The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nemi, Inc., should pay a $500.00 administrative fine for maintaining an unpermitted stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution (Count I); whether it should pay an administrative fine of $9,500.00 for failing to submit a completed Site Assessment Report (SAR) within 270 days of discovery of the discharge of chemical solvents (Count II); whether it should pay investigative costs and expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 incurred by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department) (Count III); and whether it should take corrective action, as described in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice of Violation) issued on January 23, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is a for-profit corporation registered to do business in the State. Respondent's president and registered agent is Neil Schuberg, who represented the corporation at hearing. Respondent is the owner of a 1.1-acre parcel of real property located at 6801 Northwest 17th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The property is situated in what is known as the Gateway Industrial Center just south of the City of Pompano Beach and midway between the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95. The parcel is rectangular shaped and is approximately 90 feet wide by 180 feet long. The property is further identified by the Broward County Property Appraiser as Parcel Identification Number 494209050040. A one-story warehouse and parking lot are located on the property, which is currently leased by Respondent to a testing laboratory. The evidence shows that for at least since 1981 David R. Ligh owned the property until his death. After he died, his widow, Elsie M. Ligh, sold the property in 1994 to Clayton John Pierce subject to a mortgage in the amount of $167,640.00. Mr. Pierce began operating a business on the premises known as Combined Roof Services, Inc. In 1995, Mr. Pierce decided to sell the property. A potential buyer, S & S Propeller Company, retained the services of Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an environmental site assessment for the purpose of "determining the suitability of property for ownership by [S & S Propeller Company]." When it first inspected the site in July 1995, Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., discovered three thirty-five gallon drums and a twenty-gallon black plastic tub, all labeled "hazardous waste" and reflecting that they had contained tetrachloroethene (also known as perchloroethylene) waste. This is a chemical solvent that is typically used by dry cleaning establishments. The labels carried the name and "EPA ID number" of Family Dry Cleaners located at 6804 Stirling Road, Davie, Florida, an address which appears to be around ten to twelve miles south of the subject property. The three drums were lying on their sides on the northern end of an asphalt parking area beneath overgrown Brazilian pepper trees and were empty; the empty twenty-gallon tub was located inside the building on the property. Soil borings on the property performed by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., revealed concentrations of tetrachloroethene at 10,613 parts per billion, which exceed allowable standards. Tetrachloroethene and its breakdown products are a solid waste, as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113). A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) dated August 13, 1995, was prepared by the consulting firm and sets forth in detail the results of its inspection. See Department Exhibit 2. The sale was never consummated. Later that year, Mr. Pierce engaged the same consulting firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the property. That assessment revealed concentrations in groundwater ranging from 8,840 parts per billion to 173,000 parts per billion of tetrachloroethene, which exceed the State Clean Soil Criteria and State Maximum Contaminant Levels. The report, issued on October 13, 1995, was received in evidence as Department Exhibit 3. On October 30, 1995, a Mr. Pivnick, an attorney with the firm of Dombroff & Gilmore, P.A., which represented Mr. Pierce, notified the Department by letter that the empty drums and tub had been discovered on the property. The letter also attached a copy of the Phase I ESA. Mr. Pivnick was instructed by the Department to contact the local police department to report the incident as well as the state warning system for reporting discharges to the environment. Also, the Department contacted other local agencies and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In October 1995, Mr. Pierce vacated the premises and ceased operating Combined Roof Services, Inc. In January 1996, he began leasing the property to Sun Valley Industries, also a roofing repair business, until that firm vacated the premises in December 1997. With the use of grant monies, the Department engaged the services of International Technology Corporation to prepare a Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) for the property. That report was issued on February 13, 1997. See Department Exhibit The PIR recommended that additional monitoring of the site (through shallow monitoring wells, soil samples, groundwater samples, and groundwater flow direction) be made to quantify the presence of chlorinated solvents. Again with the use of grant monies, in 1997 the Department engaged the services of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., to prepare a Site Inspection Report (Report) for the subject property. The Report was issued in March 1998. See Department Exhibit 5. Excessive tetrachloroethene, Cis-1, 2- dichloroethene, and trichloroethylene were detected in ground water samples, while tetrachloroethene was detected in all seven soil samples. On April 2, 1998, Ms. Ligh assigned the mortgage on the property to Nemi, Inc., for around $100,000.00. Mr. Schuberg explained that he was able to purchase it at a discount because Mr. Pierce had ceased making payments on the mortgage and had warned Ms. Ligh that if she foreclosed on the mortgage, she would be responsible for cleanup costs on the property exceeding a million dollars. While Mr. Schuberg acknowledged that he was aware of a contamination problem on the property, he says the mortgage was purchased as an investment, and he never thought he would actually acquire the property because he believed Mr. Pierce would continue to make the mortgage payments. After failing to make payments on the mortgage, on September 21, 1999, Mr. Pierce executed a Warranty Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure in favor of Nemi, Inc. Based on conversations with Mr. Pierce at that time, Mr. Schuberg says he was under the impression that the spill was much smaller than it actually was, and that it would be cleaned up by the Department. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg characterized Mr. Pierce as "a hustler and a liar." After Mr. Pivnick's report of contamination was received, the Department, along with the Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection, initiated an investigation (probably in late 1995 or early 1996) in an attempt to verify the source of the contamination. Because Family Dry Cleaners "was on the top of [its] list," the Department first sought to determine whether that firm had actually deposited the drums and tub on the subject property. It learned that in 1994, or a year before the contamination was reported to the Department, Family Dry Cleaners had been evicted by its landlord, Lincoln Park. According to the Department, this "led to a dead- end" as far as Family Dry Cleaners was concerned. However, that business had been replaced by another tenant, Liberty Dry Cleaners. The Department then attempted to ascertain whether Lincoln Park or the new tenant might have been responsible for transporting the drums and tub to the subject property and dumping the waste. However, the Department was unable to confirm that either of the two had done so. Photographs of the drums and tub were made by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., when it conducted an assessment in July 1995. Because the empty drums and tub were later removed from the site by unknown persons, the Department was only able to review the photographs when it conducted its investigation. Photographs of the drums indicated that they were larger than the twenty-gallon drums normally used by a dry cleaning establishment, and the labels on the drums were not perforated or dot matrix, which are more typical of those used by dry cleaners. For this reason, and because the empty tub was found inside the building on the property, the Department attempted to determine if Mr. Pierce had purchased the contaminants for use in his operations; it was not able to confirm this fact. The Department also contacted local law enforcement officials to see whether a criminal investigation could be launched. As noted above, however, the drums and tub had been removed by unknown persons while Mr. Pierce still had possession of the property and there was no forensic evidence for law enforcement officials to examine. The result of the investigation was that the Department was unable to determine who deposited the drums on the site or the exact location where the contents were first dumped. Although Respondent contended that the Department could have easily determined who removed the empty drums and tub from the subject property by examining the manifests of the carriers who engage in that type of business, the Department investigator did not attempt to do this since the yellow pages in the telephone directory reflected at least six pages of transporters in this type of business. Further, there is no evidence that a commercial transporter was even involved. For all of these reasons, the Department looked to the current owner of the property, Respondent, as the entity responsible for site rehabilitation since there were, and still are, contaminants leaching into the groundwater and aquifer system. Specifically, as of 2007, or twelve years after the discharge occurred, the groundwater on Respondent's property was still contaminated with tetrachloroethene, trichloroethylene, and cis-1, 2-dichloroethene exceeding the Department's groundwater standards. Also, the same contaminants exceeded the Department's soil cleanup target levels based on ground water criteria. Because rainfall and surface water continue to come into contact with the contaminated soil, and there is no liner or impervious cap in place, the installation is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution. On September 12, 2001, the Department sent a letter by certified mail to Respondent advising that contamination was present on the property, that there were "possible violations of law for which you may be responsible," and that a Preliminary Contamination Assessment (PCA) must be filed within sixty days from the date of the letter. See Department Exhibit 6. Although a meeting of the parties was held on October 4, 2001, a PCA was never filed. 16. On April 27, 2006, March 12, 2007, and July 3, 2007, the Department issued Warning Letters to Respondent advising that an enforcement action would be initiated unless Respondent provided a SAR within a time certain. See Department Exhibits 7, 8, and 9. (The record is silent as to why no formal activity occurred between October 2001 and April 2006.) Exhibit 8 reflects that on November 21, 2006, "analysis results of sampling of one monitoring well were received by the Department." A meeting was later conducted by the parties on January 16, 2007, at which time Respondent agreed to "draft a suitable letter of [its] intentions with regard to conducting the required assessment and send it to the Department on or before January 31, 2007." There is no record of such a letter being sent. In August 2007, Respondent contracted with Florida Environmental Engineering, Inc., to perform a "limited site assessment report." In March 2008, that firm submitted to the Department a Preliminary Site Assessment Report (PSAR) See Department Exhibit 10. For this service, Respondent paid around $16,000.00. On March 21, 2008, the Department advised Respondent by letter that the PSAR was incomplete and that further information should be provided by April 30, 2008. See Department Exhibit 11. An Addendum to the PSAR was provided on May 5, 2008. See Department Exhibit 12. This report cost Respondent an additional $3,000.00. The PSAR indicated that contaminants (dichloroethene and trichloroethylene) in the water and soil on the property exceeded Department groundwater and soil cleanup target standards and levels. The report concluded, however, that "the discharge to the site is from an offsite source" (west of the property) and that "the property owner is no longer a responsible party." On August 27 and then again on October 22, 2008, the Department issued letters to Respondent advising that "there is not enough data to support the assumption that the discharge is offsite and the contamination is from an offsite source located west of the property." The Department reached this conclusion because, among other reasons, "[t]he contamination does not seem to be delineated towards the northern and southern portions of the site," "[t]here are no horizontal delineation wells to [the] north," the "iso contour maps provided appear to show the vertical delineation of the contamination but not horizontal delineation [of the plume]," "additional monitoring points need to be [added]," and "the onsite monitoring well, MW-2, shows a very high concentration of Perchloroethylene (PCE) at 81,000 ug/L [microgram per liter] and other contaminants, while the MW-1 does not exhibit groundwater contamination to that extent." See Department Exhibits 14 and 15. In plainer language, Respondent's report was deficient in that all contamination sources were not identified; it failed to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and groundwater contamination; and it failed to recommend a remedial action to clean up the contamination. The two letters advised that the site assessment was incomplete and that additional information described in the letters must be submitted by November 14, 2008. To date, Respondent has failed to submit the required information. According to Mr. Schuberg, to perform a study that would supply the additional information requested by the Department would cost him around $100,000.00, an amount he is unwilling to pay. More than 270 days has expired since a discharge was discovered on Respondent's property, and it has failed to submit a complete SAR, as described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-780.600(8). See also Table A, Fla. Admin. Code R. Ch. 62-780, which prescribes the specific time frame (within 270 days after the discharge is discovered) for submitting this report. The Department has incurred expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 while investigating this matter. See Department Exhibit 17. This amount is not disputed. As corrective action, the Department requests that within ninety days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent submit a complete SAR which addresses the deficiencies specified in the Department's August 27, 2008, letter. See Department Exhibit 14. To complete the SAR, additional soil and groundwater samples need to be collected to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination, all source areas must be identified, and a remedial action must be developed to abate the contamination. Finally, the contaminated soil must be removed from the property so that it will no longer discharge into the groundwater. The Notice of Violation requests that upon approval of the SAR, Respondent "shall commence and complete in a timely fashion all further tasks" required by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-780. These corrective actions are reasonable and are hereby approved. In calculating the penalty, Respondent has assessed a $500.00 administrative penalty for Respondent maintaining a stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution without a permit. This is based upon a violation of Section 403.121(5), Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful to not comply with a regulatory statute's requirement. Under Section 403.121(6), Florida Statutes, the Department has also assessed a $500.00 per day penalty against Respondent for failing to file a SAR for nineteen days, for a total of $9,500.00. When added to the $500.00 previously assessed, the total administrative penalty is $10,000.00, which is the maximum allowed in this type of proceeding. See § 403.121(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Throughout this process, Mr. Schuberg has contended that the responsibility for cleanup lies with the person or entity actually responsible for placing the drums and tub on the property in 1995. He says that the evidence clearly shows that Family Dry Cleaners is the responsible party. However, the Department and local authorities were never able to confirm who actually dumped the waste on the subject property. Although Mr. Schuberg says it will take "[i]n the hundreds of thousands of dollars" to clean up the site, the evidence shows that when he purchased the mortgage in 1998 and assumed ownership in 1999, he knew the property was contaminated. Mr. Schuberg further stated that because his consultant could never get "answers" from the Department, the consultant was instructed to stop work. However, Mr. Schuberg never contacted the Department to get clarification about what was required. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg also offered a lay opinion that his consultant's report filed in March 2008 proves that in 1995 the contents of the drums and tub were dumped on an offsite asphalt road adjacent to the property, surface water runoff then carried the chemical solvents onto his property, and the empty drums and tub were left in the parking lot. The Department's expert did not agree with this supposition, and there is no expert testimony to confirm the accuracy of this theory. Respondent has also contended that the property should be cleaned up with state funds. As pointed out by a Department witness, however, one problem is that the property does not meet the definition of a dry cleaner and thus cannot qualify for funds under that program. Then, too, a state-funded cleanup is a last resort which is used only after the Department has exhausted all enforcement remedies. Also, in this era of tight budgets, the Department has a finite amount of funds to use for this purpose, and is limited to cleaning up only a few sites per year. Finally, the responsible party must first acknowledge by affidavit that it lacks the necessary resources to clean up the property before the Department "may" seek cleanup funds. Respondent has not yet filed such an affidavit or admitted liability. In terms of mitigating evidence, Mr. Schuberg conceded that he has not done "a whole lot" to address the contamination problem since acquiring the property in 1999. In 2008, he did expend around $20,000.00 in having a PSAR and Addendum prepared for the Department. In all other respects, he steadfastly refuses to spend any more money on assessments or take responsibility for the cleanup since he believes that Family Dry Cleaners is the entity responsible for site rehabilitation.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: On August 31, 1978, Raymond M. Ewing Realty, Inc., also referred to herein as the "applicant," submitted its application to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit to construct an extended aeration wastewater treatment and disposal facility on Perdido Key in Escambia County. The Department of Environmental Regulation issued its notice of intent to issue the permit with conditions on December 5, 1978. The petitioner Perdido Key Development Association timely requested an administrative hearing and the motion to join Southwest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc. as a party petitioner was granted. The proposed facility is designed to serve a condominium complex on Perdido Key consisting of 72 units. It is expected that 250 gallons of water per day per unit will be discharged into the system, thus requiring an average daily design hydraulic flow of at least 18,000 gallons per day. The plant described in the application will have a capacity to handle 25,000 gallons per day. The plans and specifications, engineering report and application are in substantial conformity with each other. Substantial residential development presently exists on Perdido Key. No central sewer system exists to service Perdido Key, and only septic tanks and package sewage treatment plants are available for waste treatment purposes on the island. The proposed facility will use an extended aeration process whereby effluent is routed from the individual units through a filter within the plant and then discharged into an underground drainfield system. The facility is designed to remove 95 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids. Duplicate blowers and pumps are included to insure continued operations in the event of failure of one of the units. In the event of a power failure, a contractual arrangement with the treatment plant operator will provide for the bringing in of emergency electrical generators. The 100 year flood elevation for this area is eleven feet. The top of the proposed plant is fifteen feet above mean sea level, and a water manifold is provided to prevent water from splashing into the plant. The drainfield is located approximately 330 feet from Old River, a body of water adjacent to Perdido Key. Such location is the farthest and highest reasonable point away from the River. While the plant is designed to remove over 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids, it is not designed to remove nutrients or phosphorous from the effluent. The drainfield is located on porous coastal dune sand. There is an acceptable distance between the bottom of the drain field and the maximum high ground water level. There was evidence presented which illustrates that nutrients and phosphates will be removed through the absorption and precipitation phenomena as they move through the sand and become diluted by the groundwaters. Vegetation on top of the drainfield will also assist in the removal of phosphates and nitrates. Field testing has not shown any contamination of ground water or Old River by an existing sewage treatment plant. Among the conditions proposed for the issuance of the construction permit is that an application be submitted for an operation permit. Such application must include four months of results analyses and flow measurements to substantiate compliance with the applicable rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation. The initial test results must be provided within six weeks after the facility has been placed in operation. Further conditions require that there be no discharge to area surface waters, and that, prior to placing the facility into operation, the construction be certified and approved as having been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The petitioners herein are both organizations whose members own property, reside or have a business interest on Perdido Key. The members of the petitioners use the waters of Old River recreationally and commercially.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue to the respondent Raymond M. Ewing Realty, Inc. the requested construction permit subject to the conditions contained in the Department's initial notice of intent to issue the permit. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: M. Michael Patterson 26 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Daniel P Fernandez Assistant General Counsel Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey T. Sauer Smith, Sauer and Venn, P.A. Post Office Box 12446 Pensacola, Florida 32582 Charles Collette, Esquire Post Office Box 10161 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Secretary Jake Varn Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jackson County proposes to build a Class I landfill in western Jackson County, about 1.5 miles south of Campbellton on the west side of State Road 273. The named petitioners live near the proposed site, and all parties stipulated to petitioners' standing or party status on account of the proximity of their homes. The forecast is that the proposed landfill would be in service for 15 years, during the last of which it would receive wastes generated by 16,000 persons. Contingent on issuance of the construction permit it seeks in these proceedings, Jackson County has agreed to purchase 85 to 89 acres in section 15, township 6N, range 12W, of which 55 acres would be devoted to the proposed landfill. About ten of the remaining acres are covered by the southern reaches of Grant Pond. Grant Pond may be a sinkhole, but there is no connection between its waters and the Florida aquifer. There is no evidence of sinkhole activity on the site at the present time. One hundred ten feet from the southwest boundary of the proposed site long-time residents have shallow wells from which they once drew water with buckets. There are mostly small farms in the area. A trailer and 6 to 8 homes are located within 1,000 yards of the proposed site. LEACHATE NOT ANTICIPATED Jackson County contemplates eventually dumping 215 cubic yards daily of residential, commercial and agricultural wastes including sewage sludge, in a series of "cells" to H developed seriatim on the site. Developing a cell would entail digging a pit 15 feet deep, 200 feet wide and 650 feet long, lining it with some of the clay removed in excavating, and compacting the two-foot-thick clay bottom liner to 90 percent Proctor. The uncontroverted testimony was that such a liner would be impermeable. A cell is expected to accommodate about a year's worth of refuse. The plan is to have one cell in operation and another in reserve at all times. Waste would be compacted and then covered over with clay soils daily to minimize the possibility of leachate formation. In addition, a six-inch layer of clay would be put down at the end of each "lift," more or less weekly. Once the cell was completely filled, it would be covered with an even thicker layer of clay and/or other materials specified by applicable regulations. Against the possibility of leachate formation before the cell is finally sealed off, the bottom of the cell would be sloped (4:1) so that any leachate generated would accumulate at one point in the cell, from which it could be pumped to a leachate holding pond. The leachate holding pond is also to be lined with impermeable clays. The engineer who designed the project predicts that no leachate whatsoever will be generated and the project plans do not identify the specific method for disposing of leachate, once it reaches the holding pond. Depending on the quality and consistency of any leachate, it could be left in the holding pond to evaporate, or be removed by truck for disposal off site; or be treated biologically and/or chemically before being spread on site. STORMWATER The stormwater management system consists of a series of elongated detention ponds and two ditches, or swales, that drain into Grant Pond. The detention ponds are to be 1.2 feet deep, have varying widths (26.5 to 64 feet), with sides sloping at a 4:1 ratio, and vary in length from 1,000 to 1,600 feet. Water that would accumulate in them as a result of 3.2 inches of rainfall (the amount a 25-year one-hour storm would bring) would fill the ponds. The ponds are designed to overflow through baffled culverts along the swales into Grant Pond. The soils are such that 3.2 inches of rainfall could percolate into the unsaturated soil from the holding ponds in 72 hours. The closest baffle to Grant Pond would be some 200 feet distant; significant sheet flows would also enter Grant Pond. The landfill is designed to insulate stormwater runoff from contamination by waste or leachate. Only when wastes in an almost filled cell had not yet been covered would there be danger that stormwater falling on wastes would end up in the flow of stormwater draining across the surface of the proposed site and ultimately into Grant Pond. This danger could be all but eliminated by placing the last layer of wastes deeply enough in the cell. The plan is to ring the cells with excavated material, as well. If leachate is generated and pumped to the leachate holding pond and if there is enough of it to fill the pond or nearly to fill it, a storm might result in an overflow from the leachate holding pond that would drain eventually into Grant Pond. This danger, too, could be all but eliminated by operating the landfill so that the level of leachate in the holding pond always remained low enough, and by disposing of all leachate, if the facility generates any, off site, rather than "by landspreading on site." Jackson County's Exhibit No. 6. The same people who manage the landfill in eastern Jackson County would manage the landfill here proposed. No leachate has been generated at Jackson County's eastern landfill, but litter that can blow out of the cells at the eastern landfill does. If the same practices obtain at the new site, airborne litter that does not reach Grant Pond on the wing, may later be washed into the Pond by stormwater, even though the baffles would eliminate floatables in the water flowing out of the detention ponds. TWO AQUIFERS The parties are in agreement "that the leachate and or other pollutants will probably never reach the Floridan Aquifer." Petitioners' Closing Argument, p. 4. The Floridan aquifer is a limestone rock formation underlying the proposed site at depths varying between 30 and 130 feet, and separated by a layer of stiff clay from the overlying silts and sands. The stringers of saturated sands lying near the surface comprise a distinct, surficial aquifer that lies between five and twenty feet below ground over most of the site but crops out as Grant Pond on the northern edge of the property. No cell would be built within 200 feet of the highwater line of Grant Pond. The water table in the surficial aquifer, which yields potable water, is a subdued replica of the ground topography. Surface water from the southwest part of the proposed landfill site, where wells are closest, flows into Grant Pond. Water sometimes stands on the southeast part of the site, an area one witness described as boggy. A trailer stands on a parcel adjoining the property to the southeast with its near boundary 300 or 400 feet from the site proposed for the first working cell. No cell is to be dug within 500 feet of any existing or proved potable water well. The application contemplates monitoring wells. Groundwater in the Floridan aquifer flows south. Three wells to a depth of about 45 feet each are planned for south of the cells so that, in the unlikely event that pollution reached the Floridan aquifer, it could be promptly determined. There will also be a monitoring station in Grant Pond so the effect of stormwater runoff on water quality in the pond can be gauged. One well, 250 feet east of the west property boundary and 250 feet south of the north boundary, is planned for monitoring the surficial aquifer. TOXIC WASTES Toxic wastes are generated in Jackson County. Hundreds of drums with a little something still left in them are brought to the County's eastern landfill. No toxic wastes can lawfully be dumped at landfills like the one Jackson County proposes to build near Campbellton, but containers which once held toxic substances can lawfully be disposed of at such landfills, provided they have been rinsed out with water three times. Signs to this effect are to be posted. The landfill would have a single entrance. An attendant would be on duty during the landfill's hours of operation (8 to 5, five days a week), but would not be expected to have sampling equipment or to enforce the triple rinsing requirement, if past practice at the eastern landfill is any indication. When the landfill is not open, according to the applicant's engineer, green boxes will nevertheless be available for dumping. SCREENING Litter fences are planned only "if needed." A green belt 100 feet wide is proposed along the southern and the eastern perimeter of the property. "Appropriate trees and shrubs" are to be planted there, perhaps bamboo or oleander. SEPTAGE DISPOSAL PITS In a letter dated December 1, 1982, under the heading "septage disposal pits", C. G. Mauriello, the engineer who designed the proposed landfill, wrote DER's Wayne Hosid: This item was not shown on the original application but should be included. It has been recognized by the County that disposal of this type waste material should be handled at the new west site and therefore, provisions will be made for the disposal. Basically, a trench type operation similar to the East Site will be provided. The location of the disposal area will be to the south of the Future Holding Pond and north of the Salvage Area. Jackson County's Exhibit No. 6. A drawing prepared by the same person in July of 1982 shows a "septic tank/drainfield" southeast of the location described for the "septage disposal pits." DER's Exhibit No. 1. The permit DER proposes to issue contains numerous conditions, including the following: Construction of septage drying beds will be identical to those permitted under Permit No. 5032-22067 for Jackson East Sanitary Landfill as modified on July 20, 1981. Jackson County's Exhibit No. 9. Permit No. 5032-22067 was not made a part of the record in these proceedings. Incidentally, the word "septage" does not appear in Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971). A septic tank or any similar system would differ significantly from the systems described by the witnesses who testified at hearing. Septic tanks eventually discharge their contents into surrounding soils, after treatment by anaerobic bacteria. Septic tanks cannot be sealed off by clay or anything else from the earth around them, if they are to function properly. Sooner or later discharge from any septic tank on site could be expected to enter the surficial aquifer and, ultimately, through the groundwater, Grant's Pond. Nothing in the evidence indicates how long it might take for any such effluent to reach the groundwater or leach into Grant Pond; or what its chemical composition might be. MORAL OBJECTION STATED Petitioners' witness Frederick L. Broxton, Sr. testified that, even conceding the absence of a scientific or legal basis for objection to the proposed project, it was immoral for the County Commission to choose a site so close to people's homes, when there was so much land available in that part of the county, where nobody lived. PROPOSED FINDINGS CONSIDERED All parties filed posthearing submissions which have been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation filed proposed findings which have been adopted, in substance, for the most part. Where proposed findings have not been adopted, it is because they have been deemed immaterial, unsupported-by the weight of the evidence, subsidiary or cummulative.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue Jackson County a permit for construction of a landfill at the site proposed subject to the conditions (except condition No. 24) stated in the proposed permit, Jackson County's Exhibit No. 9, and subject to the following additional conditions: (a) any leachate generated shall be disposed of off site (b) the whole landfill shall be fenced, and the view from State Road 273 shall be obstructed (c) portable fences shall be placed around any cell in use (d) an additional monitoring well shall be placed between the well southeast of the site and the nearest cell and (e) no septic tank or "septage" disposal pits shall be built on site. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 17th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Travis, Jr., Esquire 229 East Washington Street Quincy, Florida 32351 J. Paul Griffith, Esquire P. O. Box 207 Marianna, Florida 32446 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about August 1, 1978, respondent Pilot Properties, Inc. filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation for the issuance of a construction permit to expand and enlarge a wastewater treatment facility from 18,000 gallons per day to 150,000 gallons per day. The DER issued its notice of intent to issue the permit on November 13, 1978, and the Perdido Key Development Association, Inc. timely requested a hearing on said notice. Over the objection of respondent Pilot Properties, Southwest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc. was joined as a party petitioner. The Perdido Key Development Association, Inc. subsequently withdrew as a petitioner. The remaining petitioner, Southwest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc. is comprised of members who reside on, own property on or have a business interest in Perdido Key. Among its purpose are the improvement of the Perdido Key community and the protection of the environment. The members of the Association utilize Old River for recreational and commercial purposes. The proposed expanded facility is designed to serve cluster homes and condominium complexes on Perdido Key, for a total of approximately 428 units. It will utilize a contact stabilization process whereby raw sewage enters the plant from the individual units, receives treatment and then the effluent is discharged evenly through a spreader or equalizer into two percolation ponds continuing approximately 54,000 square feet. The facility is designed to remove 95 percent of B. O. D. and suspended solids. The plant is not designed to remove nutrients. The percolation ponds serve as a disposal device, and not a treatment device. The ponds are to be constructed at an elevation of six feet. Considering fluctuation, the percolation pond bottoms will be separated from the groundwater by three feet. It is an accepted DER guideline to require a three foot separation between the groundwater and a percolation pond. The conditions of the proposed permit require that a three foot buffer zone be maintained between the bottom of the ponds and the maximum groundwater elevation. The nearest edge of the percolation pond will be located approximately 105 to 110 feet from the water line of Old River. The effluent will be discharged from the plant to the percolation pond and then to the groundwater, which ultimately flows in the direction of Old River. Groundwater monitoring wells are provided to measure the level of nitrogen. The soil on Perdido Key is course-type sand, with little clay or silt. It has a very rapid vertical percolation rate. According to the respondent's witness who qualified as an expert in ecology and botany, the process of adsorption, precipitation and denitrification which occurs as groundwater moves horizontally will prevent the degradation of Old River. This witness observed no suspicious levels of phosphate in samples from Old River. This witness observed no suspicious levels of phosphate in samples from Old River. He found the phosphate nitrate and fecal chloroform level of Old River comparable to that found in other clean water bodies. The petitioner's witness who qualified as an expert in aquatic ecology took samples of groundwater and sand from various areas on Perdido Key to analyze their nitrate and phosphate content. It was his conclusion that phosphate was not attenuated by the sands and that nutrients, particularly phosphate, are being discharged into Old River from sewage treatment facilities existing on Perdido Key. He observed a shifting of the composition of flora in Old River near the site of another existing sewage treatment facility which was not designed to remove nitrates or phosphates. However, the other existing facility was not shown to be comparable in the size of its percolation ponds, the pond elevation from the groundwater or in the manner of discharge form the plant to the percolation pond. This witness did agree that the spreading or equalizing method of discharging effluent from the plant to the 54,000 square feet of percolation ponds could delay the entrance of nutrients to Old River by as much as five months. The petitioner produced a witness who was skilled in the operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment plants similar in design to that proposed by respondent Pilot Properties. This witness testified that this type of facility required greater operating time due to difficulties encountered by hydraulic imbalances on clarifiers and the upward flow of discharge. The witness had no knowledge as to the future operating plans of the respondent. The two respondents presented witnesses who were qualified as experts in the areas of design and construction of sewage treatment systems. Both witnesses had reviewed the subject permit application and were of the opinion that if the proposed plant is constructed as designed, it will meet the minimum treatment standards required by DER's statutes and rules. The application submitted by Pilot Properties was for the issuance of a construction permit. Among the conditions of the proposed issuance of such a construction permit is a requirement that the permitted obtain an operation permit sixty days prior to the expiration date of the construction permit. Prior to the issuance of an operating permit, the applicant must provide the Department of Environmental Regulation with four months of results of analysis and flow measurements. An operation permit is issued only to those facilities which are able to operate within the standards of DER's rules. If the plant does not properly operate, DER requires the necessary corrections and modifications to bring the plant into compliance. DER may also prohibit further hookups if the plant operates improperly.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue to the Respondent Pilot Properties, Inc. the requested construction permit subject to the conditions contained in the Department's initial notice of intent to issue the permit. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day March of 1980. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jacob Varn Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 T. Michael Patterson, Esquire 26 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Robert T. Fulton General Counsel Pilot Properties, Inc. 664 Cherry Street Winter Park, Florida 32789 William Hyde, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Department of Transportation correctly awarded a series of five road sweeping contracts. The agency's intended decision resulted in the protest of four contract awards by Industrial Waste Service, Inc., and one contract by Dave Smith and Company, Inc.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation prepared bid packages for a series of contracts for mechanical sweeping of state roadways in Dade County and distributed them to interested parties. The bid blanks indicated that the bids would be opened at 10:00 a.m. on May 12, 1988. The bid package included a sheet entitled "Protest Sheet" which states: Unless otherwise notified by certified mail, return receipt requested, bid tabulations will be posted at 1000 N.W. 111th Avenue, District Contracts Office, Miami, Florida 33172, on the 7th day from the letting date. Upon posting, it will be the Department's intent to award to the low bidder. Any bidder who feels he is adversely affected by the Department's intent to award to the low bidder must file with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Department of Transportation, Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58, Room 562, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458, a written notice of protest within 72 hours of posting of the bid tabulations. (Emphasis is original) The bid blank also contains a form entitled "Proposal" which states in part: The undersigned further agree(s) ...to execute the Contract within 20 calendar days after the date on which the notice of award has been given.... A contract form is also included in the bid blank, which ultimately will be executed by the successful bidder and the Department. The bid tabulations were posted at the Department's office on May 19, 1988, although they were posted later than 10:00 a.m. The Department also sent the tabulations by certified mail that day to all parties who had submitted bids. No return receipts were offered into evidence; the envelope mailed to Dave Smith and Company, Inc., was presented at the hearing, but no party moved its admission into evidence. The two green postal strips taped to the back of that letter are indicative of the use of removable return receipt cards. The Hearing Officer concludes that the Department mailed bid tabulations to bidders by certified mail, return receipt requested. The certified letter containing tabulations was received by Dave Smith and Company, Inc., either during the weekend of May 21 and 22 or on the morning of Monday, May 23, 1988. Based on the evidence, the Hearing Officer concludes that the bid tabulations mailed by the Department were received by Industrial Waste Service by certified mail, return receipt requested, on Monday, May 23, 1988. Industrial Waste Service filed its notice of protest with respect to four contracts on May 24, 1988. In the interim between the posting of the bid tabulations and the filing of any notices of protest, the Department of Transportation made the bid packages submitted by all bidders available for public inspection pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, the Public Records Law. The bid packages were examined by Mrs. Dave Smith, of Dave Smith and Company, Inc. After that examination, the papers making up each bid had been detached (i.e., staples removed). Mrs. Smith had rearranged the pages of the bid submissions from the order in which they had been received, leaving a jumbled mass of paper. She informed the Department that the equipment list was not contained in Industrial Waste Service's bid submission for Contract E-6285. The Department of Transportation was unable to authenticate its bid files at final hearing as complete files or as files containing the bids submissions in the same condition as when they were initially received by the Department of Transportation. The original bid submission of Industrial Waste Service for Contract E-6287 is now completely missing from the Department's records. Industrial Waste Service, Inc., submitted a number of bids for the road sweeping contracts which were being let. The bid file for Contract E-6285 now has no equipment list attached. Such a list is required by the Special Provisions section of the bid specifications. The testimony of Dan Pavone of Industrial Waste Service that an equipment list had been attached to all bids when submitted to the Department of Transportation is accepted. With respect to Contracts E-6286 and E-6288, the bid submissions for Power Sweeping Service, Inc., contain no equipment list. The testimony of Joseph Caplano of Power Sweeping Service, Inc., that equipment lists were included when the bids were submitted to the Department of Transportation is accepted. Errors occurred in the bids submitted by Industrial Waste Service, Inc., for Contracts E-6287 and E-6289. On the bid cover page, the contractor filled in his bid price for the contract. The cover page for each of the sweeping contracts let look very similar. Industrial Waste Service switched the cover pages on these two contracts, so that for Contract E-6287 it apparently bid $38,849.11 but had meant to bid $135,442.95. On Contract E-6289 it bid $135,442.95, when it meant to aid $38,849.11. The cover sheet is not the only page on which the bidder indicates his total price. There is a matrix page in the bid submission which describes the different items of service (i.e. litter removal, sweeping), the approximate quantities of units of service (such as miles to be swept), and the bidders fill in unit price figures (i.e., cost per mile of sweeping or litter removal). The unit prices are then extended and the extended prices are summed to produce the total bid amount. These sheets had also been switched. It is readily apparent that the bids were switched, because the pre-printed quantities such as mileages for sweeping on the two contracts are switched. Moreover, at the bid opening, other bidders immediately understood that these two bids of Industrial Waste Service were wildly out of line, but made sense if the bids had been switched. The representative of the Department also agreed at the final hearing that the differences in the quantities shown on the matrix page showed the sheets had been switched by the bidder. Industrial Waste Service does not want to perform a contract on which it meant to bid $135,442.95 for $38,849.11. It inquired whether it would be penalized in any way if its protest were not upheld, the Department awarded it Contract E-6287 for $38,894.11, and it withdrew that bid. Department employees informed Industrial Waste Service that it could withdraw the bid without penalty.
Recommendation With respect to each contract, the following is recommended: Recommended Contract No. Description Agency Action E-6285 Protest by Dave Smith and Company, based on absence of equipment list on Industrial Waste Service's bid submission. Contract should be awarded to Industrial Waste Service, Inc. E-6286 Protest by Industrial Waste Service based on absence of equipment list in Power Sweeping Service's bid submission. Contract should be awarded to Power Sweeping Service, Inc. E-6287 Bid of Industrial Waste Service should be re- cognized as a bid of $135,442.95, but it still would not be the lowest bid. Contract should be awarded to Power Sweeping Service, Inc E-6288 Protest by Industrial Waste Service based on absence of an equipment list in bid submission of Power Sweeping Service, Inc. Contract should be awarded to Power Sweeping Service, Inc. E-6289 DOT should recognize the Contract should be transposition of informa- awarded to tion in bids by Industrial Waste Industrial Waste Service Service, Inc. on this contract and Contract E-6287, and treat Industrial Waste Service's bid as a bid of $38,849.11, which would be lower than the bid of Dave Smith and Company of $41,985.42. The protest of Industrial Waste Service should be upheld. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of July, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 88-3060BID, 88-3061BID, 88-3062BID, 88-3063BID Rulings on proposed findings of fact Industrial Waste Service, Inc.: Covered in Statement of the Issue. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Rejected as unnecessary because no party disputed that Power Sweeping Service's bid was lowest. Rejected as irrelevant because all parties included equipment lists in their bids. Rulings on proposed findings of fact of Department of Transportation: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Due to the finding that the documents were included in the bids submissions, rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the Department's position that the equipment list is not an essential document to be submitted by a contractor with whom the Department has done business in the past, but is essential in a bid submission by a contractor who the Department has not done business before is unreasonable, and places bidders on different footings. In view of the finding that all bidders did submit equipment list, the Department's position is of no consequence to the decision here. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and for the reasons stated for rejecting Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and for the reasons given for rejecting Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as argument, not a finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Jones, Esquire Gregory P. Borgognoni, Esquire Tew, Jorden & Schulte 701 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2801 Mr. Dan Pavone Industrial Waste Service, Inc. 380 N.W. 37th Court Miami, Florida 33142 Dave H. Smith, President Dave Smith & Company Post Office Drawer 7177 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Specialized Services Post Office Box 840006 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33084 Mr. Joseph Caplano Power Sweeping Service Post Office Box 984 Hialeah, Florida 33011 Christine E. Bryce, Esquire Department of Transportation District Six Office 602 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 James W. Anderson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact SJRWMD caused "Request for Qualifications No. 91H157" to be published in the Jacksonville Business Journal on May 3 through 9, 1991. In part, the request stated: Interested firms shall submit a letter of interest (three (3) copies) which contains, but is not limited to, the following: Experience in assessing the environmental fate of pollutants. Familiarity with current and historical agricultural practices employed by vegetable farms in Florida. In particular, knowledge of the storage and application of pesticides and herbicides is required. Ability to perform environmental chemistry and to assess the toxicological, chemical, and physical properties of hazardous materials. Ability to evaluate and/or develop site monitoring plans, industrial hygiene plans, site safety plans, decontamination plans, remediation plans, and abatement measures. Experience in performing environmental audits at potential hazardous waste sites. Staff must have the OSHA required 40 hours Hazardous Waste Site Safety Training pursuant to 29 CFE 1910.120. Documentation of experience in sampling of surface water, ground water, soil, sediment, including installation of temporary and permanent wells and split-spoon borings while following current state and federal approved procedures, and must be capable of preparing and implementing a quality assurance project plan specific to each site assessment. At least $5,000,000 of professional liability insurance. Evaluation of submitted letters of interest will be pursuant to Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. Contracts shall be negotiated pursuant to provisions of Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Halff, Jammal and Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (G & M) among others, responded to the request for qualifications with letters of interest. SJRWMD staff evaluated the letters of interest and ranked the respondents in order: Halff was first; Jammal was second; and G & M was third. Staff recommended beginning negotiations with Halff. After tabling the matter at the first Board meeting at which it came up, the Board discussed the staff recommendation on August 14, 1991, and, it seemed from a tape recording of the meeting in evidence, was unfavorably impressed with the fact that Halff had only one full-time employee in Florida, Robert Barnard. (Three other people are in petitioner's Jacksonville office on "a sub-contract basis." T.50.) Mr. Barnard, who would have had charge of the work for SJRWMD if Halff had been chosen, spoke at the Board meeting. He came up to the podium and answered questions, but did not make a formal presentation. No other contender was represented at the Board meeting. As far as the evidence shows, each Board member had read all letters of intent carefully: The record is silent on the point. The Board voted to rerank Jammal and Halff first and second, respectively, and directed staff to begin negotiations with Jammal.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, recommended that SJRWMD proceed with negotiations with Jammal, Halff and G & M in that order. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: William Lon Allworth, Esquire 1301 Gulf Life Drive, Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32207 John W. Williams, Esquire P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Wayne Flowers, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Beker Phosphate Corporation should be granted a hermit to construct an industrial waste water facility pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes. By application, dated April 8, 1975, Beker Phosphate Corporation (hereinafter Beker) , sought a permit to construct an industrial waste water facility in Manatee County, Florida, from the Department of Pollution Control (now and hereinafter DER) . The application was received on April 11 and, after advising Beker that the application was incomplete a meeting was held on May 9th between DER and Beker representatives with the result that Beker filed a new application dated June 11, that was received by the DER in July. Further meetings were held in the fall of 1975 and additional in formation was received as to the application. On December 16, 1975, DER secretary. Jay W. Landers, Jr., issued a Notice Of Intent To Grant A Permit With Conditions. The conditions were unspecified in the letter of intent (Exhibit 1.) Subsequently, on December 23 and December 24, 1975, Sarasota County (hereinafter Sarasota) and the Town of Longboat Key (hereinafter Longboat Key), respectively, filed petitions with the DER alleging that their substantial interests would be adversely affected by approval of the permit application and setting forth in their petitions certain disputed questions of fact for determination. After a prehearing conference, Amended Petitions were filed by those parties to clarify and expand on such questions of fact and to resolve procedural matters. Additionally, during this period, George Browning, III, of Sarasota, Florida was granted status as an intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Beker proposes to construct a phosphate rock mine and beneficiation plant on a tract of approximately 11,000 acres in a predominately agricultural and ranching area of Manatee County about 10 miles from Myakka City, Florida. The mining will be performed by two dredges. One will mine overburden and return it to the mined-out area and the other will mine phosphate rock matrix which will be pumped to the beneficiation plant. The plant will consist essentially of two circuits. The first is a washer where the matrix pumped from the dredging operation is partially cleaned of clay and fine sand, and the coarser phosphate particles "pebbles" are separated as a product. The "fines" from the washing operation consist of small phosphate rock particles, sand, and clay. This mixture will be treated in the second section of the plant by "flotation" methods to recover the small phosphate rock particles as a product. During initial operation, the sand and clay will be stored in a temporary waste material storage area, but as the mining proceeds and the dredge pits open up, the sand and clay material will be pumped back to the dredge pits so that sand, and overburden will be mixed and redeposited to reclaim the land. Approximately 8 million gallons of fresh water per day will be drawn from the Floridian aquifer to be used in the flotation circuits. From the plant the water flows in two types of streams--one containing sand suspended in water and one containing clay suspended in water. Both streams flow into a settling pond surrounded by an earthen dam where sand and clay solids settle to the bottom. The clarified water is then decanted through six spillway structures into a hydraulic recirculation ditch outside the dam and flows back to the plant for re-use. The ponds and canals that make up the hydraulic circuit are planned to have sufficient capacity to contain rainwater falling on the site and pond system during the wet season when there are heavy rainfalls (approximately from May to September). Excess water will be decanted from the hydraulic recirculation ditch through a structure into a pipe and then discharged into Wingate Creek. The settling pond will occupy approximately 225 acres and its capacity will be about 8,458 acre- feet. The pond itself can be used to act as a reservoir and water can be built up in the pond during periods of high rainfall. It will not be necessary to release the water at any particular time. It can be released at will when the effluent contains a minimum of pollutant materials (Exhibit 1). Matrix is an unconsolidated mixture of phosphate pebbles and boulders of partly phosphatized limestone, quartz and clay. The washing operation removes unwanted oversized material and fine clays. The purpose of the flotation plant is to recover fine phosphate rock that might otherwise be lost. In the flotation process, flotation reagents, including sulfuric acid, number 2 fuel oil, tall oil, sodium hydroxide, and amines are used for treatment. The wastes are then moved to the settling pond where over a period of time the "slimes", (sands and clays) will settle to the bottom forming an impervious layer which will seal the pond. The settling process removes more than 90 percent of the contaminants from the influent. The coarser clay particles settle first and many of the fine particles settle in a process called "flocculation" by which electrical forces bring the particles together. However, some of the particles will not flocculate and remain suspended in the water. These extremely small particles constitute the total suspended solids that remain in the effluent when it is discharged from the settling area. They probably will not settle out entirely during their course from Wingate Creek into the Myaaka River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. However, even if it were assumed that such materials would settle somewhere between the point of discharge and Charlotte Harbor, over the entire 20 year proposed life of the mine they would form a deposit much less than 1/10th of an inch. Although it is technically possible to treat water to the degree that it would result in distilled water, realistic concepts of treatment establish that an additional settling or "polishing" pond for the proposed facility might not improve the quality of the wastewater finally discharged in state waters to any appreciable degree. Alternative proposals for the reduction of pollutants by additional processing, such as the intentional growth of water hyacinths in settling areas or use of chemical coagulants would result in creating other waste materials and thus be counterproductive (Testimony of Bromwell; Exhibit 1). The applicant's discharge of wastewater to Wingate Creek will average approximately 3.19 million gallons per day. However, since discharge will be effected primarily during periods of excessive rainfall, actual discharges can reach a maximum of about ten million gallons per day during this period. The effluent contained in such discharge will meet the test of at least 90 percent removal of organic and inorganic wastes specified by Rule 17-3.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, when measured by the influent into the settling pond and the effluent leaving that area. This treatment, however, will not produce an effluent equivalent to that produced by the "highest quality municipal waste treatment." The highest degree of treatment that has been reached by municipalities is "advanced waste treatment" as defined in Rule 17-3.04(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The water quality characteristics of the effluent will meet the standards of Rule 17-3.05 as to concentrations of those pollutants reasonably anticipated to be fond in the wastewater based on samples taken where the waters are discharged into Wingate Creek (Testimony of Gilgallon, Davis, Edwards, Heinzman, Bromwell, Bartow, Wellford, Exhibit 1). In preparing the application, no consideration was given to the need of meeting treatment standards for highest quality municipal waste treatment or advanced waste treatment. Neither did the recommending official of the DER, Mr. Edwards, then Regional Administrator for the Southwest Region, consider this standard because he had been advised by the DER legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) did not apply to Wingate Creek since it was not a tributary to one of the bodies of water listed in subparagraph (c) of the rule 17-3.04(2). This determination was based upon Resolution No. 74-83, September 17, 1974, of the Florida Pollution Control Board that was issued after legal challenges had been made to an interpretation by the Department of Pollution Control legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) required advanced wastewater treatment for industrial waste discharges. The Board, in its resolution, determined that since evidence had not been taken concerning treatment standards for industrial waste discharges at the time of adoption of the effluent standards for sanitary waste contained in Rule 17-3.04(2), the advanced wastewater treatment standards in the aforesaid rule would not be enforced against industrial dischargers pending full hearings on a new Rule to clearly express the Board's intent in this regard (Testimony of Gilgallon, Edwards; Exhibit 1). Special conditions that the Southwest Region, Department of Environmental Regulation, recommends should be attached to any issuance of a construction permit, other than standard conditions and those relating to other types of permits, are as follow: Approval by DER prior to the construction of any above grade phosphatic clay storage facility other than the initial settling pond. Removal efficiencies for oil and grease shall be a minimum of 90 percent and shall not exceed 14 milligrams per liter measured in the discharge effluent. Discharge effluent to Wingate Creek shall meet the water quality standards of Chapter 17-3.05(2) at the point of discharge prior to mixing with the receiving stream. Further treatment of the discharge will be required in the event compliance with proviso (c) above cannot be achieved or significant degradation of the receiving stream occurs as determined by the DER. In addition to required routine monitoring, a detailed analysis of the untreated and treated wastewater to be conducted once on representative samples during (1) month of July and (2) month of February. Such analyses shall, as a minimum, include all the parameters listed in 17-3:05(2). Applicants shall conduct an investigation into total retention possibilities of the effluent including, but not limited to, the following areas: recharge wells retention and storage of excess water during the "wet" season with subsequent reuse during the "dry" season for process and/or irrigation purposes. A report of these investigations shall be submitted prior to submission of operation permit application The location of monitoring wells shall be down gradient from the settling pond. Detailed proposal, subject to the DER approval, regarding exact location and number of wells to adequately ascertain the impact of seepage to be submitted no later than 90 days prior to commencement of operation. Bond to be posted for damages that may result from a clay settling area dam failure. Oral and written communications from the public were received at the hearing and included the following: Announcement by the County Attorney, Manatee County, that the county did not plan to appeal the DER Notice of Intent to Grant the permit (Statement of E.N. Fay, Jr.). The Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Natural Resources, fears that the construction of the phosphate mine up-stream from the Myaaka diver State Park poses a serious potential threat to its aquatic habitat due to the possibility of a dam failure. It also fears that pollutants from the project will tend to settle as the river waters flow through the two lakes in the park. It therefore, opposes the construction until assurance can be given that proper safeguards have been taken to prevent such problems (Testimony of Alverez). The Longboat Key Garden Club believes that the project would involve too much water consumption and also that phosphate mining should be halted until further government studies are made to assure that the safety and health of the populace and the environment will not be endangered through polluted runoff and phosphate spills (Testimony of Monroe). The Save Our Bays Association in Manatee County has collected petitions from citizens in Manatee County requesting a referendum on a ballot this November for or against phosphate mining. The Association believes that such a vote should be taken before final decision is made on the subject. Its spokesman fears that if the quality and quantity of the drinking water is disrupted, it will interfere with continued tourist trade (Testimony of Howard Greer). The Palma Sola Parks Association opposes the Beker Application until there is greater assurance of environmentally safe mining (Testimony of Blankenship) A former physical and health education director is concerned about the fact that there has not been sufficient data collected on the effect of radioactive materials in runoff and waste. She believes there should be more research in these areas and asked that the public be protected from such hazards (Testimony of Mary Kay Greer). The Manasota-88 project for environmental qualities of 1968 and 1988 believes that issuance of the permit should be withheld until health implications can be determined concerning potential hazards to the Myakka and Manatee Rivers' watersheds (Exhibit 7). A former member of the Manatee County Planning Commission that approved the Beker application prior to action by the County Commission of Manatee County is in favor of the proposed project because Beker's plan to impound water will augment the water facilities of the county (Testimony of Reasoner). The City of Bradenton believes that since it is being required to meet advanced water treatment standards of discharge for sanitary sewage, Beker Phosphate Corporation should be required to meet similar standards (Testimony of Mayor A.K. Leach). A member of the Myakka City Civic Association who is an adjacent land owner to Beker Phosphate Corporation feels that the project is necessary in order to produce jobs for individuals in that area of the county (Testimony of Mizell). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned that proposed construction of two dams by the applicant will destroy approximately (4) acres of mangrove areas, three acres of pasture land and about 185 acres of bottom land or hardwood habitat. It recommends an alternative method of backup levies constructed around the primary settling bases on the applicant's land to contain any spills and prevent destruction of the streams and associated wetlands (Testimony of Johnston) The Conservation Council of Manatee County believes that Beker's unique mining and reclamation plan will help the farming industry and also create necessary water reserviors and recreation areas, and therefore endorses its proposal to mine in Manatee County (Testimony of Kent, Exhibit 14). Petitions were submitted at the hearing from approximately 3,000 individuals living in Manatee and Sarasota Counties opposing the issuance of the permit because they believe that phosphate mining is dangerous to the quality and supply of the water and endangers the health of the people (Composite Exhibit 9, Testimony of Humphrey).
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Hillsborough County took any adverse employment action against Petitioner, David Moreda; (2) whether Petitioner disclosed information in the nature specified under Subsection 112.3187(5), Florida Statutes (2006); (3) if yes to the foregoing, whether such adverse employment action against Petitioner was causally related to any disclosure Petitioner made of information specified in Subsection 112.3187(5), Florida Statutes (2006); whether Petitioner provided above-referenced information to Respondent's chief executive officer; and (5) whether Petitioner timely filed a complaint of whistle-blower retaliation.
Findings Of Fact The County administrator, Patricia G. Bean, is the head of the Hillsborough County administrative organization and the chief executive officer of Hillsborough County. As County administrator, Ms. Bean is responsible for carrying out all decisions, policies, ordinances, and motions made by the Board of County Commissioners. She is also responsible for oversight of all the departments under the County Administrator's Office and uses approximately 24 departments within the Hillsborough County organization to achieve the functions necessary to County government. The Public Works Department (Public Works) and the Water Resource Services Department (Water Resource Services), formerly referred to as the Water Department, are each stand-alone departments. Most of the functions of Public Works and Water Resource Services are separate and distinct from each other. From approximately March 1986 through May 2006, Hillsborough County employed Petitioner in Water Resource Services. Petitioner began working for Hillsborough County as a senior groundskeeper. Thereafter, he became a landscape gardener, which involved cutting grass and maintaining wastewater facilities. Petitioner ultimately became a Plant Maintenance Mechanic I and then a Plant Maintenance Mechanic II. As a Plant Maintenance Mechanic II, Petitioner's duties were to operate and maintain lift stations for Water Resource Services. As of October 2003, Petitioner was employed as a Plant Maintenance Mechanic II and was assigned to work at the County's South Pump Station. In or about October 2003, Petitioner was injured in a nonwork-related motorcycle accident which resulted in Petitioner's breaking both of his feet. As a result of his injuries, Petitioner requested and the County granted a medical leave of absence. Petitioner tried to return to work in April 2004, but it was too soon after his motorcycle accident. After Petitioner's attempt to return to work was unsuccessful, and apparently premature, his doctor placed him on another medical leave. Initially, Petitioner was on short-term medical leave for about six months, followed by a long-term disability leave for the next year or so. Hillsborough County preserved Petitioner's employment status while he was on these leaves of absence necessitated by injuries he sustained in the motorcycle accident. Some time prior to January 2005, in anticipation of returning to work, Petitioner applied for a transportation worker position in Public Works. In March 2005, the County sent Petitioner to have a doctor complete a "Fitness for Duty Report" form. Petitioner went to his orthopedic surgeon, who completed the form on March 16, 2005. The doctor noted on the form that Petitioner could return to work on April 4, 2005. As he prepared to return to work after his one and one-half years of medical leave, Petitioner began to request work location transfers. Petitioner requested three such transfers within Water Resource Services, where he was employed. Two of the three work location transfers were granted. In the instance when Petitioner's work location transfer was not granted, Petitioner was allowed to transfer to another work team at his assigned work site. On January 24, 2005, while still on leave of absence, Petitioner requested a transfer of work location from the County's South Pump Station, where he was assigned before he went on medical leave, to the Central Pump Station. According to Petitioner, he requested this transfer because the Central Pump Station was closer to his home. The director of Water Resource Services, Paul Vanderploog, granted Petitioner's request. By letter dated March 29, 2005, about two months after Petitioner's first request for transfer of work location was granted, and while he was still on leave, Petitioner requested another transfer. This time Petitioner requested to be transferred from the County's Central Pump Station to the Northwest Pump Station.1/ When Petitioner requested a transfer from the Central Pump Station to the Northwest Pump Station, he told Vanderploog that if this request were honored, he (Petitioner) would not request another transfer. Petitioner specifically asked to be placed under either Wally Peters or Charlton Johnson, both of whom were team leaders at the Northwest Pump Station. In addition to requesting the transfer from the Central Pump Station, Petitioner advised Mr. Vanderploog that he was looking for another position in the County and had been looking for the past six months. Petitioner's March 29, 2005, letter stated, in part, the following: I pledge to you, right now, that I will return to full-duty under either Wally Peters or Charlton Johnson with NO other requests for movement. I promise you, as a gentleman, that I will accept the assignment at NW [Northwest] pump stations [sic] with no subsequent requests for lateral movement contingent upon my return. However, I will be looking for another position in the County, as I have done for the past 6+ months. I want to do something different with my life, and until the right opportunity comes along, I will "stick it out" in pump stations. Vanderploog granted Petitioner's second transfer request and transferred Petitioner from the Central Pump Station to the Northwest Pump Station. On April 4, 2005, the day Petitioner's physician had stated Petitioner could return to work, Petitioner was scheduled to begin work at the Northwest Pump Station. However, Petitioner called in sick that day and did not report to work. When Petitioner returned to work, he reported to the Northwest Pump Station and worked there about two weeks. Meanwhile, on or about April 6, 2005, two days after he was to report to work, Petitioner requested a third transfer of work location. This time he wanted to be transferred from the Northwest Pump Station to the South Pump Station, where he was initially assigned. According to Petitioner, he requested the transfer from the Northwest Pump Station because he was not comfortable working on the team lead by Charlton Johnson, to which Petitioner had been assigned. Mr. Vanderploog denied Petitioner's request to transfer from the Northwest Pump Station to the South Pump Station. The reason Mr. Vanderploog denied the request was that he knew Petitioner and the team chief at the South Pump Station had communication problems and did not get along very well. Petitioner had detailed his perception of these problems in his March 29, 2005, letter to Mr. Vanderploog, referred to in paragraph 13 and 15 above. Mr. Vanderploog believed that if he transferred Petitioner back to the South Pump Station, the team chief with whom Petitioner did not get along, may have left that location, and he (Vanderploog) did not consider this an acceptable tradeoff. Less than two weeks after Petitioner requested his third transfer (from the Northwest Pump Station to the South Pump Station) and Mr. Vanderploog denied the request, Petitioner wrote and sent an e-mail dated April 17, 2005, to the County administrator, Ms. Bean, and other upper management. In the April 17, 2005, e-mail, Petitioner stated that he believed it was inappropriate to employ Synrick Dorsett, a sexual predator, in Water Resource Services in an unsupervised capacity. Specifically, Petitioner stated: The problem is that an employee of the Water Department, who is a registered sexual predator, is allowed to roam unsupervised through out [sic] Brandon and Valrico (and anywhere he cares to go) as part of his job assignment in the Water Department. His name is Syndrick Dorsett. . . He is on FDLE's website as a sexual predator. He should NOT be allowed to roam freely in a County vehicle. At the time Petitioner wrote the e-mail to the County administrator, he had already known for ten years that there was a sexual predator working in Water Resource Services. In fact, Synrick Dorsett’s status as a sex offender was well known in Water Resource Services for many years. Petitioner testified that he wrote the April 17, 2005, e-mail, after he "had certain thoughts" about another County employee named Synrick Dorsett. Petitioner testified that he began to have these thoughts after the County Commissioners proposed putting photos of sexual predators in County parks. Petitioner claimed that Dorsett came to mind in light of those proposals, because he was under the impression that Dorsett was a "sexual predator" and was a County employee as of April 2005. However, this testimony is not credible in light of Petitioner's admission to a County investigator. In the summer of 2005, Petitioner admitted to the County, through Bob Sheehan, the chief investigator of the County's Professional Responsibility Section of the Consumer Protection and Professional Responsibility Agency, that he sent the April 17, 2005, e-mail to the County officials in order to better his leverage to obtain the position he wanted in Water Resource Services. In fact, about two weeks after Petitioner sent the April 17 e-mail, even though Mr. Vanderploog had denied Petitioner's third work location request (from the Northwest Pump Station to the South Pump Station), Vanderploog attempted to address Petitioner's concern that he (Petitioner) was uncomfortable working on the team to which he was assigned. In order to accommodate Petitioner, on or about May 2, 2005, Mr. Vanderploog moved Petitioner from the work team that he was initially assigned at the Northwest Pump Station to the other work team at that location. In or about April 2005, Petitioner interviewed with Public Works for a position as a transportation worker, the position he had applied for several months earlier. Prior to accepting the transportation worker position in Public Works, Petitioner indicated by his signature on two different County forms that he understood the job description for the position and could perform the functions of the job. Petitioner signed the County's pre-printed job description form on April 21, 2005, indicating that he read and understood the basic job description. A few days later, on May 2, 2005, Petitioner signed an Acknowledgement of Position Description Review form, in which he acknowledged that he "is able to perform the function" of the transportation worker without accommodations. On or about May 4, 2005, Petitioner accepted the position of transportation worker with Public Works. On a County form, Petitioner acknowledged that he understood that his new position with Public Works, county-wide, is a voluntary demotion (in terms of the hourly pay rate) and that if he did not successfully complete the six-month probationary period, he would no longer be employed by Hillsborough County. Petitioner was scheduled to start his new position as transportation worker on May 23, 2005. As noted above, Petitioner notified Mr. Vanderploog in the March 29, 2005, letter that he was looking for another position with the County. However, Petitioner never notified any manager in Water Resource Services that he had accepted the transportation worker position in Public Works. Water Resource Services first learned that Petitioner had accepted the position of transportation worker on or about May 10, 2005, when Public Works contacted the interim section manager (section manager) of Water Resource Services' wastewater operations and requested that his office complete a change of status form for Petitioner. After learning from Public Works that Petitioner had accepted the transportation worker position, the section manager wrote an e-mail to Petitioner. In the e-mail, the section manger told Petitioner that he had been notified that Petitioner had accepted the transportation worker position and, therefore, Petitioner needed to resign from his current position as Plant Maintenance Mechanic II. The resignation was necessary in order to process the paperwork to effectuate Petitioner's move to his new position as transportation worker. Prior to learning that Petitioner had accepted the position with Public Works, the section manager was concerned that Petitioner had only worked one day after he received medical clearance to return to work. In light of this concern, the section manager had instructed Petitioner's supervisor to initiate a written reprimand for Petitioner's failure to come to work. However, after receiving notice from Public Works that Petitioner had accepted a job in that unit, the section manager decided he would not pursue the previously-planned disciplinary action. Petitioner was aware of the contemplated disciplinary action. However, in the e-mail referred to in paragraph 31, in which he asked Petitioner to submit a resignation letter, the section manager also advised Petitioner that he (the section manager) would not pursue any disciplinary action against Petitioner since Petitioner was leaving Water Resource Services and taking another job. On May 10, 2005, Petitioner voluntarily resigned from his position in Water Resource Services, after he received the e-mail from the section manager and after he had accepted the position as a transportation worker in Public Works. Before starting his new job with Public Works in May 23, 2005, Petitioner asked Water Resource Services to rescind his resignation. Water Resource Services declined Petitioner's request because of his refusal to show up for work and his behavior toward, and inability to appropriately interact with, people in the entire department. After arriving at the job site in Public Works on his first day of work as a transportation worker, Petitioner testified that he knew that taking this job was a mistake. His first assignment involved installing a guardrail, work which was very labor intensive. Petitioner believed that the physical requirements of this job could result in his re-injuring himself. Given his concerns, Petitioner did not work the entire day and left after only a few hours and never returned. After his first and only day working as a transportation worker, Petitioner indicated he could not perform the duties of that job. Thereafter, Public Works temporarily assigned Petitioner to the storm water unit in the County Center, where he performed duties such as filing, making copies, and "running" mail. He worked in this temporary assignment four or five months, including the summer of 2005. The County scheduled a Fitness-for-Duty examination for Petitioner that occurred on June 16, 2005. The health care professional who conducted the examination concluded Petitioner must observe a lifting restriction and must walk only on even ground; he could not walk on rough, uneven terrain. The health care provider also indicated that Petitioner's physical condition that required these restrictions was a permanent condition. On August 8, 2005, Petitioner signed a County form, indicating that he could not perform any of the functions of a transportation worker. A Fitness-for Duty meeting was conducted on August 11, 2005. During that meeting, Public Works reviewed all information regarding Petitioner's physical capabilities and the job tasks associated with the transportation worker position and other positions to which he requested a transfer, Plant Maintenance Mechanic I or II in the Storm Water section of Public Works. Public Works, in conjunction with the Human Resources Department, determined that Petitioner could not perform the essential functions of the transportation worker position or the Plant Maintenance Mechanic I and/or II positions. Given the outcome of the Fitness-for-Duty meeting, by letter dated August 23, 2005, the County notified Petitioner that he had 90 days from the date of the letter to find another position or Public Works would have to terminate his employment.2/ As the 90-day deadline was about to expire, Public Works determined that it needed to have a due process hearing on Petitioner's employment status. The time required for culmination of the hearing process resulted in the 90-day period Petitioner was given to find a job being extended by more than two additional months. On or about August 26, 2005, Petitioner began an approved leave of absence in conjunction with his search for another position. After Petitioner sent the e-mail discussed in paragraph 31, Petitioner was invited to interview for four positions with the County, including positions in the Library Services Department, Public Works, and the Parks, Recreation and Conservation Department. On or about October 20, 2005, Petitioner was interviewed for a position with the Library Services Department. However, he was not selected for that position because that position required that the person be bilingual, and Petitioner was not bilingual. The Parks, Recreation and Conservation Department attempted to interview Petitioner on two different occasions. In the first instance, Petitioner failed to show up for an interview scheduled for August 4, 2005, at a time agreed upon by Petitioner. On or about November 19, 2005, Petitioner declined an interview for a second position with the Parks, Recreation and Conservation Department because the salary was too low. On or about November 23, 2005, Public Works requested an extension of Petitioner's leave of absence. The Hillsborough County Civil Service Board (the Board) approved the extension. In December 2005, Petitioner was interviewed for one of three vacant positions as an inspector/spray/equipment operator in the Mosquito and Aquatic Weed Control Section of Public Works. That position required some degree of expertise in spraying for mosquitoes and handling chemicals used for controlling pests on grass. Most of the interview questions were designed to determine the interviewee's level of technical knowledge about the required job duties. Petitioner's score on the interview rating was lower than any of the other candidates. Therefore, the more qualified applicants were offered the positions. In a memorandum dated December 7, 2005, Scott Cottrell, P.E., engineering director, Public Works, requested a due process hearing for the purpose of seeking to terminate Petitioner from the transportation worker position. Mr. Cottrell cited the following reasons for seeking this action: (1) Petitioner's last active day of work was August 25, 2005, and he had been on medical leave since August 26, 2005; (2) at the interviews for the transportation worker position, Petitioner had read and signed a Job Description form and indicated he understood the duties of that position; (3) after reporting to work the first day, Petitioner advised the unit that he could not finish the day's work activities due to his physical condition; (4) Petitioner had worked only part of one day as a transportation worker; (5) the determination at the August 11, 2005, Fitness-for-Duty meeting that Petitioner was unable to perform the essential functions of his position as transportation worker; and (6) the determination that Petitioner could not perform the duties of Plant Maintenance Mechanic I or II positions in the Stormwater Section of Public Works due to his medical restrictions. The memo randomly noted that Petitioner had been given 90 days to seek and secure other employment, but had been unable to do so. Finally, Mr. Cottrell wanted to fill the position with someone who could perform the job. According to Mr. Cottrell, "[d]ue to our [Public Works] mission, it is imperative that we keep our positions actively filled; therefore, it has become necessary to proceed with further action to seek the termination of [Petitioner]." On or about February 1, 2006, the Appointing Authority conducted a due process hearing regarding Petitioner's employment. On February 10, 2006, Hillsborough County dismissed Petitioner from his position with Public Works. The notice of dismissal stated that Petitioner's dismissal was based on a determination at a Fitness-for-Duty meeting on August 11, 2005, where it had been determined that Petitioner was unable to perform the essential functions of the transportation worker position for Public Works. The notice stated that the dismissal was based on Civil Service Board Rule 11.2(27). Civil Service Board Rule 11.2(27) provides that an employee in the classified service, such as Petitioner, may be dismissed where the employee demonstrates a mental or physical impairment that prevents such employee, with or without accommodation, from performing the essential functions of his or her position. The notice of dismissal dated February 10, 2006, specified that the dismissal was effective on that date. The notice also advised Petitioner that he could appeal the dismissal to the Board by filing a request for hearing within ten calendar days from the date of receipt of the notice. Petitioner challenged his dismissal and filed an appeal request on February 20, 2006. On the appeal request form, Petitioner indicated that he received the notice of dismissal on February 13, 2006. On June 5, 2006, the Board heard Petitioner's appeal of his dismissal. During this proceeding, at which both parties were represented by counsel, the Board considered the County's Motion for Summary Judgment, the opposition thereto, exhibits in the record, and argument of counsel. On June 20, 2006, the Board entered a Final Summary Judgment in the case affirming Petitioner's dismissal, after finding certain material facts to be undisputed. Among the undisputed material findings was Petitioner's admission at the February 1, 2005, due process hearing, that he could not perform the duties of transportation worker.3/ On or about July 10, 2006, Petitioner sent a memorandum to Camille Blake, the County's Equal Employment Opportunity manager, and Robert Sheehan requesting an investigation. In the memorandum, Petitioner alleged that Water Resource Services harassed and retaliated against him for reporting and exposing to the media "a register [sic] sexual predator on the payroll." According to the memorandum, Petitioner began looking for another position in the County as a result of the alleged harassment and retaliation, and this job search resulted in Petitioner's being offered and accepting the job in Public Works. Petitioner's statement in the July 10, 2006, memorandum, that he began looking for a job because he was being harassed and retaliated against by persons in Water Resource Services is not credible contrary to Petitioner's March 29, 2005, letter to Mr. Vanderploog. In that letter, Petitioner stated he had been looking for another position in the County for the "past 6+ months," because he "want[ed] to do something different with [his] life." Based on the foregoing, Petitioner returned to work in April 2005 and took the transportation worker position, not because he was being harassed or retaliated against, but because he wanted to do "something different with [his] life." In the July 10, 2006, memorandum, Petitioner also stated that although he accepted the job in Public Works, he really wanted to stay in Water Resource Services so he did not immediately submit his resignation. In fact, Petitioner stated that he was "about to" call Public Works and rescind his acceptance, but before he could do so, he received the May 10 e-mail from the section manager, referred to in paragraph 31, "demanding" Petitioner's resignation. Petitioner's July 10, 2005, memorandum stated that the only reason he submitted the resignation letter to Water Resource Services was because he had been previously told he was "insubordinate and facing charges," and he wanted to "avoid more consternation and strife and to not be insubordinate." According to the memorandum, Petitioner attempted to rescind his resignation letter the day after it was submitted, but the manager in Water Resource Services rejected Petitioner's attempt to rescind his resignation. Notwithstanding Petitioner's July 10, 2006, memorandum stating that he was forced to resign, Petitioner's resignation was voluntary, and Water Resource Services was under no obligation to accept Petitioner's offer to rescind his resignation and to rehire him. By letter dated July 14, 2006, Petitioner filed a complaint with the County administrator. The complaint challenged the Board's Final Summary Judgment affirming Petitioner's dismissal under the state's Whistle-blower Act. The sole reason the County terminated Petitioner's employment was that he could not perform the functions of the transportation worker position in Public Works. Civil Service Board Rule 11.2(27) provides that employees in classified service, such as Petitioner, may be dismissed if a demonstrated physical impairment prevents the employee from performing the essential functions of his position. The evidence does not support Petitioner's claims that after he filed a Whistle-blower claim on April 17, 2005, he was forced to transfer to Public Works, and then was dismissed from that job.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners enter a final order finding that Petitioner did not timely file his Whistle-blower complaint and dismissing the Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 11th day of April, 2007.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 4, 1990, Bio-Med Services, Inc., (hereinafter "BMS") submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter "DER"), an application for the construction of a biohazardous waste incineration facility (hereinafter "facility") to be located on approximately 5.5 acres in the City of LaBelle Industrial Park. The application was prepared, signed and sealed by Robert A. Baker, Professional Engineer, and was signed by Gary V. Marsden, president of BMS. BMS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bio-Med Management, Inc., (hereinafter BMM), and was formed for the express purpose of making application for construction of the facility at issue in this case. Gary V. Marsden has held the position of president of BMS for approximately one and one-half years. Prior to becoming BMS president, Gary Marsden was a telephone equipment salesman. Gary Marsden's father, Clarence, is president of BMM, and a director of BMS. The BMS business plan indicates that Clarence Marsden was integral to the formation of BMS, was the primary contact between BMS and engineer Baker, and will act as salesman for BMS. Clarence Marsden has been convicted approximately four times on felony counts related to illegal drug activities. Neither Marsden has any experience related to construction or operation of biohazardous waste incineration facilities. According to the first application, the incinerator facility will utilize two "Consumat-1200" incinerators and one "U-Burn 12060" incinerator. 1/ The Consumat-1200 units are each capable of incinerating approximately 2,000 pounds of waste hourly. The U-Burn incinerator is capable of incinerating 250 pounds of waste hourly. The total waste incineration capacity of the facility is approximately 50 tons daily. The waste to be incinerated consists of biological and biohazardous wastes, primarily from hospitals and medical offices. The facility would not be authorized to incinerate hazardous or radioactive wastes. The application seeks approval to construct an incinerator facility which could operate 24 hours daily, seven days weekly, on a year-round basis. Although the incinerators would be shut down for maintenance and repairs, the applicant hypothesized the constant operation of the facility for the purpose of predicting emissions levels. The air pollution control (hereinafter "APC") system proposed in the first application includes venturi scrubbers, caustic scrubbers, and a 50 foot tall, 30 inch diameter discharge stack. On or about April 19, 1991, BMS submitted amendments to the first application. The amendments, (hereinafter the "second application") were prepared and signed by Mr. Baker. The amendments deleted the venturi scrubbers/caustic scrubbers and substituted dry hydrated lime injection scrubbers and baghouses. The amendments also altered the discharge stack dimensions to provide for a stack height of 65 feet and a diameter of 40 inches. The second application also included a bypass stack to provide for APC system malfunctions. Such bypass stacks provide for uncontrolled discharge of emissions into the atmosphere, when such emissions could further damage a malfunctioning APC system. On or about September 24, 1991, an application was submitted by Eastern Grading, Inc. 2/ for a permit to construct a biohazardous waste incineration facility to be located on a site outside the City of LaBelle, rather than at the LaBelle Industrial Park. According to the third application, the incinerator facility still proposes to utilize two "Consumat- 1200" incinerators and one "U-Burn 12060" incinerator. The third application deleted the bypass stack system intended to handle emergency situations and substituted a proposed crossover mechanism. The Eastern Grading application, (hereinafter the "third application") prepared and signed by Mr. Baker and signed by Gary Marsden as president of Eastern Grading, Inc., is the application at issue in this proceeding. Subsequent to the filing of the third application, BMS has now abandoned plans to locate the facility on the site identified in the third application and instead seeks approval to construct the biohazardous waste incineration facility at the LaBelle Industrial Park site identified in the first application. The proposed site for the facility is located approximately 4,900 feet from the City of LaBelle Public Water Treatment Facility. The raw water supply comes from shallow wells southwest of the city, and is stored at the treatment plant in open holding areas. After sand-filtering and softening, the water is stored in vented tanks. Based upon the proximity of the water treatment plant to the incineration site, there is high potential for impact on the local water supply by the emissions discharged from the incineration facility. The site of the proposed facility is located next to the Cross Tie Mobile Home Estates Subdivision, approximately 75 feet from the closest residence, approximately 2,000 feet from a senior citizen service center, and approximately 3,700 feet from a local nursing home. It is likely that some individuals in the nursing home may be regarded as particularly health sensitive, as are a number of residents of Cross Tie Mobile Home Estates Subdivision who suffer from respiratory illnesses and who testified during the proceeding. The site is approximately 4,600 feet from a local elementary school, approximately 4,400 feet from an intermediate school, approximately 7,400 feet from a middle school, and approximately 8,600 feet from a high school. Persons with existing respiratory illnesses, elderly persons, and children are regarded as "sensitive receptors" and are substantially more at risk through exposure to airborne chemical pollutants than is the general population. Based upon the proximity of the incineration site to such sensitive receptors, there is high potential for impact on such persons by the emissions discharged from the incineration facility. There was no site-specific analysis of the proposed facility done by either the applicant during preparation of the application or by the DER during review of the proposal. The applicant has provided no data related to potential heath risks posed by the proposed facility. The DER has not specifically analyzed such health risks. The third application states that various requirements of the Department will be met. The application provides as follows: "Each incinerator will have the following equipment and operational requirements in order to comply with the requirements of FAC 17-2.600: Particulate emissions will not to (sic) exceed 0.020 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) corrected to 7% oxygen (O2). Hydrochloric acid (HCI) emissions to be reduced by 90% by weight on an hourly average basis. At least one second residence time at no less than 1800 F. in the secondary combustion chamber. An air lock system designed to prevent opening the incinerator doors to the room environment and to prevent overcharging. Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations in the stack exhaust gases of less than 100 PPMv, dry basis, corrected to 7% 02 on an hourly basis. The secondary combustion chamber to be preheated to 1800 F. prior to burning and maintained at 1800 F. or greater during active burning of wastes. All incinerator operators will be trained by Consumat Systems or another qualified training organization. A training plan for the operators will be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) prior to the start of operations. Continuous monitoring and recording of temperatures and oxygen will be maintained at the exit of the secondary combustion chamber. Operating procedures and calibration requirements will be submitted to FDER upon selection of monitoring equipment. All air pollution control equipment will be functioning properly during operation of the incinerator system. The list of assurances set forth above are a recitation of the requirements of the DER's rules as provided at Chapter 17- 2.600, Florida Administrative Code. The evidence as to specific equipment and operational requirements is insufficient to support the assertion that the facility will meet such standards. As the applicant's professional engineer, Mr. Baker signed and sealed a statement as follows: This is to certify that the engineering features of this pollution control project have been examined by me and found to be in conformity with modern engineering principles applicable to the treatment and disposal of-pollutants characterized in the permit application. There is reasonable assurance, in my professional judgement, that the pollution control facilities, when properly maintained and operated, will discharge an effluent that complies with all applicable statutes of the State of Florida and the rules and regulations of the department. It is also agreed that the undersigned will furnish, if authorized by the owner, the applicant a set of instructions for the proper maintenance and operation of the pollution control facilities and, if applicable, pollution sources. Mr. Baker's certification relates only to his opinion that the facility, properly operated and maintained, will be capable of compliance with Chapter 17-2.600, Florida Administrative Code. The engineering and design of the incineration facility have not been completed. The application states, without qualification, that the two Consumat units will be utilized. The remaining equipment, including the entire air pollution control system, is identified by type of component, but is otherwise not specified. Where equipment specifications are provided, such specifications are qualified by language stating that the equipment installed will meet either such specifications "or their technical equivalents". No actual operating or test data related to any of the equipment or systems proposed for use is included in the application. There is no reliable operating or test data applicable to biohazardous waste incineration facilities available for this particular configuration of components. The application fails to contain sufficient information related to "engineering features" to permit a credible determination as to whether or not the incineration facility will conform with modern engineering principles. The application fails to support Mr. Baker's assertion that reasonable assurances are provided that when properly maintained and operated, the facility will discharge an effluent that complies with all applicable statutes of the State of Florida and the rules and regulations of the DER. Although there is no evidence to establish that the applicant intends not to comply with the requirements of the DER's regulations, the application, reflecting the fairly preliminary design of the incineration facility, fails to provide sufficient information to assure that, once final design decisions are made and the equipment acquired, that such equipment will be compatible and configured in a manner which assures compliance with the DER's acceptable emissions regulations. The applicant has no experience in construction or operation of such incineration facilities. There is no other existing and operating biohazardous waste incineration facility using this configuration of air pollution control equipment. Mr. Baker contends that the completion of final design plans and specifications is a relatively straightforward process, but nonetheless, it has not been done. The Consumat incinerators have already been purchased, are used equipment, and were subject to a cursory inspection conducted by a BMS investor prior to purchase and transportation of the used equipment from the original owner in South Carolina. There is no evidence that structural inspections by a qualified metallurgist are contemplated. The Consumat units are starved-air incinerators. A starved air incinerator consists of two chambers, one primary and one secondary. The inflow of air into the primary chamber is controlled to provide for partial combustion and volatilization of wastes. The maximum temperature of the primary chamber is 1400 degrees F. The gases produced in the primary chamber flow into the secondary chamber where the temperature is maintained through gas burners. The minimum temperature in the secondary chamber is 1800 degrees F. The application provides that the waste gases will remain in the secondary chamber for two seconds. Control of temperature and residence time is the secondary chamber is required to complete the combustion process. The draft permit conditions require the applicant to install, maintain and operate continuous emissions monitoring equipment to record the secondary combustion chamber's exit temperature and oxygen level. Each incinerator will have an oxygen probe and a thermal couple at the secondary chamber exit. The oxygen probe will provide data needed to ascertain whether the combustion process is adequate and permits the correction of oxygen levels to the 7% standard required to measure emissions levels. The thermal couple permits the monitoring of exit temperatures. The draft permit also requires BMS to maintain all testing measurements and calibration data, and other information related to equipment maintenance and adjustments. The Consumat units must be retrofitted to permit the residence time and temperature indicated in the application. The application does not contain design or engineering information related to retrofitting the secondary chambers. The U-Burn unit is, according to professional engineer Baker, a "very unique design of a company that's no longer in existence." The U-Burn would be operated only in conjunction with one of the Consumat units. One Consumat and the U-Burn would each have a separate connection into one of the two APC systems. The application provides no design or engineering data related to the connection of the U-Burn unit into the APC system. The application states that the incinerators will be loaded by means of an enclosed ram feed mechanism which will prevent the incinerator from being opened to the room environment and prohibit overloading of the unit. The enclosed ram feed mechanism has not yet been designed. Two parallel lines of identically sized pollution control equipment are proposed, each line designed to meet the requirements of one Consumat unit and the U-Burn unit. Each line of equipment will include a preconditioner ("quencher"), a lime injection dry scrubber, and a fabric filter baghouse. To control emissions, it is necessary to reduce the temperature of gases exiting the secondary chamber, where the minimum temperature is 1800 degrees F. According to the "Process Description" in the application, the gas stream will be preconditioned by the use of water injection to lower the gas stream temperature to 275 degrees F. The water from the preconditioning process will be evaporated as part of the exhaust gases. The preconditioner will be lined with refractory material to withstand the extreme temperature. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the preconditioner, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. There has been no more than preliminary design and engineering work completed for the construction and operation of the preconditioner. The application states that the dry hydrated lime injection system (dry scrubber) and the fabric filter system have been designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-2.600 F.A.C. for particulate matter and HCI emissions control. Upon leaving the preconditioner, cooled flue gases move into the dry scrubber. According to the "Process Description" in the application, an ultra- fine, dry hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide) will be injected into the preconditioned gas stream via a metered pneumatic system inside a reactor. Although the velocity of the injection must be sufficient to ensure that the dry lime mixes thoroughly with the flue gases, the application contains no information related to expected injection velocity. Once mixed, the lime reacts with hydrochloric acid to produce calcium chloride. The dry scrubber will collect large particulate matter and will have an airlock system for removal of collected solids. The lime injection rate will be at a minimum of 30% greater than the stoichiometric requirements for the neutralization of the HCI. This system is intended to remove at least 90% of the HCI in the gas stream. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the dry scrubber, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. No more than preliminary design work for the construction and operation of the dry scrubber has been completed. Following dry scrubber treatment, the flue gases proceed to a reverse jet fabric filter baghouse. Baghouse technology is a relatively standard methodology of controlling submicron particulate matter (and dioxins/furans condensed on such matter) and heavy metal vapors. According to the "Process Description" in the application, the reverse jet fabric filter will have a maximum air to cloth ratio of 5 to 1. 3/ Under some conditions, a 5 to 1 air to cloth ratio may result in the filter bags becoming clogged with ultrafine particulates. The baghouse is intended to have a removal efficiency of greater than 99% for submicron particulate matter. The application contains preliminary design specifications for the baghouse, however the application states that such specifications "or their technical equivalents" will be utilized in the final design, accordingly such specifications are subject to change. A substantial amount of manufacturer literature related to dry scrubbers, baghouses (including the fabric filter bags), and emissions monitoring equipment is included in the application, but is of no probative value given that the applicant has not committed to using any of the equipment for which literature is included. The application indicates that the incineration facility will include a "crossover" between the two APC systems, to provide for the possibility that one APC system could fail. During such "upset" conditions, there is a substantial potential for visible and fugitive emissions, as well as odors and smoke. The applicant has not yet designed the crossover mechanism and has no information related to the actual planned operation of a crossover mechanism. Standard incinerator design provides for the utilization of bypass stacks which permit the discharge of uncontrolled emissions upon the failure of an APC system. The crossover theoretically would shift the discharge from one incinerator's failed APC system to the second incinerator's APC system, during which time the operation of the second incinerator unit would be reduced or would cease in order to provide adequate capacity in the operating APC system for the discharge from either or both operating incinerators. The application does not provide information related to the operation, design or location of the crossover mechanism. There is no information as to how the facility would address the potential situation where, with only one incinerator and APC system operating, an APC system failure would occur. The utilization of the crossover mechanism is unique, there being no similar medical waste incineration facility crossovers in use elsewhere. It is not possible to determine, given the lack of detail in the application, whether the crossover mechanism could be expected to adequately and successfully address potential "upset" situations. The site plan identifies two buildings on the site, one for incineration operations and the second for ash storage. There is no information supplied related to the location or storage of delivered, but unincinerated, biohazardous wastes, although, if the site plan is accurate, such storage apparently occurs within the incineration building. The application states that solid wastes (ash and lime) will be collected and disposed of off-site in an approved landfill. At hearing, BMS submitted an ash residue management plan, providing the applicant's plan to manage ash from the incinerators and the baghouse discharge. The plan was not signed or sealed by the applicant's professional engineer although he attested to the plan at hearing. According to the plan, incinerator bottom ash generated by the facility "will be handled in a manner which will prevent danger of contamination or release to the environment". Ash will be removed from "the consumat Model CS 1200 incinerator" 4/ unit by means of an ash ejection ram and collected in a wet sump, designed to eliminate dust and blowing ash. The wet ("quenched") ash is removed from the water-filled sump by a drag chain from which excess water will drain for reuse in the ash sump. The wet ash will exit the building by conveyer and be deposited into a covered, metal, "roll-off"-type, water tight storage container. When full, the container contents will be sampled and a representative sample provided to a DER-approved laboratory for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure ("TCLP") analysis. The container will thereafter be sealed, and the ash trucked to an approved disposal facility. Baghouse waste will include fly ash and reagent waste related to the dry scrubber treatment. Such waste will be removed through a bottom drop hopper discharging into 55 gallon drums. The hopper/drum system will be shielded to prevent waste escape into the atmosphere. Upon filling, the drums will be sampled for the TCLP analysis and then sealed and transported to the approved disposal site. The BMS Ash Residue Management Plan also states: "Type A class waste will be disposed of by Waste Managements, Inc., at their facility located at 3000 N.W. 48th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33073. In the event ash residue would not be classified as Type A waste, it will be disposed of by Chemical Waste Management, Inc., whose offices are also located at 3000 N.W. 48th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33073." The Ash Residue Management Plan is insufficient to comply with the DER's requirement related to such plans. The plan fails to indicate the capacity of the disposal site or whether the disposal site is intended to receive ash residue from the solid waste combustor for the life of the facility. The plan is ambiguous as to whether the identified sites are actual disposal sites or are offices of the company which will allegedly handle disposition of the ash. The plan fails to address the beneficial uses, if any, of ash residue, although the plan does state that ash recycling is not anticipated. The plan fails to identify contractual requirements, or notification and inspection procedures, which assure that hazardous wastes are not received or burned in the facility. Although the plan states that the incinerator ash will be placed into a wet sump to eliminate dust and blowing ash, and that wet sump water will be recycled into the sump, the plan fails to address the cumulative effects such water reuse and the potential impact of exposure to humans or the environment. As to the baghouse hopper/drum system (shielded to prevent waste escape into the atmosphere) the plan fails to consider other pathways of human or environmental exposure such as through direct contact or ingestion, and the potential for soil and ground water contamination. The application states that any liquids generated from wash-downs and cleaning operations will be collected in a holding tank and thereafter incinerated. The application contains no design or engineering data which identifies the means for incinerating such liquids or establishes that such liquid incineration will be accomplished in a manner which will not adversely affect incinerator or APC operation. Petitioners assert that the facility is experimental in nature because the design is rudimentary and the crossover mechanism is not used in medical waste incinerators of this type. Respondents assert that the facility is not experimental, and that the various types of equipment proposed are in use at other incineration facilities elsewhere. The evidence fails to establish that the entire facility should be properly identified as "experimental", however, there is no credible test data available for a facility utilizing this proposed combination of equipment in the configuration identified in the application. It is likely to expect a biohazardous waste incinerator to emit multiple air pollutants. Such pollutants include particulate matter and hydrogen chloride (HCI), as well as toxic pollutants such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, manganese, nickel, zinc, and dioxin equivalents. As to toxic pollutants, the DER reviewed the anticipated chemical emissions of arsenic, mercury, manganese, cadmium, chromium VI, nickel, zinc, lead, tetrachlorodibenzo dioxin (TCDD), and hydrochloric acid. The draft permit in this case requires the proposed facility to conduct emissions tests for particulate matter, hydrogen chloride, oxygen and carbon monoxide within 60 days of initially operating the facility, and to conduct annual emissions tests thereafter. At hearing, the applicant agreed to monitor emissions for the toxic pollutants arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, manganese, nickel, zinc, and dioxin equivalents, and further agreed to continuously monitor carbon monoxide and opacity. The DER has established a policy related to the control of toxic emissions from an air pollution source. The "Air Toxics Policy" is an effort by the DER to protect public health from the potential dangers posed by inhalation of excessive levels of toxic air emissions. The DER has a working list of 756 chemicals for which acceptable emission levels have been established. In identifying chemicals for inclusion on the working list, the DER utilized sources which referenced chemicals of concern and also reviewed data related to the air toxics programs of other regulatory agencies. The DER air toxics working list suggests acceptable ambient air concentration levels for the identified toxic chemicals. The acceptable levels are identified as "no threat levels" or "NTL's" and are set forth at average eight hour, 24 hour, and annual concentration levels. The DER asserts that the NTL's are conservative figures and that adverse public health consequences are unlikely to occur when ambient concentration emission levels do not exceed the NTL's. In establishing the average eight and 24 hour concentration NTL's, the DER utilized the more conservative of figures available from either the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The OSHA and ACGIH figures are applicable to exposure of a healthy employee to a single chemical for an eight hour working period. The annual NTL's are directly based on EPA health data values listed in the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System. Of the three NTL's, the EPA- based annual levels are considered to be more accurate. In situations where the eight and/or 24 hour averages are exceeded, additional consideration is given to whether the annual NTL is also exceeded. The DER has not reviewed the data upon which the EPA, OSHA and ACGIH levels rely, and has not independently reviewed the statistical methodology utilized by the EPA, OSHA and ACGIH in calculating the cited agencies acceptable emissions levels. However, the weight of the testimony in support of the methodology, absent specific evidence to the contrary, establishes that such reliance is reasonable. In attempting to establish eight and 24 hour NTL's for use in the DER's Air Toxics Policy, the DER considered the likelihood that air emissions would contain multiple toxic chemicals and would impact a less healthy population (including particularly susceptible individuals) for an extended period of time. The DER reduced the eight hour OSHA/ACGIH concentration by two orders of magnitude, resulting in DER eight hour NTL's which are 100 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels. The DER further reduced the 24 hour OSHA/ACGIH levels by a factor of 4.2 (based upon dividing the total hours in a seven day period by a 40 hour work week) resulting in DER average 24 hour NTL's which are 420 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH acceptable occupational levels. Petitioners assert that the uniform safety factors calculated by the DER which resulted in the reduction of OSHA/ACGIH figures to the DER NTL's are arbitrary, and that some NTL's were likely too high and others were too low. However, Petitioners did not identify any of the 756 chemical NTL's on the DER working list as inadequate or excessive. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the DER's utilization of a two magnitude safety factor is appropriate. Based upon the lack of adverse health impacts on the working population subject to OSHA/ACGIH occupational levels, the dearth of toxicological data available for most substances of concern, and absent evidence to the contrary, the inclusion of safety factors which result in an average eight hour NTL 100 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels and an average 24 hour NTL 420 times less than the OSHA/ACGIH levels is a reasonable attempt to prohibit excessive emissions and protect the general public's health from dangers posed through inhalation of such toxic air emissions. The DER annual average air toxic concentration levels are directly derived from EPA data and are distinguished on the basis of whether or not a substance is a carcinogen. For carcinogens, the NTL is based upon a unit risk factor which equates to a one in one million increased risk of developing a cancer related to said chemical. For non-carcinogens, the DER NTL is based upon an "inhalation reference concentration" which relies directly upon inhalation toxicity data, where such data is available. Where "inhalation reference concentration" data is unavailable, the DER NTL is based upon an extrapolation of oral toxicity data. The evidence fails to establish that the reliance of the DER on such EPA data is inappropriate or unreasonable. The DER utilizes the air toxics working list to compare anticipated emissions from a proposed air pollution source to the NTL's. Not all 756 chemical comparisons are made in every case. The comparison is for the purpose of determining whether additional inquiry should be made related to specific chemical emissions. The instant application includes predicted emission rates supplied by engineer Baker. The Baker estimates are based upon actual uncontrolled incinerator emission test results, to which a predicted "control efficiency" was applied for each type of control technology proposed in the application. The control efficiency predictions were based upon a noncommercial Canadian pilot project utilizing a dry-scrubber/baghouse combination, on non peer-reviewed literature and, as to mercury emissions, on a telephone conversation with a representative of the municipal waste industry. At the hearing, Petitioners utilized a data base compiled by Dr. Paul Chrostowsky, who supplied emissions estimates based upon his data base. The data base consists of actual test results from incinerators (including 12 medical waste incinerators) and from peer-reviewed literature. None of the facilities in the Chrostowsky data base reflect data from facilities utilizing a dry scrubber/baghouse system. Half of the incinerators in his data base utilized no controls, one utilized a baghouse, and the remaining five utilized wet scrubbers. Dr. Chrostowsky took the average emissions levels and added one standard deviation to account for uncertainty related to the lack of an operating record for the proposed facility. The emissions estimates produced by Dr. Chrostowsky are deemed to be more reliable and are credited. Dr. Chrostowsky opined that the applicant's estimates did not reflect likely operating conditions and were unreasonably low. According to his estimates, the application underestimated emission rates for hydrogen chloride, arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel. He also opined that the application's predicted mercury removal rate of 94% was excessive and that a removal rate 70% would be more likely. However, even given Dr. Chrostowsky's emissions levels, only the 24 hour NTL for hydrogen chloride is exceeded. Although Dr. Chrostowsky's calculated an exceedance of the annual average HCI NTL, the calculation was based on error. Other emissions remain at levels below the DER's level of acceptable emissions established by rule. Utilization of a 70% mercury removal rate still results in mercury emissions within the DER's range of acceptable emissions. As to Dr. Chrostowsky's estimated hydrogen chloride emission in excess of the DER's 24 hour NTL, such calculation appears to have been based on the application's estimated HCI control efficiency of 90%. The application utilized a conservative figure based upon the DER minimum requirement of 90% HCI control, when the actual HCI control efficiency could likely be greater than 90%. However, given the preliminary state of design and the lack of test results and data reflective of this particular equipment configuration, the evidence is insufficient to determine with reasonable assurance that such requirement will be met, or that the 24 hour HCI NTL will not be exceeded. It should be noted that the DER's NTL's address only potential human impact through inhalation, on the assumption that the most likely human ingestion for air emissions is through inhalation. The policy does not address human consumption of toxics though contaminated water supplies or via other pathways, Given the proximity of the proposed facility to local water supplies, the potential for other ingestion impacts exists, and should be examined. The application also included the results from engineer Baker's air dispersion modeling, performed to predict local concentrations of certain pollutants in the ambient air. The results indicate that maximum one, eight, and 24 hour concentrations will occur approximately 100 meters from the stack, and that maximum annual average maximum concentrations will occur approximately 500 meters from the stack. Mr. Baker first utilized a standard screening model developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency specifically for this purpose. Mr. Baker is not an expert in computer modeling and utilizes standard EPA programs to perform such functions. If an initial comparison demonstrates that expected emissions from a proposed pollution source exceed an NTL, additional review of anticipated emissions is conducted to determine whether the initial review data is inaccurate or, if not, whether additional APC technology is required to control the excess emission. The use of an initial screening model is standard scientific practice and is reasonable. Mr. Baker uses the screen model to determine whether there are exceedances of any relevant emissions standards. Where no exceedances occur, it is generally unnecessary to perform further modeling. The Baker screen model relied upon hypothetical meteorological data unrelated to the meteorological variables at the proposed incineration facility site. The screen model results are regarded as an estimation of maximum one hour air pollutant concentrations at or beyond a property line. A set of conversion factors is applied to the maximum one hour air pollutant concentration with the results predicting eight hour, 24 hour, and annual concentrations. According to Mr. Baker's screen model results, the proposed facility's emissions did not exceed the DER's air quality standards or the NTL's in the working list. Mr. Baker subsequently utilized a more advanced EPA model, identified as the "Industrial Source Complex" (ISC) model, which projects both short-term and long-term concentrations. Mr. Baker opined that the ISC model provides a more accurate estimation of pollutant dispersion into the atmosphere. In running the model, he relied upon National Weather Service (NWS) surface meteorological data from Fort Myers and on NWS upper air meteorological data from Tampa, (as the DER had directed) and upon default EPA options. The NWS data included five years of weather information. Based on the ISC model, Mr. Baker anticipates that the emissions will not exceed the DER's air quality standards or NTL's. Meteorological conditions in LaBelle may differ significantly from the NWS Tampa upper air meteorological data. Tampa is much closer to the Gulf of Mexico than LaBelle. Lake Okeechobee, located nearby to the east of LaBelle, may impact LaBelle's local conditions. There is no reliable LaBelle meteorological data easily available, and the DER did not require collection of such site-specific data. Although an expert witness opined that, based upon Orlando's inland location, available Orlando NWS upper air data would be more representative of LaBelle conditions than the Tampa data used, the witness utilized the Tampa data to run his models. There is no actual evidence that utilization of Orlando data would have resulted in different pollutant dispersion modeling results than those included in the application. On behalf of the Petitioners, the ISC model was run utilizing the same weather data used by Mr. Baker and the emissions projections calculated by Dr. Chrostowsky, resulting in substantial agreement between the modeling results. Petitioners suggest that the applicant should have been required to provide data related to the dispersion of air pollutants during certain specific meteorological events, such as temperature inversions. Such inversions occur when warm upper air traps the cooler air below, and holds air pollutants close to the Earth's surface. Although the evidence related to such inversions is based upon a one-year frequency of fog incidence for Ft. Myers, Tampa and Orlando (rather than an analysis of temperature and air pressure data) temperature inversions may occur in LaBelle as often as 20 or more times annually. Utilization of a five year set of NWS data would include occurrences of temperature inversions. Fumigation concentrations occur when, during the dissipation of temperature inversions, the cooler and warmer air levels mix, and pollutants concentrations at the top of the cooler air level may be pulled down resulting in short, but intense, concentrations of pollutants at ground level. It is likely that fumigation events occur in the LaBelle area. Stagnation events are similar to fumigation events, although apparently affecting a larger geographic area than does a fumigation event. It is likely than stagnation events occur in the LaBelle area, however, there is no model which simulates a stagnation event. The screen model utilized in this case by the DER does simulate a fumigation event. According to the screen model predictions, maximum pollutant concentrations would occur under neutral stability conditions, not during fumigation events. The DER utilized the ISC model to predict small particle deposition ("fallout"). Fallout is specific to the meteorology of a site. The ISC model does not accurately predict fallout and such modeling is not required by the DER's regulations. However, such information, if available, could provide useful particle deposition data, given the proximity of the site to the City of LaBelle public water supply. Petitioners assert that the DER should have required a full risk assessment to determine the facility's potential for adversely affecting the local environment and residents in the area. A limited assessment, solely related to dioxin risks and acid gas risks, was performed on behalf of the Petitioners. The evidence is insufficient to establish whether or not the proposed incineration facility will result in an adverse health risk to the general population residing in the area, but given the location of the proposed facility and proximity to the local water supply and to sensitive receptors, the completion of a full risk analysis is warranted. As to dioxin levels, the limited risk assessment estimated that the BMS facility would produce a cancer risk ten to 100 times greater than the risk associated with Lee County's proposed nonbiohazardous waste incineration facility. However, the predicted dioxin emission levels are within the range established by the EPA as acceptable. The Petitioner's expert further opined that such EPA figures overestimate the cancer potency of dioxin. An acid gas analysis was performed utilizing the "hazard quotient/hazard index" method of analysis. The hazard quotient/hazard index analysis provides an acceptable approach to determining air emission health risks. Acid gases include hydrogen chloride, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen fluoride, and sulfuric acid mists. Certain meteorological conditions, including temperature inversions or fog, interact with acid gases to form acid mists and other agents injurious to human lung function. The acid gases/acid mists risk assessment indicates that the incineration facility increases the potential for hazardous health impacts on the local population.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Bio-Med Services, Inc., for a permit to construct a biohazardous waste incineration facility at the LaBelle Industrial Park, in LaBelle, Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1992.
The Issue Whether the costs incurred by the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Emergency Response (Department) in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0248 may be recovered from Petitioners pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes. Spill Response, Inc. (Spill Response) is a corporation which was formed in approximately 1986 or 1987, and is presently inactive and without any assets. At all times material to the instant case, George Gordon has been the sole owner, president and director of Spill Response, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation. Spill Response was previously in the oil spill response business, as its name suggests. At such time, it had an office in Port Everglades and stored its equipment on fenced and gated property located at 3211 Southwest 50th Avenue, Davie, Florida, on which approximately a dozen large aboveground petroleum storage tanks (surrounded by concrete containment areas) also were situated. At all times material to the instant case, the property located at 3211 Southwest 50th Avenue, Davie, Florida (FPR site) has been owned by Florida Petroleum Reprocessors, Inc. (FPR), an inactive corporation that previously was in the waste oil recovery business. The FPR site, which is presently FPR's only asset, is the subject of a pending foreclosure action initiated by Charles Green, who, at all times material to the instant case, has held a first mortgage on the property. At all times material to the instant case, George Gordon has been the president and director of FPR, and, as such, has directed the operations of the corporation. In the latter part of 1994, the storage tanks on the FPR site were no longer in commercial use. At that time, Gordon, on behalf of FPR, hired Fred Rice to clean and maintain the site in preparation for its closure. Rice was instructed to remove the petroleum residue and sludge from the tanks and from the containment areas. Rice engaged in these petroleum and sludge-removal activities on a part-time basis until the spring of 1995, when he stopped working on the project after not having received timely payment for work he had performed. Rice placed the petroleum residue and sludge that he had removed, as well the rags and other materials that he had used in the removal process, in 55-gallon drums. He filled approximately six or seven such drums. A number of other 55-gallon drums containing petroleum residue and sludge (that some person or persons other than Rice had filled) were already on the FPR site. Rice put the six or seven drums that he had filled on a truck that was parked on the site and had “Spill Response, Inc.” and “Florida Petroleum Reprocessors, Inc.” markings on its sides. The truck was owned by Spill Response and had been on the site for some time. It had no battery and was inoperable. Rice told Gordon that he had put the drums he had filled with petroleum residue and sludge on the Spill Response truck. The next time Gordon went the FPR site, in late May of 1995, he discovered that the locks on the gates had been changed and that there were vehicles and equipment on the property that did not belong there. Gordon telephoned the Davie Police Department to complain about the unauthorized use of the FPR site. A police officer was dispatched to the site to investigate. When the officer arrived on the scene, he encountered Gordon outside one of the gates. Although the gate was locked, Gordon and the officer gained access to the site by squeezing through an opening in the gate. Upon entering the site, they looked around. Based upon what they saw, they correctly "figured out" that Certified Crane and Rigging, Inc., d/b/a Certified Equipment Management Company (Certified) was storing its crane equipment and trucks on the site. At all times material to the instant case, Certified has been owned and operated by William "Skip" Walton. Walton is an acquaintance of the aforementioned Charles Green, the holder of the first mortgage on the FPR site. Certified's telephone number was painted on the equipment and vehicles it was storing on the FPR site. The police officer called the number and spoke with Walton. Following his telephone conversation with Walton, the officer informed Gordon that Walton had indicated, during the conversation, that he was leasing the FPR site from Green. Gordon advised the officer that he did not want to press criminal charges (for trespassing) against either Certified or Walton. Gordon subsequently telephoned Green. Green told Gordon that it was true that he had leased the FPR site to Walton. Green explained to Gordon that he "needed to earn some money from the property." (It had been some time since Green had received any mortgage payments from FPR or Gordon.) Gordon contacted his attorney to discuss with her what legal action, if any, he could take to regain possession of the FPR site and be compensated for the unauthorized use of the property. Gordon's attorney advised him that he "would have recourse if [he] wished to pursu[e] the matter in court," but that it might not be cost-effective for him to do so. Gordon took no action, "in court" or otherwise, to regain possession and control of the FPR site; nor did he take any action to retake possession and control of the Spill Response truck or the filled drums that were in the truck and elsewhere on the site. Furthermore, he made no effort to make sure that the drums and their contents were stored and disposed of properly, believing that the proper storage and disposal of these items were now the responsibility of the new occupant of the site. He did not return to the FPR site for over a year. On or about June 6, 1995, the Department was notified (after its regular business hours) that the Spill Response truck had been discovered abandoned on the side of the road a few blocks from the FPR site. The following day,1 Ann Meador, an Environmental Specialist III with the Department, went to the location where the truck had been abandoned and served as the Department's on- scene coordinator. The truck was in poor condition and still inoperable. It had been brought (not driven) to the location by someone other than Gordon. The truck contained 37 sealed 55-gallon drums, which were in poor condition (but not yet leaking) and had oil residue on the outside. It could not be reliably determined exactly what was in the drums without removing them from the truck and examining and analyzing their contents. Meador made arrangements for OHM Remediation Services Corporation (OHM), with whom the Department had a contract to perform such services on an emergency basis, to assist in the removal of the drums from the truck. OHM personnel (with "Level B" protective clothing and equipment) responded to the scene and removed all 37 drums from the Spill Response truck. After the drums were unsealed, their contents were examined and sampled to the extent possible2 (as were the contents of three additional drums which were filled with the "Level B" protective clothing and equipment that OHM personnel had used during the cleanup operation and then discarded). Each of the drums was assigned a number for identification purposes. To save time and money, samples from some of the drums were composited. The drums were then overpacked and taken to the Department’s hazardous waste storage facility in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Department paid OHM $7,046.93 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services OHM performed. In requesting OHM to perform these services and in paying OHM $7,046.93 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid OHM was not excessive. The Department hired Laidlaw Environmental Services (Laidlaw) to analyze the samples that OHM had collected and to then properly dispose of the drums and their contents. Laidlaw's analysis revealed the following: drums numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 contained oily sludges, oil, oil mixed with water, or oily residues; drum numbered 6 contained benzene and had a flash point between 73 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit; drum numbered 29 contained benzene and lead and had a flash point of less than 73 degrees Fahrenheit; drums numbered 10 and 11 contained benzene and lead; drums numbered 7, 8, 31, 32, 33 and 39 contained benzene, lead, and cadmium. Laidlaw properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid Laidlaw $21,163.90 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services it performed. In requesting Laidlaw to perform these services and in paying Laidlaw $21,163.90 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid Laidlaw was not excessive. The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $129.82 in connection with its response to the report it had received concerning the abandonment of the Spill Response truck. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have the drums on the truck properly removed and disposed of was $28,340.65. It was not until Gordon received a letter from the Department advising him of the costs the Department had incurred and requesting that Spill Response and he reimburse the Department for these costs that Gordon became aware of the fact that the truck and the drums had been moved from the FPR site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department finding that it is entitled to recover from Petitioners, pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the $28,340.65 in costs the Department reasonably incurred in connection with its response to Incident Number 95-SE-0248. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1998.
