of time are assigned contain only vague or general terms to describe the task, such as "literature review," "MOP/RAP preparation," "file review," and "schedule/plan/coordinate RAP/MOP." Such practice renders it impossible to determine what work was actually done, whether the work was duplicative, and whether the time was actually expended or reasonable. Given the record, it must be concluded that the proof offered by Petitioner to support the number of hours claimed for development of the MOP is not credible or persuasive, and that it would be pure speculation to attempt to derive any calculation or meaningful estimate based on such proof. In the end, Petitioner must bear the responsibility for such failure. While Petitioner's proof offers no credible basis upon which to derive the number of hours dedicated to the MOP and their reasonableness, Petitioner obviously dedicated time to the MOP, and to the extent the record provides a reasonable basis on which to predicate an award, it is appropriate to do so. Here, given the lack of credibility of Petitioner's "Daily time Log[s]," as well as the testimony of Mr. Hidle, to provide a basis on which to derive the number of hours actually worked, and then test those hours against the standard of reasonableness, the only option is to award the 89 hours or $6,308.00, which the Department agrees were reasonably expended. Finally, with regard to the miscellaneous cost items, as opposed to personnel hours, rejected by the Department's letter of June 27, 1996, it must be resolved that Petitioner failed to offer, at hearing, any compelling proof that the items rejected by the Department were reasonable expenditures incurred in development of the monitor only program. Consequently, the following sections of Petitioner's reimbursement application have been reduced by the sums stated: $295.95 deducted from Section 6C; $28.20 deducted from Section 6D; $9.00 deducted from Section 6E; and $800.72 deducted from Section 6I. The award for reimbursement Given the proof, Petitioner should be awarded the following sums, for the items indicated, as reimbursement for preparation of the MOP and MOP Addendum: Personnel $12,249.60 Capital Expense Items Rentals 867.50 Mileage 39.85 Shipping 26.00 Well Drilling Permits Analysis 3680.00 Miscellaneous 800.53 TOTAL 17,663.48 For expenses involved in preparation of the reimbursement application, Petitioner should be awarded the following sums for the items indicated: Personnel $ 795.00 Capital Expense Items Rentals 15.00 Mileage .80 Shipping 67.25 Well Drilling Permits Analysis Miscellaneous 77.77 APPLICATION PREPARATION TOTAL 955.82 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT REVIEW FEE 500.00 TOTAL FOR APPLICATION PREPARATION 1,455.82 In all, Petitioner should be accorded a total reimbursement of $19,119.30.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which awards Petitioner the sum of $19,119.30, as reimbursable costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of February, 1999.
The Issue Did the site in question fail to meet monitoring and retrofitting requirements within the schedules established under Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, and thereby not be eligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program?
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 was enacted as Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, and codified primarily in Section 376. 071, Florida Statutes. It provides for the expeditious cleanup of property contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum product. As part of the SUPER Act, the legislature created the program which is of direct relevance in this litigation. The EDI Program, Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes,, provides for state cleanups of sites contaminated as a result of a discharge from a petroleum storage system. Petitioner now owns and operates a facility at Route 1, Box 167 Jay, Florida. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The facility contains two underground petroleum storage tanks which were installed on or before 1970. (T8, 9). Monitoring wells were installed for the tanks in December, 1988. (T7). Monitoring wells are pipes which are installed in the ground around a tank excavation to allow for detection of leaks from the tanks. (T8).
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the site owned by Petitioner be determined to be ineligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program, pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-15SO (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Mr. Thomas L. MCNAUGHTON MCNAUGHTON's Store Route 1 Jay, FL 32565 Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern generally whether the Respondents named above are liable for the contamination and violations alleged in the Petitioner, Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER) Notice of Violation and Amended Notice of Violation, pursuant to the relevant provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in Title 17, Florida Administrative Code, as relevant to this proceeding and treated herein.
Findings Of Fact DER is an agency of the State of Florida charged, under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and related rules, with preventing and alleviating environmental contaminations, as pertinent hereto, including such issues involving ground waters of the State of Florida. The property in question in this proceeding is located at the northwest corner of Blount and Guillemard Streets in Pensacola, Florida. The legal description of that property and the state of the title of the property is as described in the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties at page two thereof. The Belleaus are the current owners of the real property at that location. Crown is the owner and operator of a commercial laundry and dry cleaning business situated on that property in the building(s) located thereon. Crown is a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is a "person" within the meaning of Section 403.031(5), Florida Statutes. American Linen is a corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida and is also a "person" within the meaning of that Statute. American Linen obtained the property by purchase by corporate warranty deed from Rentex (RCD) on April 23, 1979. It operated a commercial laundry at the property from that date until June 3, 1985, when it sold the laundry business to Crown and the real property upon which it operated to the Belleaus. In November of 1971, RCD, a Delaware corporation and a 100 percent-owned subsidiary of Rentex Services corporation (RSC), also a Delaware corporation, acquired the property. RCD owned and operated a commercial laundry and dry cleaning business on the property until April 23, 1979, on which date it sold the laundry business and property to American Linen. It actually operated a dry-cleaning service on the property during only 1974 and early 1975. Sketchley Delaware, Inc. (SDI), a Delaware corporation, purchased RSC, which then became a 100 percent- wholly-owned subsidiary of SDI in 1982. RCD, however, remained a 100 percent-wholly-owned subsidiary of RSC until 1983. In March of 1983, SDI merged with RSC, and the resulting corporation was named "Sketchley Services, Inc." RCD continued as a corporation, 100 percent-wholly-owned as a subsidiary of Sketchley. In October of 1983, RCD merged into Sketchley, and Sketchley survived. Respondent Sketchley has never held title to nor conducted any form of business on the property in question. On March 29, 1991, Sketchley was renamed "Jura Services, Inc." (Jura) and was converted to a close corporation under Delaware law. This controversy had its origins in May of 1986 when a representative of DER performed a routine sampling of tap water at the DER district office in Pensacola. Those samples were subjected to chemical analysis which revealed the presence of PCE, a widely-used solvent often associated with dry-cleaning operations. That tap water came from the public water supply for the City of Pensacola, supplied by a network of potable water wells. Upon learning of the PCE content in the water supply, DER began an investigation to attempt to locate its source. Analysis of a number of the Escambia County Utilities Authority (ECUA) wells (PW-6, PW- 8, PW-9, and east well) contained quantities of PCE in excess of the maximum contaminant levels for drinking water authorized by DER's rules. Those wells were taken out of service in June of 1986, subjected to carbon filtration which ultimately removed the PCE from the water supply for those wells, and the wells have since been put back in public service. A ground water investigation was undertaken by DER to determine the source of contamination in the upper portion of the sand and gravel aquifer and in the production zone of the deeper Floridian aquifer which supplies those wells. A total of 29 ground water monitoring wells (MW) were installed and sampled. An analysis of these was prepared (87-04 report). On February 7, 1987, DER and representatives of the utilities authority and Crown, the operator of the laundry facility, conducted an inspection and clean-out of the surge tank located in the floor of the Crown laundry building. A chemical analysis of three samples of liquid residue in the bottom of the tank revealed the presence of PCE in those sediments in concentrations of 1,952 parts per billion (PPB), 108.5 PPB, and 50 PPB. Additionally, one of the samples revealed trichloroethene at 34 PPB and 1, 2 dichloroethene at 52,800 PPB. Under certain conditions, these last two-named compounds are produced as bi-products of the breakdown of PCE. Based upon this inspection and the investigation of other potential sources, DER took the position that the surge tank at Crown had discharged waste water containing PCE into the adjacent soils and that PCE migrated into ground water produced by the ECUA's public water supply wells, PW-6, PW-8, PW-9, and "east well". Although not stipulating that the samples were representative or to the conclusions to be drawn from the analytical results of testing the samples, the parties stipulated that proper physical and technical procedures and methods were used in the collection, preservation and analysis of all of the samples and the laboratory results were consequently stipulated into evidence. Jura, American Linen, Crown, and the Belleaus had no actual knowledge that any PCE had been deposited in the surge tank between 1971 and the date in 1979, when American Linen bought the facility. A commercial laundry has been operated on the subject property since 1971. The laundry was operated by RCD at that time, and in the summer of 1974 and during at least part of 1975, a dry-cleaning operation, in addition to laundry, was conducted by RCD at the site. The dry-cleaning operation involved the use of PCE. This was the only period of time when dry-cleaning operations were conducted on the property until 1985 when Crown conducted a dry-cleaning operation. Crown's operation, however, made no use of PCE, but rather, Crown used "stoddered solvent" as its dry- cleaning fluid. During American Linen's ownership and operation of the laundry at the site, no dry-cleaning operations, whatever, were conducted. At no time during American Linen's ownership and operation of the laundry at the site nor during the Belleaus ownership, and Crown's operation, of the laundry facility was any PCE used or stored on the property. Since laundry operations commenced at the site, the waste wash water from the laundry was discharged to the surge tank located beneath the floor of the Crown building. That tank intercepts and stabilizes wash water prior to its discharge to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The surge tank also served as a component of the laundry operation as a thermal recovery system. Although the surge tank and the commercial laundry and dry-cleaning businesses which have been operated at the site constitutes an "installation" for purposes of Section 403.031(4), Florida Statutes, the tank has never been used for the intentional storage or disposal of any "hazardous substances", as defined in Section 403.703(31), Florida Statutes, by any of the Respondents. The tank has never been used for the intentional disposal of any hazardous substances by American Linen, Crown, the Belleaus, or Jura. During normal laundry operations, lint, sand and other sediment accumulated in the bottom of the surge tank over a period of time. When the accumulated quantity of sediment became too great so as to interfere with the operation, the liquid and the sediments were removed periodically by a vacuum truck and manual labor, using shovels, buckets, and a dumptruck. The surge tank was cleaned out several times over the pertinent years, including 1976, 1978, or 1979 (before American Linen's purchase), as well as in 1980-81, 1983, 1987, 1990 and 1991. It was possibly cleaned in 1972 or 1973, as well. In the 1976 clean-out, the surge tank was cleaned thoroughly enough that the workers reported searching for loose change on the concrete floor of the tank. DER must prove a violation of Section 403.161(1)(a) or (b), Florida Statutes, in order to establish liability for purposes of Section 403.141(1), Florida Statutes, and Section 403.121(2), Florida Statutes. DER has also sought, as of the time of hearing, to impose liability on the Respondents, pursuant to Section 403.727(4), Florida Statutes, which imposes strict liability on the owner and operator or former owner and operator of a facility at which a release to the environment of a hazardous substance has occurred. Section 403.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that it is prohibited for a person to cause pollution so as to harm or injure human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life, or property. In this proceeding, DER did not establish with competent, substantial evidence that the alleged pollution by PCE caused any harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life, or property. No risk assessment was conducted to determine the potential harm or actual harm. No testimony was presented with regard to the possible health effects or injurious impacts of PCE in the environment. There was no evidence shown to establish what amount of PCE in the environment or ground water might cause or potentially cause such harm to human health or any of the other injurious effects referenced in the above-cited Statute. DER has not adduced any evidence of a preponderant nature to show that any Respondent is thus liable for a violation of Section 403.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that it is a violation to fail to comply with any rule of DER. Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, is implemented with regard to ground water through former Rule 17-4.245(2), Florida Administrative Code, now Rule 17- 28.700, Florida Administrative Code, which provides a cause of action for violation of ground water standards. In order to maintain a cause of action under that Rule, DER must prove that the Respondents violated either Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code (the "Free From" Rule), or Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which sets forth the ground water criteria alleged in the NOV and Amended NOV to have been violated. Concerning Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code, which establishes narrative, minimum health effects-based criteria applicable to ground water, DER has alleged that the Respondents failed to comply with this Rule, but introduced no evidence concerning any health effects of PCE in the ground water. DER produced no evidence whatever regarding the concentration, if any, of PCE, which may be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic, or which would pose a serious danger to the public health, safety or welfare, or create a nuisance, or impair the reasonable and beneficial use of any adjacent ground water. Even assuming that some amount of PCE was released from the surge tank at some period of time, DER failed to present any evidence regarding the quantity of PCE which may have been released, and the concentration in the ground water which could have resulted from a release from the Crown property. It simply was not proven that the concentration shown in the wells, at which samples were taken, all resulted from any release, if any, which came from the Crown property. Thus, DER failed to adduce evidence which can demonstrate in a preponderant way a violation of the "Free From Rule" cited above or which would support its cause of action under Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, with regard to alleged violation of this Rule. DER has also alleged that the Respondents violated Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, cross- referencing and incorporating former Rule 17-22.104(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, now Rule 17-550.310(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, which sets forth the ground water standard, in the form of maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PCE. In order to demonstrate a violation of Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as to each Respondent, DER had to prove that the Respondents caused a release of PCE to the ground water, resulting in a concentration of PCE in the ground water greater than the MCL established by the Rule. Effective May 23, 1984, DER thus established 3 parts per billion as the MCL for PCE in drinking water and as the water quality standard for PCE applicable in Class G- II ground water, which is the classification of the ground water underlying the Crown property, and occurring at all of the supply wells and monitor wells involved in this proceeding. In order to demonstrate a violation of the MCL by release of PCE from the laundry property, DER had the burden of proving: (a) that PCE entered the surge tank; (b) that the surge tank, in fact, released it to the environment and to the ground water; (c) that the release of PCE occurred during the ownership and/or operation of the laundry by one or more of the Respondents; and (d) that the amount of PCE entering the ground water during ownership and/or operation of each Respondent caused the concentration of PCE in the ground water to exceed the MCL in effect at the time of each Respondent's ownership and/or operation. Proof of PCE in the Tank Rentex installed a dry-cleaning machine at the Crown facility during mid-1974. It was equipped with two PCE holding tanks with PCE being used as the cleaning solvent in the dry-cleaning process. There was a storage tank, four to five feet tall, which stored pure PCE. The other tank was an eight to ten foot tall "cooker" tank used to heat and reconstitute PCE used in the dry-cleaning process. The machine was located near the rear of the Crown building, close to the floor drains and the wash room. The dry-cleaning machine was dismantled and removed from the Crown facility to another dry-cleaning establishment in Baltimore sometime in late 1974 or the early part of 1975. The thrust of DER's case is that spills of PCE occurred from the dry-cleaning machine and its operation at the Crown facility which were allowed to enter the surge tank and thence leaked into the soil, the environment and the ground water. Indeed, several boil-overs of PCE occurred during the period of 1974 and early 1975, when the dry-cleaning operations were being conducted at the facility. Witnesses, Mathias and Hedrick, for DER, established that one spill of PCE in the amount of four to five gallons also occurred, along with several boil-overs from the laundry machine during that time period; however, the actual amount of PCE spilled or boiled over from the dry-cleaning machine and its operation was not established by DER. Mr. Mathias worked as a maintenance man at the facility during the relevant period when dry-cleaning operations were conducted by RCD. He established that there were several boil-overs of PCE from the cooker tank and that when PCE boiled over from the top of the machine, some quantity would be sprayed onto the floor which was then hosed off into the floor drains, which communicate with the surge tank. He was unable to quantify the amount of PCE spilled on the laundry floor or which reached the surge tank, however. He was not able to definitively establish how many boil-overs he witnessed nor their severity in terms of the amount of PCE which was resultingly spilled on the floor of the laundry. He did not witness any spills of PCE other than those occurring in conjunction with boil-over events. Mr. Hedrick was also a maintenance man at the facility during RCD's period of ownership and its dry- cleaning operations. He knew of one incident in mid-1974 in which four to five gallons of PCE were spilled directly onto the floor of the laundry due to a hose connecting the holding tank to the cooker tank being inadvertently disconnected. That PCE was washed with a hose into the floor drains and thence into the surge tank. Mr. Hedrick could recall only two boil-overs of PCE from the dry- cleaning machines. These incidents involved PCE spraying over the top of the cooker tank but did not involve the release of any significant amount of PCE onto the floor. Mr. Hedrick established that employees were careful in handling the chemical because it was very expensive and they were careful not to waste it. After boil-over events which he described, he observed the level of the PCE in the holding tank, which did not appear to drop much as a result of the boil-overs. He was also responsible for refilling PCE into the holding tank as necessary. His experience was that he was not required to add PCE to the machine as the mere result of a boil-over because the boiling PCE escaped from the top of the machine mostly as foam with very little actual volume of PCE being discharged during such a boil- over event. Mr. Hedrick's testimony is corroborated by that of Dr. Mercer, an expert in hydrogeology, dense, non-aqueous phase liquid behavior (DNAPL), and the fate and transport of chemicals in the subsurface environment, presented by Jura. Dr. Mercer established that in a boil-over event, the PCE escaping from the top of the machine is pure PCE, chemically, but it escapes in the form of a foam or mist very near the boiling point of approximately 250 Fahrenheit. Because it is very volatile, most of the PCE escaping from the machine in a boil-over event, due to its volatility enhanced by its high heat, dissipates into the atmosphere. Whatever PCE did not volatilize would spread in a thin film over the floor of the facility and, because it was still a warm fluid, would continue to volatilize into the atmosphere. The small amount which did not volatilize would be washed into the floor drains and correspondingly diluted prior to entry into the surge tank, where it would be further diluted by the large volume of warm water present in the tank which would enhance dissolution and dilution. Consequently, the boil-overs would have produced only dissolved PCE entering the tank in small quantities, most of which would be flushed from the tank into the city sanitary sewer system through the outfall line exiting from the wall of the surge tank. Thus, the testimony of these witnesses establishes that only one spill of four to five gallons of PCE occurred in 1974, most of which was washed into the floor drains and into the surge tank. It was not established that the boil- over events materially contributed to the volume of PCE entering the surge tank during the dry-cleaning operations conducted in 1974 and early 1975. No PCE was shown to have been deposited in the surge tank after dry-cleaning operations ceased in 1974 or at the latest in early 1975 during the RCD ownership and operation of the facility. It was not shown that PCE was released or discharged to the environment by any other means since that time at or on the property or facility. Release of PCE to the Environment DER has thus established that some four to five gallons of PCE from a spill entered the surge tank in 1974 and that some minor quantities from boil-overs entered the tank through wash down of the laundry floor. DER also has the burden to establish the next evidentiary link; that the PCE was released from the surge tank to the environment. The surge tank consists of a poured concrete floor with concrete-block walls with a plaster or cement covering on the outside of the tank. The concrete-block mortar joints and concrete with which the tank is constructed are porous materials, although the specific porosity has not been quantified. The extent of coverage, the integrity and continuity of the exterior cement or plaster layer over the outside of the tank, and for the life of the tank, is not established. The surge tank was constructed in 1969 in conjunction with the construction of the laundry building. It is 20 feet long by 10 feet deep by 9 feet wide. It is stipulated that the surge tank leaks wash water at some rate because of the porosity of the materials and because of cracks and fissures which have opened in its walls since its construction. Testing of the tank in 1971 revealed that it leaked, at that time, at the rate of 6.5 gallons per day. No evidence establishes what the leakage rate before 1991 might have been. There is no direct evidence of a release of PCE from the surge tank to the soil or ground water. Michael Clark testified in this regard, as a member of the Operations Response Team of DER. In his opinion, DNAPL or "separate phase" PCE (undissolved PCE) had escaped from the tank into the ground water; however, he testified that he performed no calculations to determine the quantity of PCE which would have had to enter the surge tank in order to create a release of separate phase PCE. Mr. Clark assumed in the gravamen of his testimony that the contents of a 55- gallon drum of PCE had been released to the surge tank in a spill, in performing his analysis of the potential for release of PCE from the surge tank. He admitted, however, that the release of 55 gallons of PCE had been only hypothetical and no evidence was presented in this case to establish that 55 gallons of PCE had been spilled or otherwise placed in the surge tank. Mr. Clark was neither offered nor qualified as an expert in hydrogeology or any other field of expertise which could establish that he had any expertise in the movement of chemicals in the environment or in ground water or soils, nor as to the chemical state of those chemicals while in the soils or ground water at any point in time. Mr. Clark's opinion that separate phase PCE was released to the soil and then the ground water from the surge tank and that it resulted in the contamination found in the public water supply wells at issue, as well as in the monitoring wells, is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Inasmuch as Mr. Clark's opinion testimony did not demonstrate, by preponderant evidence, that separate phase PCE was released to the environment from the tank and there being no direct evidence of such a release, then inferential evidence must be used to establish whether such a release occurred. PCE was shown to be present in the tank in 1974 based upon the above-described events. The presence of PCE has been detected in the ground water immediately downgradient of the Crown property, as well as in the public drinking water supply wells and the monitoring wells, downgradient of the Crown facility. That evidence, together with the evidence concerning the porous nature of the materials of which the tank is constructed and the tank's condition, which has deteriorated over time, is sufficient to support an inference that some undetermined quantity of dissolved PCE escaped from the surge tank over some undetermined points or periods of time. DER, however, did not adduce evidence which could establish an inference that a release of dissolved PCE or separate phase PCE from the tank would be sufficient to cause the violations of the MCL for PCE found at the monitoring points in the vicinity of the Crown property nor is the evidence sufficient to establish when the releases, if any, which may have contributed to a violation of the MCL for PCE at the monitoring or sampling points may have occurred. The lack of sufficient evidence to support such an inference is pointed out by the testimony of witnesses Mathias and Hedrick, testifying for DER, concerning the quantity of PCE which entered the tank and by the testimony of Jura's expert witness, Dr. James Mercer, regarding the behavior of PCE upon entering the tank and upon a release to the environment. The finding that the evidence is insufficient to support an inference that the tank released sufficient PCE to cause a violation of the MCL for PCE is further supported by the evidence that DER did not exclude, through its PCE source investigation, other potential sources of PCE contamination in the ground water, other than Crown, particularly in view of the evidence concerning the cone of influence of the "east well" and the location of the contamination in the PW-9 well, located upgradient from the Crown facility. Dr. Mercer testified concerning the behavior of separate phase PCE with regard to the spill of four to five gallons of pure PCE from the holding tank, as found above. He established that because PCE is very volatile, much of the spill would have volatilized into the atmosphere, although at a slower rate than the boiling temperature of PCE released during boil-over events, as described herein. The spilled PCE, which did not volatilize, would have been washed down with a hose, diluting it and dissolving it in water prior to its entry into the floor drains and the surge tank. In the floor drains and in the tank, some of the PCE would have been entrained or bound up in the lint present in those locations; and some of the PCE would have made its way to the surge tank. Because of prior dilution and dissolution, a relatively small amount of pure PCE would have entered the surge tank. The presence of warm water in the tank would have promoted more dissolution and dilution of the chemical, such that most of the four to five gallons of pure PCE spilled would have become mostly dissolved PCE upon entry into the tank. Some of that would have then been washed out into a sanitary sewer system through the outfall line. Since separate phase PCE is denser than water, any of it in that form entering the tank would sink to the bottom of the waste water in the tank, coming to rest on the layer of sand, lint and other sediments on the bottom of the tank. Dr. Mercer established that any separate phase PCE from the referenced spill would thus form a layer on top of accumulated sediments at the bottom of the tank, approximately .14 inches thick, assuming that it was evenly distributed over the bottom of the tank. In order for separate phase PCE to penetrate the pore spaces in the sediments, it would have to displace the waste water or wash water already occupying those pore spaces. If the layer, established by Dr. Mercer, was as thin as .14 inches thick, such a thin layer would not penetrate the pore spaces of the sediments because they would be filled already with wash water. That thin layer of separate phase PCE would not exert sufficient hydraulic pressure to displace that water because of the capillary pressure barrier formed between the water in the pore spaces and the separate phase PCE layer on top of the sediments. The capillary pressure effect is the pressure difference between two liquids, which creates a capillary pressure barrier, inhibiting the penetration of separate phase PCE into the pore spaces of the sediments. Dr. Mercer testified that a thickness of 4.7 inches of separate phase PCE, resting on top of the sediments, would be necessary to overcome the capillary pressure barrier between the wash water and the pore spaces of the saturated sediments and the separate phase PCE layer lying on top of those sediments. Therefore, most of the separate phase PCE would remain as a layer on top of the sediments. Dr. Mercer opined that if separate phase PCE does not reach the sediments in the bottom of the tank in sufficient volume to maintain the movement of the chemical through that porous medium, the separate phase PCE, which does settle to the top of the sediments, will tend to dissolve over time, partially into the wash water above the layer of PCE at the bottom of the tank and partially into the water occupying the pore spaces within the layer of sediments in the bottom of the tank. Any separate phase PCE, which dissolves into the overlying wash water, will become extremely diluted. Eventually, most of that dissolved PCE would be discharged through the tank's outfall to the public sanitary sewer system. Any separate phase PCE, which is able to overcome the capillary pressure barrier and move into the pore spaces of the sediments, by displacing wash water within those spaces, would become trapped within those pore spaces, because of an effect known as "residual saturation". When a separate phase liquid moving through a porous medium is not of sufficient volume to maintain its movement, it tends to physically break apart into globules of separate phase liquid within those pore spaces. As more globules form within the spaces, the movement of the separate phase liquid decreases until at some point the flow stops. When the flow stops, the globules of separate phase liquid become trapped within the spaces. The point at which a sufficient percentage of pore spaces are filled with globules of separate phase liquid is called "residual saturation". Because of the effect of residual saturation on any separate phase PCE at the bottom of the tank, Dr. Mercer concluded that separate phase PCE within the pore spaces of the sediments would be unable to flow and would effectually be trapped in the sediments in the bottom of the tank until those sediments were removed, either through dissolution into the wash water in the tank as flushing occurs through use of the tank over time or when the sediments were removed during clean-outs of the tank. Therefore, little, if any, separate phase PCE could have been released from the tank to the environment. Dr. Mercer's testimony was unrefuted and thus demonstrates that most PCE entering the tank would dissolve into the wash water already present, flow through the outfall to the sewer system, or become dissolved in the free water and water occupying the pore spaces in the sediments at the bottom of the tank. The evidence supports the finding that little, if any, PCE would be released to the soil surrounding or underlying the tank as a result of the spill of four or five gallons of PCE from the dry-cleaning machine. No evidence was presented to establish the quantity of PCE which could have escaped from the tank as a result of the spill of four or five gallons of PCE into the tank nor was any evidence presented which would establish during what period of time the release to the environment may have occurred. Charles Ferst testified as an expert in environmental engineering concerning the amount of PCE which may be released from the tank over time. Mr. Ferst testified that the leakage rate of the surge tank likely increased over time until reaching the current rate established in the evidence of 6.5 gallons per day, as determined by the 1991 test. Although the surge tank leaked at earlier periods, Mr. Ferst could not determine when the tank started leaking and could not calculate the leakage rate at any period of time prior to 1991 nor could any other witness. Based upon standard construction practices and the materials used in the tank at the time of its construction in 1969, Mr. Ferst opined that the tank leaked more after 1980 than in earlier years. Using that assumption and the fact that the sediments in the bottom of the tank were cleaned out several times between 1974 and 1991, he calculated the maximum amount of PCE which could have escaped from the tank after 1980. Mr. Ferst's calculations, however, are based upon a number of unsupported assumptions. Although he establishes that the tank leaked more in later years than in earlier years, his calculations and assumptions do little to establish how much PCE may have been released during any particular period of time; and little weight can be given to his conclusions regarding the specific amounts of PCE allegedly released at particular periods of time. DER did not present any evidence concerning the amount of PCE which could have escaped from the tank, even assuming that the tank leaked since 1974, when it was shown that some PCE had been placed in the tank. DER failed to prove that any amount of PCE which may have leaked out of the tank was sufficient to cause a violation of the MCL for PCE, and it did not inferentially demonstrate that any PCE which may have leaked out of the tank caused a violation of the MCL, because it simply failed to show that the violation levels found in the various wells where samples were drawn, solely resulted from contamination emanating from the Crown tank. DER failed to adduce evidence sufficient to carry its burden of proving a violation of the ground water standard for PCE caused by a release of PCE from the Crown property. Source of Contamination DER must prove that a release of PCE from the tank caused or contributed to the PCE contamination found in the public water supply wells and the monitoring wells. Dr. Mercer testified that if it is assumed that the tank is a source of contamination and the PCE concentration data collected by DER is used, the travel time of PCE from the surge tank to one of the monitoring wells, MW-3, where the highest concentrations were found, would indicate a release occurring many years prior to 1969, the year in which the Crown building and surge tank were constructed. Dr. Mercer therefore concluded that the surge tank at the Crown facility was likely not the sole or even the primary source of PCE contamination found by DER. In attempting to determine the source of the PCE discovered in the subject water supply wells, DER conducted soil sampling in suspected areas of contamination. This soil sampling revealed only two significant areas of PCE contamination in soils, neither of which was near the Crown property. DER then also selected monitoring well locations based upon ease of accessibility in order to determine the source of the contamination quickly. The monitoring wells were placed in the deep, intermediate, and shallow zones of the aquifer system underlying downtown Pensacola. Near the Crown facility, however, the intermediate zone was not present; instead, there was a shallow zone separated from the deep zone by a confining unit of relatively-impervious material. DER demonstrated that the shallow, intermediate and deep aquifer systems within the downtown Pensacola area are contaminated with PCE and PCE-derived breakdown compounds at widely-varying concentrations. DER did not prove, however, that one or more discreet plumes of PCE contamination exist. Mr. Clark, testifying for DER, attempted to calculate the travel time of contaminants found in MW-3 based upon their being released to the ground water from the Crown facility. Although Mr. Clark indicated this to be, in his belief, between 1970 and 1980, he admitted that he only estimated the travel time of ground water, as opposed to PCE, from the Crown property. Moreover, he averaged high hydraulic conductivity values for monitoring wells quite distant from the Crown property, near PW-9, and ignored data from closer, more relevant wells. Dr. Mercer, however, testified that the method used by DER to calculate travel time, which relies on conductivity values too far away from the suspected source and wells of concern, and averages only those high-conductivity values, while ignoring more pertinent values, provides a less accurate result. Hydraulic conductivity values are used to calculate ground water velocities, which can then be used to calculate travel times over a certain distance. Dr. Mercer testified that using the hydraulic conductivity values obtained from monitoring wells in close proximity to an assumed source and which reveal the presence of PCE in significant concentrations, which DER did not do, produces a much slower ground water velocity than that calculated by DER because the hydraulic conductivity values used are much lower. Averaging the hydraulic conductivity values obtained from monitoring wells which indicated significant concentrations of PCE in close proximity to the Crown facility to calculate travel time for PCE produced an estimate of 37 years for PCE released from the surge tank to reach MW-3. Thus, the PCE would have had to have been released prior to 1969 when the surge tank and the laundry facility were built (or from a different location). Because of this, it was not definitively shown that the PCE found in MW-3 came from the surge tank at the Crown facility. Dr. Mercer's testimony, because of his higher level of training, expertise and experience in hydrogeology and the fate and transport of chemicals in ground water, is accepted over that of Mr. Clark. Mr. Ross Mitchell testified regarding DER's search, which he conducted for facilities within the downtown Pensacola area which used or could have been the sources of a release of PCE. That investigation apparently concentrated on dry-cleaning establishments because DER opined that PCE was commonly used in such operations. Mr. Mitchell described his source investigation as "quick and dirty". He indicated that he did not follow up with every lead that he developed and that he established a "ball park" area within which to conduct his investigation. In fact, his investigation concentrated on a specific geographic area, in which other DER personnel had told him high concentrations of PCE had been found in ground water. As part of his investigation, he relied upon verbal representations by owners and operators regarding whether their facilities had ever used PCE. He made no effort to confirm those representations, other than cross-checking, in some instances, whether a given facility had been identified by a PCE supplier as a facility to which it had supplied PCE. However, he did not obtain customer lists from suppliers of PCE and was only able to get fragmentary information from the suppliers. Mr. Mitchell made no effort to verify whether PCE had ever been used at many of the facilities he had identified. He simply looked for readily- available evidence. That investigation was completed before DER became aware that PCE had been used at the Crown facility. Once that knowledge was obtained, Mr. Mitchell assumed that it would be the source of the PCE contamination found. He did not follow up regarding any of the other facilities which were on his list of suspect locations. He acknowledged at hearing that several of the suspect facilities, other than Crown, had not actually been eliminated as potential sources and acknowledged that he had not considered possible sources, other than dry-cleaning establishments, such as refuse dumpsters at facilities which had been identified as using or having used PCE. He did no environmental sampling around dumpsters at such facilities to detect spillage and did not investigate any records of any of the facilities he had investigated to determine whether they had purchased or used PCE. Mr. Mitchell located four dry cleaners, all upgradient of the PCE contaminated drinking water wells operated by ECUA. Among the dry cleaners suspected as potential sources of the contamination, only the Crown facility was located hydraulically downgradient of PW-9. In order for the contamination to travel from the Crown surge tank to PW-9, the pumping regimen employed by ECUA's supply wells would have to reverse the direction of ground water flow or hydraulic gradient. Dr. Mercer's calculations demonstrated that the pumping regimen employed by ECUA could not have reversed the gradient so as to pull contaminants from the Crown facility upgradient to be captured by PW-9. Dr. Mercer and Mr. Clark both agreed that the "east well" pumps continuously throughout the year. PW- 9 does not pump continuously. When the "east well" is pumping, it will capture anything that would be in the subsurface in the vicinity of the Crown facility; and its capture zone would extend upgradient as far as PW-9. Mr. Clark admitted that he had no calculations to support his conclusion that ECUA's pumping of PW-9 could have reversed the gradient in the subsurface to draw contaminants from the Crown facility to PW-9. Accordingly, it is concluded that DER did not adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the Crown facility could be the source of contamination in PW-9. The source investigation conducted by DER was inadequate to definitively determine whether the Crown facility was the source of PCE contamination or not. DER did not collect adequate soil and ground water samples throughout the area of known contaminations so as to pinpoint a specific source or sources for the contamination. No soil samples were collected from the immediate area around potential sources identified in close proximity to PW-9, for instance, such as the other four dry-cleaning establishments. Instead, once DER found PCE in MW-3 in high concentrations, it apparently focused all of its efforts on the Crown facility, assuming it to be the source of contamination. There are other upgradient PCE users (TCE), identified in Exhibit 6 which have not been ruled out as sources by competent evidence and that exhibit also shows that there may be three older dry cleaning sites in the downtown area with underground solvent tanks, which the record does not prove to have been investigated and ruled out as sources. Since Crown was shown not to be the source of PCE contamination at PW-9, there could be sources of PCE contamination other than Crown which better account for conditions observed in the ground water in downtown Pensacola. DER simply failed in its investigation to adequately rule out other potential sources of contamination within the cone of influence of the public water supply wells, PW-6, PW-8, the "east well", and PW-9. It is as likely as not, for example, that PCE emanating from whatever source or sources contaminated PW-9 (potentially four different dry-cleaning establishments) was also drawn hydraulically downgradient and into the "east well" and other wells. The record reflects that the "east well", for instance, when it is pumping, has a capture zone which extends as far as and including PW-9. DER failed to adequately investigate that potential explanation, as well as other potential sources of the contamination, including the stormwater pond, and thereby failed to prove that contamination emanating from the Crown facility, more likely than not, caused the contamination observed in the ECUA wells, or at least all of it, to the extent of its violating the MCL for PCE in the sites sampled. DER also seeks to impose liability on the Respondents pursuant to Section 403.727(4), Florida Statutes, which imposes strict liability on the current or former owner or operator at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance, as to a facility at which a release of hazardous substances has occurred. PCE is a hazardous substance, as that term is used in Section 403.727, Florida Statutes. However, Section 403.727, Florida Statutes, did not become effective until 1980; and PCE was not listed as a hazardous substance until 1984. DER has failed to prove in what quantity or during what period of time PCE may have been released from the surge tank at the Crown facility. It has established that PCE was only placed in the surge tank during 1974 and 1975 and not since, well before the effective date of this statutory provision and the listing of PCE as a hazardous substance. It has produced evidence from which it is inferred that a certain amount of dissolved PCE in laundry waste water leaked from the tank. It has not been established when the leakage started nor in what quantities PCE dissolved into the wash or waste water may have leaked into the surrounding soil, nor what rate (continuously increasing, decreasing, or static) the leakage occurred. Thus, the most that may be inferred is that leakage of dissolved PCE in an unknown concentration occurred sometime after 1974, but it has not been proven that PCE, as a hazardous substance, has been released into the environment during a specific period of time when each of the Respondents owned and/or operated the Crown facility. Thus, DER has failed to adduce evidence sufficient to carry its burden of proving a release of a hazardous substance, subjecting any of the Respondents to liability under Section 403.727, Florida Statutes. In any event, the Respondents were not on notice of the need to defend against a charge under that statutory section since the NOV and the Amended NOV did not inform them that such would be the basis of any purported liability alleged by DER. DER contended, for the first time at hearing, that the Respondents are liable for violation of the hazardous waste disposal rules. DER alleged at hearing that PCE, as a waste, is a listed hazardous waste, either as a spent solvent or a discarded commercial chemical. No such allegations were included in the NOV or the Amended NOV. However, Dr. Mercer established that any PCE which may have been released into the environment from the surge tank was in dissolved form and not as separate phase PCE. Dissolved PCE has not been shown to be a hazardous waste. Therefore, there is no evidence of record to support a finding that improper disposal of hazardous waste occurred at any point or points in time relevant to his proceeding. Moreover, Mr. Clark testified that he conducted a hazardous waste inspection of the Crown facility in 1982. Mr. Clark determined at that time that there was no hazardous waste being generated in the building or being stored in the building. DER has failed to demonstrate that any hazardous waste was generated or stored on the Crown property or disposed of into the surge tank at anytime by any of the Respondents. Finally, no evidence has been presented in this case that any of the Respondents had actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of PCE in the surge tank or of whether or not any release to the surge tank had occurred between 1971 and 1979 or any knowledge of any use or discharge of PCE to the surge tank prior to the commencement of DER's investigation in this action. Only RCD may be presumed to have had knowledge of the spillage of PCE which was discharged to the surge tank in 1974 and 1975, which entity was Jura's predecessor, ultimately merged into the corporation now known as Jura Services, Inc. Additionally, DER seeks in this proceeding only to be reimbursed for the costs of the investigation and tracing of the source of contamination and not for any natural resources damages nor any adjudication of the extent of liability for such damages, except insofar as the Order for Corrective Action which DER seeks to have imposed in this case reserves DER the opportunity to seek a determination after completion of corrective action of the extent to which the Respondents may be liable for natural resources damage, if any.
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 DER enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended NOV against all Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 5th day of November, 1992. 5985 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-3077 & 88- Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence of record and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not dispositive. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the Hearing testimony and evidence and subordinate to the Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected for the same reason. Accepted but not in itself dispositive of the material findings issues and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 23-27. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 28-30. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 31-34. Accepted. 35-40. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 41-50. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 51. Accepted but not in itself dispositive and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 52-53. Accepted. Accepted as to the DER intent in placement of the wells. Accepted but not materially dispositive standing alone. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that Crown Laundry has been shown source by circumstantial evidence to be inferentially a of the contamination found in the various wells mentioned but not the sole source nor the source actually causing this made on violation of appropriate standards and otherwise proposed finding of fact is subordinate to those this subject matter by the Hearing Officer. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted as to the levels of chemical depicted in this the proposed finding of fact but not as to the material import of the proposed finding of fact concerning tank being the cause of the excession of the MCL standards. Accepted but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. 61-62. Accepted. Accepted except that the presence of these chemicals in excession of the MCL inside the tank does not constitute a violation of any pertinent legal authority. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that the walls of the tank are a continuing source of PCE. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted in terms of the amount spent but rejected otherwise as being, in effect, a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as constituting a recitation of a portion of the fact pleadings at issue and not as a proposed finding of which is materially dispositive of any issue. Rejected as not constituting a material proposed finding of fact but rather a recitation or discussion of the remedies sought by the Petitioner. Rejected as immaterial in this proceeding. Accepted but not dispositive. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Respondent, American Linen Supply Company's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-21. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not as probative that leakage could have raised the level of PCE in the monitoring and production well samples above the maximum contaminant level. Accepted. Accepted but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself dispositive. 27-28. Accepted. Respondents, Belleaus and Crown Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact 1-21. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and to some extent, as speculative. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself dispositive of material issues. Accepted. Respondent, Jura Services, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact 1-63. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 66-68. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Jack Chisolm, Esq. Richard Windsor, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 William D. Preston, Esq. Thomas M. DeRose, Esq. HOPPING, BOYD, ET AL. 123 S. Calhoun Street P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas P. Healy, Jr., Esq. MAYER, BROWN & PLATT 190 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 John W. Wilcox, Esq. Derek B. Spilman, Esq. RUDNICK & WOLFE 101 East Kennedy Blvd. Suite 2000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Jeffrey C. Bassett, Esq. BARRON, REDDING, ET AL. Box 2467 Panama City, Florida 32401
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondents should pay the administrative penalty, investigative costs, and attorney’s fees and undertake the corrective actions that are demanded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the “Department”) as set forth in the Final Amended Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the state of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Germain is a licensed Florida attorney. From May 2006 to January 2013, Germain was the record owner of the real property at 1120 West Main Street, Leesburg, Lake County, Florida (the “Germain property”). Leesburg’s is an active Florida corporation that was incorporated in January 2013 by Germain. Germain is Leesburg’s sole corporate officer and sole shareholder and has managerial authority over the Germain property. John Doe 1-5 is a placeholder designation used by the Department for the purpose of covering all potential entities to which Germain might transfer the property. No other such entity materialized. Background A gas station was operated on the Germain property continually from the 1920s through the late 1980s. During the 1980s and perhaps for a longer period, C.E. Griner operated the gas station under the name Griner’s Service Station. Griner’s Service Station had at least three underground storage tanks (“USTs”) used to store leaded and unleaded gasoline. In 1989 or 1990, Griner ceased operation of the gas station and the USTs were filled with concrete and abandoned in place. The Germain property has not been used as a gas station since that time. In 1990, the Department inspected the Germain property and prepared a report. The inspection report noted that the USTs at the Germain property “were not cleaned properly prior to filling with concrete.” The report also noted that the tanks were not properly abandoned in place. No evidence was presented to explain in what way the tanks were not properly abandoned, or to indicate whether the Department took any enforcement action based on this report. In 1996, Gustavo Garcia purchased the Germain property from Griner. In May 2006, Germain purchased the property from Garcia. Another gas station, operating for many years under several names (now “Sunoco”), is located at 1200 West Main Street, across a side street and west of the Germain property. Since 1990, one or more discharges of petroleum contaminants occurred on the Sunoco property. There were also gas stations at the other two corners of the Main Street intersection, but no evidence was presented about their operations or conditions. In March 2003, apparently as part of a pre-purchase investigation, testing was conducted at the Sunoco property that revealed petroleum contamination in the groundwater. Soil contamination was not reported. S&ME, Inc. (“S&ME”), an environmental consulting firm, subsequently submitted a discharge report to the Department’s Central District Office in Orlando. Later in 2003, S&ME conducted an initial site assessment for the Sunoco property. In the report it produced, S&ME noted that it found concentrations of petroleum contaminants in the groundwater that were above the Department’s Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (“GCTLs”). The concentrations exceeding GCTLs were in samples taken from the eastern side of the Sunoco property, closest to the Germain property. In 2004, S&ME completed a Templated Site Assessment Report for the Sunoco property. Groundwater samples from the eastern portion of the Sunoco property again revealed petroleum contamination exceeding GCTLs. Garcia, who owned the Germain property at the time, allowed S&ME to conduct soil testing on the Germain property. The soil samples were taken by direct push methods and were tested with an organic vapor analyzer (“OVA”), which revealed toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, naphthalene, 1-methyl naphthalene, and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons exceeding the Department’s Soil Cleanup Target Levels (“SCTLs”). In 2005, another private environmental consulting firm, ATC Associates, Inc. (“ATC”), performed a Supplemental Site Assessment on the Sunoco property and produced a report. As part of its assessment, ATC installed three monitoring wells on the Germain property and collected groundwater samples. These groundwater samples revealed petroleum constituent concentrations that exceeded GCTLs and were higher than concentrations found in groundwater samples taken under the Sunoco property. Both the 2004 and 2005 site assessment reports concluded that the groundwater in the area flowed from the southeast to the northwest; that is, from the Germain property toward the Sunoco property. Germain referred to a figure in S&ME’s 2004 report that he claimed indicated a southeasterly flow of groundwater from Sunoco toward the Germain property. However, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that groundwater flow in the area is generally northwesterly from the Germain property toward the Sunoco property. Based on the results of its testing, ATC concluded in its site assessment report that the groundwater contamination on the eastern portion of the Sunoco property had migrated from the Germain property. ATC also took soil samples from the Germain property. It screened the soil samples with an OVA and reported petroleum contamination exceeding the Department’s SCTLs. Petroleum contamination in soil typically does not travel far horizontally. It remains in the vicinity of the source. Therefore, the soil contamination found on the Germain property indicates an onsite source of the contamination. All of the assessment reports were filed with Seminole County, presumably with the Department of Public Safety, Emergency Management Division, which is the local entity with which the Department contracted to inspect and manage petroleum facilities in the area. These reports were public records before Germain purchased his property. A June 2005 Memorandum from Seminole County informed Bret LeRoux at the Department’s Central District Office that ATC’s 2005 site assessment report indicated the Germain property was the source of petroleum contamination. The Memorandum recommended that the Department contact the owner of the property about the contamination. The Memorandum was filed at the Department. After the Department received the Memorandum, it requested and received the site assessment reports from Seminole County. The Department did not notify Garcia or the public about the contamination in 2005. The Department did not notify Germain about the contamination until August 2007. All Appropriate Inquiry The principal factual dispute in this case is whether Germain undertook “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and use of” the Germain property before purchasing it, as required by section 376.308(1)(c)1/: [A person acquiring title to petroleum- contaminated property after July 1992] must also establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she undertook, at the time of acquisition, all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and use of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice in an effort to minimize liability. Before he purchased the Germain property in 2006, Germain knew that it had been a gas station for a number of years. Garcia told Germain that the USTs had been filled with concrete and were “within the law.” Germain was also aware that the Sunoco USTs had recently been excavated and that there was a problem with the tanks and possible contamination there. Germain said he spoke with neighbors about the property, but he did not say what he learned from them. Before the purchase, Germain conducted a visual inspection of the property and saw “several little metal plates” in the parking lot. Germain claimed it was only later that he learned that some of the plates were covers for groundwater monitoring wells. Germain said he visited and reviewed files at a Lake County office, but he was not specific about which county offices he visited. He also went to the Leesburg Historic Board to review property records. Germain’s testimony was not clear about what records he saw on these visits. Germain did not go to the office of the Seminole County Department of Public Safety, Emergency Management Division, to view records pertaining to the Germain property. He did not claim to have gone to the Department’s Central District Office in Orlando. In other words, Germain did not go to the offices of the agencies responsible for regulating petroleum USTs. Nor did Germain say that he talked to any knowledgeable employee of these agencies by telephone about possible contamination issues on the Germain property. While at a Lake County office, Germain searched the DEP website and saw two documents that indicated the USTs on the Germain property had been closed in place. One of the documents indicated a cleanup status of “no contamination.” Germain claimed that he relied on these documents to conclude that the property was clean. The Department explained that the phrase “no contamination” is used in its database as a default where no contamination has been reported and no discharge form has been filed. It is not a determination based on a site investigation that the site is free of contamination. However, the Department had received information that the Germain property was contaminated, so its explanation of the “no contamination” status for the Germain property was unsatisfactory. Germain does not practice environmental law. He neither claimed nor demonstrated knowledge or experience with the legal or factual issues associated with petroleum contamination. Germain did not present evidence to establish that he followed “good commercial or customary practice” in his investigation of the property as required by section 376.308(1)(c). Good commercial practice in the purchase of property upon which potentially contaminating activities have occurred entails consultation with a person with appropriate knowledge and experience. Germain did not consult with an environmental attorney or environmental consultant regarding the potential liability associated with property used as a gas station. If Germain had hired an environmental consultant to assist him, the consultant would have known where to find public records about the gas station, including any soil and groundwater analyses. An environmental consultant would have seen the site assessment reports and other public records that indicated petroleum contamination on the Germain property. A consultant would likely have recommended a Phase I environmental site assessment (“ESA”). A Phase I ESA entails, generally, determining past uses of a property, inspecting the property for visible indications of potential contamination, and reviewing aerial photographs, historical documents, and public records related to the property and its surroundings. A Phase II ESA would follow if potential contamination is discovered and usually includes taking soil and groundwater samples. In considering whether all appropriate inquiry was undertaken by a purchaser of contaminated property, section 376.308(1)(c) directs the court or administrative law judge to take into account: any specialized knowledge or experience on the part of the defendant, the relationship of the purchase price to the value of the property if uncontaminated, commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property, the obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect such contamination by appropriate inspection. Germain did not have specialized knowledge regarding the regulation of petroleum USTs. However, as a lawyer, he was familiar with the practice of employing or working with professionals with specialized knowledge in order to achieve the objectives or solve the problems of his clients. If Germain’s legal assistance had been sought by a client to solve an environmental problem, Germain would have declined to proceed because he did not possess the requisite knowledge or he would have sought the assistance of an environmental lawyer or environmental consultant. In purchasing the Germain property, Germain did not undertake the reasonable steps a lawyer must take for a client. No evidence was presented about the relationship of the purchase price to the value of the Germain property. Germain did not show that the site assessment reports and other documents discussed above were not “reasonably ascertainable information.” Although a visual inspection by a lay person would not have disclosed the presence of contamination at the property, an environmental consultant would have recognized the groundwater monitor wells and would have known to seek information about the reason for their installation and the groundwater sampling results. Taking all relevant considerations into account, Germain failed to show that he made all appropriate inquiry before he purchased the Germain property. Germain transferred the property to Leesburg’s in January 2013 in part to limit his potential personal liability for petroleum contamination. The Germain property is Leesburg’s primary asset. Because Leesburg’s took title to the Germain property after the NOV was issued, it had full knowledge of the contamination and cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser. Post-Purchase Investigation In August 2007, the Department sent Germain a letter informing him that the Department had reason to believe his property was contaminated with petroleum and requiring him to conduct a site assessment pursuant to rule 62-770.600(1).2/ In September 2007, the Department sent Germain the 2004 and 2005 site assessment reports. Germain did not conduct a site assessment. At the final hearing, the Department did not state whether it had made any effort to take enforcement action against Griner, whom the record evidence indicates was the owner of the gas station when the discharge occurred. In 2012, the Department issued Germain a notice of violation for failing to conduct a site assessment and remediation. After Germain transferred the property to Leesburg’s, the Department issued the Final NOV to add Leesburg’s as a Respondent. The Final NOV seeks penalties of $10,000 against Germain, and $10,000 against Leesburg’s. While investigating this matter, the Department incurred expenses of $11,380.37 in investigative costs. Confirmation of On-site Contamination Despite the site assessment reports that documented contamination on the Germain property, Germain disputed the Department’s claim that the property was contaminated. The Department conducted testing and completed a Site Investigation Report in 2010. Because Germain would not allow the Department onto his property, the Department installed groundwater monitoring wells adjacent to the Germain property to the west and south, and collected groundwater samples. The Department confirmed the northwesterly flow of groundwater documented in previous reports and found elevated levels of petroleum contaminants above GCTLs, including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, total lead, EDB, and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons. Monitoring wells west of, or downgradient of, the Germain property showed high levels of groundwater contamination, while monitoring wells to the south and southeast, or upgradient of the property showed no signs of contamination, indicating that the source of the groundwater contamination was on the Germain property. Based on the site assessments and its own investigation, the Department determined that the Germain property is the source of petroleum contamination detected along the eastern portion of the Sunoco property. Germain and Leesburg’s did not present any expert testimony to support their claim that the Germain property is not contaminated or that the contamination migrated to the Germain property from offsite. A preponderance of the record evidence shows that the Germain property is the source of the petroleum contamination found in the onsite soil and groundwater, as well as in groundwater on the eastern portion of the Sunoco property.
