The Issue Whether Amendments to Rules 17-2.600 and 17-2.710, Florida Administrative Code are invalid by virtue of being an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether the economic impact statement prepared by the Department was adequate.
Findings Of Fact The proposed amendments to Rule 17-2.600 and 17-2.710, Florida Administrative Code (the Rule) were published in the February 17, 1989 Florida Administrative Weekly, and were adopted by the Environmental Regulation Commission on March 22, 1989. MEDX timely filed a petition to challenge the Rule on March 13, 1989, prior to adoption. Promulgation of the Rule resulted from Senate Bill 1192 later codified as Section 403.704(31), Florida Statutes, which directed the department to initiate rulemaking to address the management of biohazardous waste and biological waste within the state. This statute requires such rules to address on-site and off-site incineration as well as regulation of such waste from the point of original to final incineration. The Rule here involves only the incineration of this waste. Rule 17-712, Florida Administrative Code regulates off-site handling, transportation and disposal of biological waste, while proposed Rule 10D-104 (by DHRS) will regulate on-site handling and disposal of biological waste. Biohazardous waste is generally any solid or liquid waste which may present a hazard of infections to humans. Biological waste is solid waste that causes or has the capacity of causing disease and infection, and includes, but is not limited to, biohazardous waste, diseased or dead animals, and other waste capable of transmitting pathogens to humans or animals. The Rule sets emission and operating standards for incinerators which burn biological waste. The Rule sets different standards for different size incinerators, with the result that incinerators with a capacity of 500 pounds per hour (pph) or less, if properly constructed and operated, are likely to be able to meet the standards and the rules without the use of additional pollution control devices, such as scrubbers, depending upon the waste stream being incinerated. Incinerators with capacities of more than 500 pph are unlikely to be able to meet the standards in the Rule without the use of additional pollution control devices such as scrubbers, although it is possible that some may be able to meet these standards. The incineration of a ton of biological waste in several 500 pph capacity incinerators without scrubbers is likely to emit more total particulates and hyrdogen chloride (HCl) into the air than would be the same ton of biological waste burned in a 2,000 pph incinerator equipped with a scrubber. All biological waste incinerators, of whatever size, would be subject to all other applicable ambient air quality standards in addition to the minimum emission standards in the Rule and would be further subject to pollution limitations established for each area. Proposed Rule 17-712 and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services proposed Rule 10D-104, which together regulate the storage, treatment and disposal of biological waste, are likely to substantially increase the number of biological waste generators regulated by the State of Florida and are likely to increase the amount of biological waste regulated by the State of Florida. It is, therefore, likely that the amount of biological waste incinerated in the state, as well as the persons contracting with biological waste incinerator facilities, will increase as a result of these rules. Currently, all incinerators with capacities of less than 50 tons per day (which includes all biological incinerators in this state) are exempt from air emission standards, with the exception of visible emissions and odor. The Rule, by setting standards for particulate emissions and HCl emissions, as well as setting standards for residence time, carbon dioxide emissions, monitoring, operator training, and start-up and shut-down procedures, will impose more stringent requirements on all biological waste incinerators than currently exist, regardless of the size of the incinerator. MEDX is a biohazardous waste transportation and disposal company founded in 1978. MEDX has two incinerators at its Miami facility with a combined capacity of 4500 pph. The older unit is rated at 2000 pph and the newer one at 2500 pph. During the last fiscal year, MEDX invested approximately 3.5 million dollars in its Dade County facility for pollution control devices, buildings and water containment. The Dade County facility incinerates all biological waste treated by MEDX in Florida. Biological waste from northern and central Florida is collected by trucks operating out of Lakeland, Florida, from where this waste is transported on larger trucks to the Dade County facility for incineration. As a result of emission control problems MEDX entered into a consent decree with Dade County in which MEDX agreed to equip its two Dade County incinerators with anti-pollution equipment (scrubbers) in 1989 at a cost of approximately $300,000 each. Prior to promulgating the Rule, DER held workshops at which MEDX and all other interested parties were invited to participate and were given the opportunity to present evidence regarding the Rule and the economic impact of the Rule. Additionally, the Department considered studies by the Environmental Protection Agency, looked at incinerators operating in Florida, consulted with other professionals in the field, contacted other states and looked at their rules, and solicited written comments from affected parties. As a result of these studies, it was concluded that the most important factor in reducing harmful emissions is to ensure good combustion. This is addressed in the Rule by requiring 1800 degrees F. operating temperature in the upper chamber, for a residence time of one second, with constant monitoring of this temperature and to require the use of trained incinerator operators. It was further concluded that good combustion could be further ensured by monitoring carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and establishing a requirement that CO emissions not exceed 100 parts per million. Manufacturers of incinerators were contacted to determine the minimum particulate emission attainable without control devices and these manufacturers agreed their incinerators could, if properly operated, attain a particulate limitation of 0.1 grain per dry standard cubic foot corrected to 7 percent oxygen. Accordingly, this standard was adopted. A majority of these incinerators burn hospital waste which generally contains large quantities of polyvinyl chlorides (plastics) which, when burned, produces HCl. The amount of HCl emissions can be controlled to a large extent by controlling the amount of plastic that is put into the waste stream. Federal regulations for hazardous waste facilities require the hydrogen chloride emissions not exceed four pounds per hour. If the incinerator can't meet that limitation they have to provide 99 percent elimination. Since most incinerators with a capacity of less than 500 pph can meet this limitation of HCl emission, that standard was adopted and is consistent with the Federal rule. Biohazardous waste incinerators are controlled air incinerators. Waste is loaded into a lower chamber which partially burns the waste creating a smoke which is burned and consumed in the upper chamber leaving, theoretically, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor. However, even the best incinerator cannot reach complete combustion and some particulates remain. Also the burning of plastics which contains chlorine results in the emission of HCl. Small incinerators with a capacity of less than 500 pph are generally referred to as batch incinerators because they are loaded with a batch of waste to burn and when that process is completed the incinerator is turned off, the ashes are removed and the incinerator is ready for another batch. Batch incinerators are usually run for 10 - 12 hours per day. Another type incinerator is the continuous burn incinerator. This type incinerator generally has a capacity greater than 500 pph and is characterized by some mechanism which can continuously feed waste material into the incinerator and remove ashes without shutting dawn the incinerator. In preparing the Rule DER conducted a survey of existing incinerators in Florida which dispose of biohazardous wastes and found the vast majority of these facilities have a capacity of less than 500 pph and a majority have a capacity of less than 200 pph (Exhibits 6 and 23). Installing pollution control devices (scrubbers) on small incinerators with capacity less than 500 pph is not economically feasible because the amount of emission reduction will not justify the cost of the scrubbers. On the other hand, larger incinerators benefit from economies of scale which allows scrubbers to be cost effective in reducing pollutants. Without controls and assuming the same combustion, an incinerator with a capacity of 2,000 pph will emit four times the pollutants of a 500 pph capacity incinerator, assuming both operate the same number of hours per day. Accordingly, the concentration of harmful emissions will be much higher in the vicinity of the large incinerator than in the vicinity of the small incinerator. The concentration of HCl, for example, is more significant in determining the adverse impact than is the quantity of HCl emitted. Petitioner's contention that the Rule will result in a proliferation of small incinerators and therefore lead to increased air pollution instead of a diminution of such pollution cannot be so. There is presently no control over any of these incinerators burning biohazardous wastes, except for visible emissions and odor; and even if the Rule did not limit the emissions which require scrubbers on the larger incinerators, the Rule would improve air quality simply by setting standards which will improve combustion in all of these incinerators. By limiting total emissions of HCl and particulates, the Rule will result in improved air quality. ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Department prior to adoption of the Rule. Section 120.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes provides the Economic Impact statement shall include: An estimate of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action, including the estimated amount of paperwork; An estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons directly affected by the proposed action; An estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition and the open market for employment, if applicable; A detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates; An analysis of the impact on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act (FSNBA) Act of 1985. There is no issue that the EIS properly addresses the cost to the agency. The estimated cost to persons affected by the Rule, in addition to permit fees, was estimated by the Department at $20,000 to $40,000 annually for incinerators with a capacity greater than 500 pph. This figure was arrived at by annualizing the cost of a scrubber over a 20 year period, and adding the annual operating costs of that scrubber. The costs for incinerators with a capacity of 500 pph or less was estimated as a one-time expense of $15,000 to $20,000 to modify the incinerator to meet the retention time required by the Rule. No evidence was presented to refute the accuracy of these figures. MEDX contends the EIS is fatally defective because it fails to include the transportation costs associated with the operation of large off-site incinerators. While MEDX obviously incurs large transportation costs in treating in its Dade County facility biohazardous wastes generated in the Florida panhandle, for example, the same costs are not involved in treating waste generated in South Florida. Even if the Rule may result in small incinerators having a cost advantage in some areas over regional incinerators many miles away, it does not follow that large regional incinerators which are required to install scrubbers cannot compete economically with small incinerators located in the same general area, or that the EIS is fatally defective for not including such costs. Economies of scale will offset some of the additional costs involved in having to install scrubbers. In addition to not including transportation costs, the EIS also did not include the cost of facility siting or construction which could vary greatly depending on whether the facility is on-site or off-site. The EIS addresses only the costs of complying with the Rule. The Rule sets emission and operating standards and the EIS addresses only the costs associated with complying with those standards. Petitioner also challenges the statement in the EIS that the proposed revisions would benefit the public in reducing emissions in the air. The fallacy of that argument is pointed out in finding 23 above.
Recommendation From the foregoing it is concluded that amendments to Rule 17-2.600 and 17- 2.710, Florida Administrative Code are not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority and that the Economic Impact Statement adequately reflects the economic impact of the rules on the agency, the public, and the regulated community affected by the rule. It is, therefore, ORDERED that MEDX's challenge to Rule 17-2.600 and 17-2.710, Florida Administrative Code be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K.N. AYERS 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 12th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings Included in HO #1 and #2. Included in HO #2. Included in HO #7. Included in HO #1. Included in HO #7. Included in HO #10. Included in HO #11. Rejected as speculation and unreasonable. Accepted. Included in HO #18. Included in HO #19. 12, 13, 14. Included in HO #20. 15, 16. Included in HO #18. Accepted in principle. However, this finding is predicated upon the fact that incomplete combustion will occur when the temperature in the upper chamber is less than 1800 degrees F. Accepted. Included in HO #4. Accepted, but irrelevant to the validity of the Rule. Rejected. The Rule requires monitoring. Included in HO #4. Rejected. 24, 25. Included in HO #4. Included in HO #5. Included in HO #6. Included in HO #7. Same as 20. Same as 20. Same as 20. See HO #27. Same as 20. Accepted. First two sentences accepted. Remainder rejected as mere opinion. Rejected insofar as not included in HO #5, #6 and #9. Same as 20. Same as 20. Rejected. First paragraph accepted; remainder rejected. Rejected insofar as in conflict with HO #4, #5, #6, #7, #14 and #17. Accepted insofar as compatible with HO #22. Same as 20. Accepted as the testimony of Dr. Fishkind; conclusions that EIS inadequate rejected. Rejected as argument. 47-53. Rejected. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings Included in HO #1. Included in HO #2 and #4. Included in HO #8 and #9. Included in HO #6. Included in HO #7. 6, 7. Included in HO #13. Accepted. See HO Conclusion of Law 5. Included in HO #24. Included in HO #25. Included in HO #26. Included in HO #28. Accepted insofar as included in HO #23. Accepted insofar as included in HO #22 and #23. Accepted insofar as included in HO #23, #27 and #28; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Accepted, but irrelevant to validity of Rule. Included in HO Conclusion of Law 5. Included in HO #16, #21, #27 and #28. Rejected as argument. Included in HO #23. Same as 16. Included in HO #17 and #22. Included in HO #14 and #17. Accepted. Accepted insofar as included in HO #14; otherwise rejected as argument. Rejected as argument. Accepted insofar as included in HO #17, #22 and #23. Included in HO #15. Included in HO #12; otherwise rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul H. Amundson, Esquire Julie Gallagher, Esquire 204 B South Monroe Street Tallahassee FL 32301 Chris McGuire, Esquire Betsy Hewitt, Esquire Suite 654 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 William D. Preston, Esquire Laura B. Pearce, Esquire 123 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carroll Webb Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300 Liz Cloud Chief Bureau of Administrative Code Room 1802, The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the land development regulation adopted by Respondent, Town of Medley (Town), by Ordinance No. C-306 on September 6, 2005, is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (Plan).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record presented by the parties, the following undisputed findings of fact are determined: The Town appears on a map to be located in the northern part of Dade County, south of U.S. Highway 27 and east of the Florida Turnpike, and just south of the City of Hialeah Gardens and southwest of the City of Hialeah. Besides a Plan originally adopted in December 1988, and amended from time to time, the Town also has a Code containing its land development regulations. Waste Management owns and operates a landfill in the Town known as the Medley Landfill & Recycling Center located at 9350 Northwest 89th Avenue.4 Because the landfill has been in operation since 1952, or long before the Plan was adopted, the landfill is considered a nonconforming use under Section 62-61 of the Town's Code. On September 6, 2005, the Town adopted Ordinance C- 306 which amended Section 62-61 of the Code to create a new procedure for allowing the expansion of qualifying facilities operating as nonconforming uses. (Except for Section 62-61, which is found in the Town's land development regulations, there are no provisions in the Plan itself relating to nonconforming uses.) Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, Subsection 62-61(b) provided the following limitation on the expansion of nonconforming uses: (b) The lawful use of land existing at the time of the passage of this chapter, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this chapter may be continued; provided, however, that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor shall any nonconforming use be extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the passage of this chapter. Ordinance C-306 amended Subsection 62-61(b) as follows to allow for an exception to the rule against enlargement or expansion of nonconforming uses: (b) The lawful use of land existing at the time of the passage of this chapter, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this chapter, may be continued; provided, however, that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased except as provided in subsection (d) hereof, nor shall any nonconforming use be extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the passage of this chapter. To implement the exception against enlargement or expansion of nonconforming uses, the Ordinance further amended Section 62-61 by adding a new Subsection (d) to read as follows: (d) Any nonconforming use which serves as a Public Facility may be enlarged up to fifteen percent of the current building and/or land area of such use after formal approval by the Town Council via resolution according to the Municipal Code of Medley, Florida. Before approving such enlargement or increase the Town Council shall conduct at least two public hearings. The basis for calculation of such enlargement or increase shall exclude buildings and/or land areas not currently operating as a Public facility, though contiguous thereto. The new provision allows any nonconforming use which serves as a Public Facility to be enlarged or increased up to fifteen percent of its current building or land areas after formal approval by the Town Council by resolution. Because the Code did not define the term "Public Facilities," Ordinance C-306 amended Section 62-1 (the definitions portion of the Code) by adding a new Subsection (a), which reads as follows: "Public facilities" means major capital improvements, including, but not limited to, transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational, and health systems and facilities. As is evident from a reading of the definition, the term "public facilities" is not limited to solid waste facilities, but it also includes seven other types of public facilities. Gateway is the owner of real property commonly known as Medley Commerce Center, which is located in the Town immediately adjacent to and north of Waste Management's landfill. On October 6, 2005, Gateway filed a Petition with the Town alleging that the Ordinance was not consistent with the Plan in various respects. The Town did not respond to Gateway's Petition within thirty days after receipt of the Petition. Because no response was made by the Town, on November 7, 2005, Gateway filed a Petition with the Department requesting that the Department declare the Ordinance inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (Plan). See § 163.3213(3), Fla. Stat. The Petition referred to a Complaint filed in a circuit court case, Town of Medley v. Waste Management Inc. of Florida, Case No. 03-25832 CA 13, as stating the reasons for inconsistency. Although a copy of the Complaint was not attached to its Petition, Gateway later supplied the Department with a copy. After conducting an informal hearing on December 7, 2005, on February 21, 2006, the Department issued its Determination. In general terms, the Determination concluded that the concerns in Gateway's Petition should more appropriately be raised in a circuit court action under a different provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, through a challenge to any development order or approval that authorizes the expansion of a nonconforming public facility. See Determination, paragraph 17. On March 15, 2006, Gateway filed its Request with DOAH contending generally that the Ordinance was inconsistent with the Plan and that the Department had used the wrong legal standard in determining that the Ordinance was consistent with the Plan. The City, which appears on a map to lie directly south of the Town, shares a border with the Town in the area of Waste Management's landfill property. On February 9, 2006, the City filed a Petition with the Town seeking to have the Town declare that the Ordinance was inconsistent with its Plan. The Petition raised the same issues as did Gateway. On March 2, 2006, the Town provided a response to the Petition by asserting that the claim was barred by collateral estoppel due to the Department's Determination issued on February 21, 2006. The City then waived its right to have the Department conduct informal proceedings under Section 163.3213(4), Florida Statutes, and filed a Motion to Intervene and Incorporated Petition with DOAH on April 27, 2006. Although the City sought to intervene in Case No. 06-0918GM, the filing was treated as a new filing under Section 163.3213(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was assigned Case No. 06- 1548GM, and was consolidated with Gateway's case. Except for one additional consistency claim, discussed below, the filing raises the same issues as did Gateway. The purpose of Ordinance C-306, as expressed in Section 2 thereof, is as follows: PURPOSE: The limited increase or enlargement of nonconforming uses allowed by this ordinance is intended to further the goals, objectives and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan found in the Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Element as well as the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The Plan's Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Element (Element) in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) identifies as its primary (and only) goal the "[p]rovision of needed public facilities in a manner that protects public and private investments in existing facilities and promotes compact urban growth." (Vol. IV, Record, page 603). Objective 1 of the same Element provides that an aim of the Plan is the "[p]rovision of sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable water facilities and services to meet existing and projected demands identified in this Plan." Id. Policy 1.2 also indicates that the Town is to "[i]mplement procedures to ensure that adequate facility capacity is available or will be available at the time a new development permit is issued." Id.
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 97-02-0234 may be recovered from Petitioner 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. Orchard View Development, Limited (Orchard View) is an Ontario, Canada corporation. Its president is William T. Lamsom. Orchard View is now, and has been since approximately two to six months prior to the incident which is the subject of this proceeding, the owner of a triangular, three-quarter acre parcel of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Parcel or the Parcel) located on the fringe of a Boca Raton, Florida residential neighborhood. There are children in the neighborhood who pass by the Parcel on their way to and from school. City streets border Orchard View's Parcel on all sides. Across one of these streets is a creek. Orchard View owns an additional 78 acres of undeveloped land (Orchard View's Acreage or the Acreage) to the north of its Parcel. Only a street separates the Acreage from the Parcel. Orchard View first acquired the Acreage in approximately 1975 and sold it about 14 or 15 years later. During this 14 or 15-year period, the Acreage was used by others, without Orchard View's approval or authorization, as a dumping ground. Numerous items, including boats, automobiles, tires, baby carriages, mattresses and landscaping material, were left abandoned on the property. Steps taken by Orchard View (which was well aware of the problem) to deter such dumping, including posting "no trespassing" signs on the property and erecting a 10-foot dirt barrier on one side of the property, were ineffective. Orchard View also complained to the police about the problem, but the making of these complaints did not result in an amelioration of the situation. Orchard View reacquired the Acreage at approximately the same time it acquired the Parcel. Since Orchard View's reacquisition of the Acreage, unauthorized persons have driven their all-terrain vehicles on the property without the approval or authorization of Orchard View, notwithstanding the "no trespassing" signs on the property. Although aware of the dumping problems in the area, Orchard View has not, at any time after its acquisition of the Parcel, posted "no trespassing" signs on the Parcel or erected a fence or other barrier around the Parcel, nor has it taken any other measure designed to discourage or prevent dumping on the Parcel. On June 9, 1997, at 11:10 a.m., the Department was notified by Lieutenant John Johnson of the Boca Raton Fire Department that four drums, which were labelled “poison and toxic,” had been discovered on the Parcel. The drums did not belong to Orchard View. They had been dumped on the Parcel by some person or persons not associated with Orchard View without Orchard View's knowledge, approval or authorization. Catherine Porthouse, an Environmental Specialist II with the Department, promptly responded to the scene (where she met Lieutenant Johnson) and served as the Department's on-scene coordinator. Because the drums were labelled “poison and toxic” and their contents were unknown, Lieutenant Johnson would not allow anyone, including Porthouse, to approach the drums without "Level B" protective clothing and equipment. Porthouse therefore initially viewed the drums from a distance using binoculars. She noted that three of the drums were leaking and that there was stained soil in the area of the drums. She also saw other solid waste materials nearby. Porthouse learned that Orchard View was the owner of the property on which the drums were located. At 12:49 p.m. on June 9, 1997, Porthouse telephoned Lamson and advised him that the drums were on the Parcel and that they needed to be removed by an "emergency response contractor." When informed about the presence of the drums on the Parcel, Lamson was not surprised. He realized (as he testified at hearing) that the area was "a good dumping ground." Lamson told Porthouse that he would ask his son, a general contractor who lived and worked near the Parcel, to remove the drums. Porthouse, however, explained to Lamson that the removal of the drums needed to be done by someone qualified, under state and federal law, to handle and transport hazardous substances. Lamson thereupon asked Porthouse to provide him with a list of "emergency response contractors" qualified to remove the drums. Porthouse gave Lamson her office and cellular phone numbers and asked him to call her back within no more than three hours to update her on his efforts to hire an "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums. Following Porthouse's telephone conversation with Lamson, the Department faxed to Lamson the list of qualified contractors Lamson had requested during the telephone conversation. After speaking with Porthouse, Lamson attempted to telephone his son. Lamson's son was not in, so Lamson left a message on his son's answering machine telling his son about his telephone conversation with Porthouse concerning the abandoned drums on the Parcel. In his message, Lamson asked that his son look into the matter. Neither Lamson, nor his son, made any arrangements for a qualified "emergency response contractor" to remove the drums from the Parcel; nor did either of them contact Porthouse and advise her that such arrangements had been made or would soon be made. Accordingly, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on June 9, 1997, after having waited over three hours for Lamson to provide her with such information, Porthouse hired Magnum Environmental Services (Magnum), a qualified "emergency response contractor" with whom the Department had a contract, to properly dispose of the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as the stained soil, on the Parcel. Magnum personnel (with "Level B" protective clothing and equipment) responded to the scene shortly thereafter. By approximately 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. that day (June 9, 1997), Magnum personnel had overpacked, removed from the Parcel and taken to an off-site hazardous waste storage facility the four abandoned drums (and their contents), as well as a fifth drum which contained the stained soil from the site (which Magnum had excavated). Before it had overpacked the drums and removed them from the Parcel, Magnum had examined and sampled the contents of each drum. The samples that Magnum had collected from the drums were sent to the laboratory for analysis. The analysis revealed the following: drum number 11 contained oil, barium, lead and toluene and had a flashpoint of less than 100 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 2 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 3 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium and lead, and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 4 contained oil mixed with water, as well as barium, lead and chromium, and had of flashpoint of over 200 degrees Fahrenheit; drum number 5 contained the soil that had been contaminated by spillage from drum numbers 2, 3 and 4 and had of flashpoint of between 101 and 139 degrees Fahrenheit. Magnum properly disposed of the drums based upon the results of its analysis. The Department paid Magnum $6,135.00 from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the services Magnum performed. In requesting Magnum to perform these services and in paying Magnum $6,135.00 for having done so, the Department acted reasonably and prudently. The amount it paid Magnum was not excessive.2 The Department reasonably incurred other expenses (also paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund) totaling $390.13 in connection with its response to the report it had received concerning the abandonment of the four drums on the Parcel. The total amount the Department paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund to have these abandoned drums properly removed from the Parcel and disposed of was $6,525.13. The Department is requesting that Orchard View reimburse the Department for these costs.
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 Orchard View, pursuant to Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, the $6,525.13 in costs it reasonably incurred in connection with its response to Incident Number 97-02-0234. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th 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 15th day of June, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent Occidental Chemical Agricultural Products, Inc.'s application for approval of its "Conceptual Reclamation Plan" for the Swift Creek (phosphate) Mine has been approved by operation of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes (1983), based on Respondent, Department of Natural Resources alleged failure to approve or deny the application within 90 days after receipt of timely requested additional information.
Findings Of Fact On October 7, 1981, Occidental filed with DNR an application for approval of its conceptual reclamation plan for its Swift Creek Mine located in Hamilton County, Florida. (DNR Exhibit #1) On November 5, 1981, within 30 days of receipt of the application, DNR sent Occidental a request for additional information. On February 23, 1983, Occidental filed and DNR received Occidental's responses to this request for additional information. (DNR Exhibit Nos. 2, 7) On March 21, 1983, within 30 days of DNR's receipt of Occidental's response to DNR's first request, DNR sent Occidental a second request for additional information. On May 12, 1983, Occidental filed and DNR received Occidental's response to DNR's second request. (DNR Exhibit Nos. 8, 9) On June 14, 1983, 33 days after receiving Occidental's response to its second request, DNR sent Occidental a third request for additional information. On August 19, 1983, Occidental mailed its response to DNR's third request. The response, received by DNR on August 22, 1983, was accompanied by a letter asserting that Occidental's application was deemed approved by operation of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, in that DNR had failed to approve or deny the application within 90 days of May 12, 1983--the date DNR received Occidental's response to its second request for additional information. (DNR Exhibit Nos. 10, 11, 12) By letter dated September 26, 1983, DNR notified Occidental that the application "was complete as of August 22, 1983, and that "[t]he 90-day [application] review period began on August 23, 1983." (DNR Exhibit No. 13) On three subsequent occasions, DNR sought 30-day extensions of the 90- day review period. Each time, Occidental agreed to the extension, but reserved any right it might have to a default permit, first asserted in its August 19, 1983 transmittal letter. The last extension requested by DNR was granted by Occidental in December of 1983. (DNR Exhibit Nos. 16, 17, 20) During this extended [application] permit review period, Occidental submitted several revisions of its application documents to DNR in response to criticism and suggestions by permitting officials in DNR's Bureau of Mine Reclamation. On October 14, 1983, Occidental submitted a revised "Pre-mining Drainage Pattern Maps" and asked that it be substituted for maps previously submitted in connection with the pending application. On November 14, 1983, Occidental submitted revisions or additions to Part II, Items 4, 5 and 6, of the application. (DNR Exhibit Nos. 15, 19) DNR never sought a renewal of the 90-day application review period on grounds that Occidental had substantially modified or revised its application. Neither did it recant its earlier notice that the application was complete and that the 90-day period (for grant or denial of the application) began on August 23, 1983. On March 20, 1984, DNR presented Occidental's application to the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as agency head, and the application was approved with conditions. On April 3, 1983, Petitioner filed its petition for hearing, resulting in this proceeding. II Petitioner and DNR contend that the statutory 90-day time-clock for granting or denying Occidental's application never began to run because several of the items timely requested by DNR (within 30 days of receipt of the application) were never submitted. Occidental counters that its February 23, 1983, response to DNR's first (admittedly timely) request for additional information was both adequate and complete; that the 90-day period thus began to run on February 24, 1983; and that a default permit was granted by operation of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, because DNR failed to grant or deny the application within 90 days--on or before May 25, 1983. Occidental's contention is sustained by the greater weight of the evidence. In support of their position, DNR and Petitioner contend that additional information requested on November 5, 1981 (concerning Part I, Item 6; Part II, Items 3, 4 and 6; and Part III, Items 4, 5 and 8 of the application), were never submitted though DNR did not notify Occidental of this assertion until hearing on August 30, 1985; and the assertion is not consistent with DNR's September 26, 1983 notice that the application was "complete." The information requested and received is described below. Part II, Items 3 and 4. These application items elicit information on water bodies, and surface drainage patterns for affected lands and 1/4 mile beyond, as such lands existed prior to phosphate mining and would exist after reclamation. In its application, Occidental (on pp. 9 and 10) provided information based on State of Florida reports, U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps and personal inspection. In response to DNR's first request for more information on items 3 and 4, Occidental stated that the information initially submitted was correct, and provided extensive additional information on these subjects including maps showing drainage patterns before mining and after reclamation. Notably, DNR neither sought further clarification of Occidental's response in its subsequent requests for additional information, nor advised DNR that the response was deficient. (DNR Exhibit Nos. 1,7) Part II, Item 6. Part II, Item 6 of the application requires a description of endangered or threatened species and their habitat, and a description of planned restoration. Occidental's initial submittal stated that according to a Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission ("Commission") publication, the mine area did not include critical habitat for any endangered or threatened species. Occidental also listed possible species with historic range in the area and described how the planned reclamation would benefit these species. In its first request for additional information, DNR (by check-off- sheet) seemingly disregarded Occidental's submittal and restated the requirement of Part I, Item 6. It noted that Occidental should describe the critical habitats though Occidental had already stated that there was no critical habitat in the mine area. In its response to DNR's first request, Occidental stated simply that the information initially submitted on this item was correct; given its initial submittal, this was a reasonable response to DNR's first request. In its second request for further information, DNR did not ask for clarification or additional information on this item. (However, in its third request, DNR referred to an April 5, 1983, letter from the Commission addressing concerns about endangered plant and animal species, to which Occidental provided a detailed response in the August 22, 1983 submittal. (DNR Exhibit Nos. 2,7,10,12) Part III, Items 4 and 5. These application items seek maps depicting land uses, water bodies, and surface drainage patterns for affected lands and 1/4 mile beyond, both before mining and after reclamation. The requested maps were submitted as part of Occidental's original application. In its first request for additional information, DNR again sought maps for surface drainage patterns and demarcation of watershed boundaries. Occidental provided the additional maps requested. (In its second request for additional information, as to Item 4, DNR suggested the plan should be revised to eliminate drainage pattern changes. Alternatively, DNR asked for an explanation as to why the changes must occur. As to Item 5, DNR sought a revision to the conceptual plan. In this and subsequent requests, DNR did not notify Occidental that the maps were deficient. Rather, the thrust of its criticism was directed at the change drainage patterns depicted by the maps.) (DNR Exhibit Nos. 1, pp.17,18,23-30; 7,8) Part III, Item 8. These application items seek a map of the critical habitat for endangered species. Occidental initially indicated that none were present and referred DNR to the Part II, Item 6 discussion. In its first request (much like the request relating to Part II, Item 6), DNR seemingly overlooked or disregarded Occidental's statement that no critical habitats existed in the reclamation area, and asked for a map of the critical habitat. In its response, Occidental simply stated that the information previously submitted on this item was correct. No maps of critical habitat were ever submitted, as it was Occidental's position that no such habitats existed on the site. Given its earlier statement on the application, Occidental's response to DNR's first request was reasonably responsive. DNR was apparently satisfied as it did not again ask for clarification or additional information on this item. (DNR Exhibit Nos. 2,10)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's petition for hearing be DISMISSED and that DNR APPROVE Occidental's application for approval of its conceptual reclamation plan for the Swift Creek Mine, as the application existed on May 25, 1983. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 18th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-5. Approved. 6-8. Rejected. Mr. Craft's opinion is rebutted by examination of the actual requests and responses. It is also inconsistent with DNR's failure to promptly notify Occidental that its February 23, 1983 response was deficient, and its September 26, 1983 notice that the application was "complete" (How could it be complete if the previously requested additional information had not been submitted?). RULINGS ON DNR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Approved. Approved in substance. Rejected as recitation of testimony--not a proposed finding. The last sentence is not supported by the evidence. 4-5. Rejected as argument and as unsupported by the evidence. See, paragraphs 6-8, infra. 6. Rejected as argument. Further Mr. Craft's opinions are implicitly contradicted by DNR's September 26, 1983 notice to Occidental that the application was "completed as of August 22, 1983." RULINGS ON OCCIDENTAL'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1-9. Approved in substance; however, DNR received the application on October 7, 1981, not October 6, 1981. (TR. p.12) 10. Modified to more accurately reflect the letter's statement concerning default. 11-20. Approved in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: SEGUNDO J. FERNANDEZ, ESQUIRE 2700 BLAIRSTONE ROAD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 J. ALAN COX, ESQUIRE 219 SOUTH CALHOUN STREET, SUITE 107 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 SPIRO T. KYPREOS, ESQUIRE 3900 COMMONWEALTH BOULEVARD SUITE 1003 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303 ROY C. YOUNG, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 1833 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303
Findings Of Fact The Department (DER) is the regulatory agency of Florida charged with the duty and authority to administer and enforce Chapter 403 and Sections 376.30-376.319, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Hendry is a Florida corporation that has been conducting business in excess of 60 years. The two main aspects of its business are the dredging operation and the shipyard. Hendry's site can be loosely described as an industrial site. The shipyard division performs approximately one-half its work for governmental entities, particularly the U.S. Coast Guard, which operations are largely ship refurbishing. Hendry has a Coast Guard certificate enabling it to receive mixtures containing oil and oily water waste. A significant portion of Hendry's ship refurbishing work involves repairing/replacing steel on ships which has deteriorated due to salt water exposure. That work frequently requires cutting, welding and burning. Prior to commencing the refurbrushing work, the ships must be certified as safe. In certifying a ship as being safe, the bilge area is pumped of used oil or waste oil which collects in standing waste water and oil. Also, before that works commences, the ship is defueled. Currently, Hendry's practice is to subcontract the pumping of waste oil from the ships bilge, which waste oil is pumped directly into the tanker truck of the subcontractor. Hendry no longer pumps or stores waste oil on site. In the past, the waste oil and water from the ship's bilge was pumped from the ship through a pipeline from the dry dock across the property to a 10,000 gallon above-ground storage tank. During December 1987, the U.S. Coast Guard observed a fuel spill on the water at Petitioner's facility. Based on that observation, Respondent conducted site inspections of Petitioner's facility during March and April 1988. The fuel spill was occasioned by Petitioner's refurbishment of a tuna boat at its site. Petitioner subsequently received a warning notice regarding alleged violations in its petroleum storage tanks and contamination. The transfer pipeline is of steel construction. Between 1980 and 1984, the pipeline leaked. In 1984, the pipeline was rerun with PVC line and in 1986, it was refitted with 4 inch steel pipe. The 10,000 gallon above-ground tank is located in Area 1. The removal of waste oil occasionally resulted in accidental spills. After 1985, a smaller, above-ground tank was installed adjacent to the 10,000 gallon tank to provide a storage tank for draining off water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The small tank was used to receive only water drained from the 10,000 gallon tank. Prior to installation of the small tank, a retention pond was used to drain water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The retention pond had a 2 foot berm with a visqueen liner. In October 1988, Hendry submitted an EDI Program Notification Application, a prerequisite for EDI reimbursement eligibility, under the program for costs associated with cleanup of certain petroleum contamination. In May 1989, Hendry submitted a document entitled Preliminary Contamination Assessment III Specific Areas--Task IV Rattlesnake Terminal Facility--Westshore Boulevard, Hillsborough County prepared by Mortensen Engineering, Inc. That document included reports of analysis of oil and groundwater samples taken from the site in January, March and April 1989, demonstrating extensive contamination of soil and groundwater including "free product" in monitoring wells MW-2, MW-4 and MW-4A. By letter dated November 9, 1989, the Department informed Hendry of its determination that the facility had been denied EDI reimbursement based on specific enumerated findings. Hendry entered into a stipulation with the Department on October 16, 1990, "regarding the conduct of this case and the basis for denial. " Attached to the stipulation is a sketch of the facility grounds showing a rough division of the area into four separate areas. Area 1 has two waste tanks. One was a large 10,000 gallon closed tank approximately 20 feet high and 12 feet in diameter; the other contained a volume of approximately 1,500-2,000 gallons and was an open tank. Petitioner's practice was to pump bilge in the dry dock area, located west of "Area 2" and direct the waste through underground pipes to the 10,000 gallon tank. The smaller tank was used to "bleed" water from the larger tank. Bilge waste is approximately two-thirds water. Area 2 was the location of Hendry's diesel tank farm. In the stipulation, the Department agreed to withdraw two of the seven specific grounds for the denial, namely denial of site access and failure to report discharges. Likewise, Hendry agreed to withdraw "Area 4" from its application for EDI eligibility. In the stipulation, Hendry was informed of a then recent amendment to Section 376.3071(9), which offered certain applicants who had been earlier determined ineligible for participation in the EDI program, standards and procedures for obtaining reconsideration of eligibility. The amendment required the facility to come into compliance, certify that compliance and request reconsideration prior to March 31, 1991. Additionally, compliance was to be verified by a Department inspection. Pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the stipulation, these standards and procedures were specifically to be applied to Areas 2 and 3 at the facility. Hendry did not make a written request for reconsideration of the denial of eligibility with respect to Areas 2 and 3 on or before March 31, 1991 or at anytime subsequently. Hendry also did not come into compliance with the underground or above-ground storage tanks system regulations on or before March 31, 1991 in that Hendry failed to register a 560-gallon above-ground diesel storage tank which was onsite on that date as required by Rule 17-762.400, Florida Administrative Code. Hendry also failed to notify the Department of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC), as the administrator of a designated local program at least thirty days prior to closure of the storage tank system, pursuant to Subsection 376.3073, Florida Statutes. These determinations were made on April 1, 1991 by Hector Diaz, inspector in the HCEPC tanks program. Hendry submitted a registration form for the 560-gallon tank on November 18, 1991, which was of course subsequent to the March 31, 1991 deadline. Hendry stored petroleum products and waste material including petroleum constituents in the above-ground tanks until approximately March 25, 1991 when it initiated tank removal. Hendry's above-ground storage tanks, which were in use at its facility for approximately three years after extensive soil contamination was documented, were without secondary containment. In November 1991, Hendry submitted a document entitled Supplemental Preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, prepared by Keifer-Block Environmental Services, Inc. (Supplemental PCAR). The stated purpose of the study was solely to determine whether hazardous constituents were present in groundwater in Areas 2 and 3. The report included laboratory analysis of groundwater samples taken from the site in August 1991 including monitoring wells located in Area 3. The results of these analysis reflect that Area 3 is contaminated solely with heavy metals, lead and chromium. No petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was detected in Area 3. In the area adjacent to Area 2, seven of eight monitoring wells show chromium or lead contamination. Hendry had, and continues to have, a practice of removing paint from vessels by blasting them with a gritty material known as "black beauty." This practice takes place in the dry dock area near Areas 2 and 3. The waste blast grit/paint chip mixture is vacuumed or shoveled into wheelbarrels or a frontend loader and dumped into an open pile. Occasionally, the waste blast grit/paint mixture is blown about or spilled. Waste "black beauty" has been observed scattered on the ground throughout the facility. Paints sometime contain heavy metals, specifically, lead and chromium. The concentrations and distribution of lead and chromium contamination at the site are consistent with Hendry's long-standing practice of grit-- blasting paint from ships and other vessels and allowing the metal-contaminated paint and waste mixture to fall to the ground. Areas 2 and 3 are contaminated with substances other than petroleum or petroleum products, namely heavy metals. Costs associated with cleanup of lead and chromium are not reimburseable under the EDI program. Paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation allowed Hendry an opportunity to establish eligibility for Area 1 by providing information regarding operating practices at two above-ground storage tanks and a retention pond in that area demonstrating that contamination in that area is predominantly from leaks or unintentional spills of petroleum products from the tanks in that area. Hendry did not provide the required information. On January 27, 1992, Hendry submitted to the Department an affidavit executed by its principal, Aaron Hendry, which Hendry contends fulfills the requirements of paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation. Hendry, the principal who executed the affidavit, is an affiant with a legal and financial interest in the outcome of the EDI eligibility determination. The executed affidavit did not contain specific information with respect to "operating practices at the tanks and retention ponds as required by the stipulation." Specifically, the affidavit is silent as to: What the tanks were made of; When, how and by whom they were installed; What piping, leak detection or overfill protection was associated with them; What repairs or alterations had been made to them; What inventory reconciliation methods were used; Where the materials came from which was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was removed from the tanks; Disposition of material removed from the tanks; When, how, by whom and why the retention pond was dug; How and for what period of time the retention pond was used; How, often and by whom inspections of the tanks were conducted; When and how leaks occurred and were discovered at the tanks; When and how spills occurred and were discovered at the tanks; What records, including reports to state or local agencies, insurance claims, newspaper accounts, and so forth were kept with respect to leaks or spills at the tanks; What cleanup efforts were made at the time of any leaks or spills; Documentation related to registration of the tanks with state or local agencies; and Documentation with respect to any removal of the tanks, including any description of the condition of the tanks when, or if, removed. For years, the facility's retention pit was used as a "waste pit" namely, a rectangular hole in the ground, approximately 30 feet by 120 feet by 3 feet, for direct discharge of bilge waste piped from vessels at the dry dock area to the waste pit, prior to installation of the storage tank systems. After installation of the large tank in Area 1, the retention pit was used to bleed water from the bilge tank. In the past, the Department has denied eligibility to facilities where a retention pond was used for disposal of petroleum related waste and cleanup of contamination resulting from use of a retention pond. Hendry's affidavit nor other documentation submitted to the Department prior to the EDI redetermination or at hearing establishes that the bilge waste taken from the storage tanks was "a liquid fuel commodity" or recycled into such a commodity. By letter dated June 9, 1992, the Department notified Hendry that reconsideration of its EDI eligibility request for Areas 2 and 3 was denied and that the affidavit of Aaron Hendry submitted with respect to Area 1 did not satisfy the requirements of the stipulation. Thereafter, Hendry challenged the Department's denial of reconsideration and EDI eligibility which joins the issue for this proceeding. The hazardous waste allegation discovered during an inspection of Hendry's facility on April 14, 1988, resulted in a consent order which was entered as a final order of the Department on November 21, 1990. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to demonstrate that not all areas at the facility were hazardous waste disposal areas and, thus, not all areas would be subject to closure and cleanup under the permitting requirements of Subsection 403.722, Florida Statutes and the remediation standards set forth in Chapter 17-730, Florida Administrative Code. To establish appropriate remediation standards and procedures which would be applicable to various areas, Hendry was required to prepare a property diagram designating areas at the property exhibiting any of the following types of contamination: Areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products or used oil which is not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by materials which are not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by the past or present disposal of hazardous waste. The consent order allows contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code, for areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 11.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the Department's corrective action and groundwater contamination cases for all areas at the facility contaminated by used oil which is not hazardous waste or by hazardous material. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 12.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to a closure permit with a contingent post-closure plan to close the areas at the facility contaminated by the disposal of hazardous waste. In response to the consent order to delineate areas on the property exhibiting various types of contamination, Hendry submitted the supplemental PCAR. By letter dated March 19, 1992, the Department responded to the supplemental PCAR with a determination that: Area 1 can be assessed and remediated through the standards set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code. Contamination in Areas 2 and 3 includes heavy metals, which are hazardous materials. Thus, Areas 2 and 3 should be assessed and remediated through the corrective action process for groundwater contamination cases. A hazardous waste facility closure permit application should be submitted for assessment and remediation of Area 4, which, because of the presence of Dichloroethylene, a hazardous substance and chlorinated solvent, should be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2. Hendry had a practice of cleaning electrical motors by placing such motors on the ground outside the electrical repair shop near Area 4. The motors were sprayed with Trichloroethylene, a waste solvent, which was allowed to runoff into the soil. At the time of this practice, the intention was to leave the solvent contamination unchecked. The Department, pursuant to directives from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), characterizes the disposition of hazardous waste to the environment as a result of intentional, ongoing industrial practices as "disposal of hazardous waste" within the meaning of Subsection 475.703(21), Florida Statutes and 40 CFR 260.10. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to challenge the Department's determination with respect to delineation of the various areas by filing a petition per paragraph 21 of the order for formal administrative hearings. Hendry filed its petition with respect to the March 19, 1992 letter, which petition is the subject of DOAH Case No. 92-2312.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that 1) the contamination areas at issue herein are not eligible for EDI reimbursement under Subsections 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes; 2) that Petitioner cleanup the contamination in Areas 1, 2 and 3 under the guidance document entitled "Corrective Actions for Groundwater Contamination Cases"; and 3) that Area 4 be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2 and closed through a hazardous waste closure/post closure permit application process. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 14, partially adopted in Paragraph 13, Recommended Order. Paragraph 19, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and speculative. Paragraph 20, rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 21, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 24-28, Recommended Order. Paragraph 22, partially adopted, Paragraphs 13 and 14, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, partially adopted, Paragraph 15, Recommended Order. Paragraph 29, partially adopted, Paragraph 18, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 48, 49, 51, 52, 60, 62 and 73 rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 33, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 38, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 41, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and the two cases cited at hearing where Respondent exercises his discretion are distinguishable from Petitioner's failure to timely apply. Paragraph 43, rejected, unnecessary and/or argument. Paragraph 45, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 50, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 37-39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 54, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 55, rejected, not probative. Paragraphs 56 and 57, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 58 and 59, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 23 and 24, Recommended Order. Paragraph 61, rejected, speculative and unnecessary. Paragraph 63, rejected, speculative. Paragraph 67, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 68, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraph 69, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 70, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 72, rejected, irrelevant and not necessary to the issues posed. Paragraph 74, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and unnecessary. Paragraph 75, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 76, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 77, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 78 and 79, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraph 80, rejected, not probative. Rulings in Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 2 and 3, adopted in part, Paragraph 9, Recommended Order. Paragraph 12, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, adopted in part, Paragraph 32, Recommended Order. Paragraph 27, adopted in part, Paragraphs 38 and 39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 30, rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Patka, Esquire Rory C. Ryan, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT 200 South Orange Ave - Suite 2600 Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Agusta P. Posner, Esquire Lisa Duchene, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents should have an administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly maintaining a solid waste management facility without a permit and disposing of solid waste in an area subject to periodic or frequent flooding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background DDD is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its president and sole director is William H. Stanton, Jr. The corporation is engaged in the business of "mobil recycling activities" (reduction recycling services for customers). Mr. Stanton owns a two-acre tract of property located in Section 26, Township 28S, Range 24B, on the northwest corner of Mustang Road and Longhorn Drive, Lakeland, Florida. The property is zoned for heavy industrial uses and was formerly used in some form of phosphate mining operations. The Department is the agency charged with the duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. Based upon a complaint made by a Polk County Health Department employee, on October 8, 2001, a Department enforcement coordinator, Steven G. Morgan, inspected Mr. Stanton's property and observed that Respondents had filled and compacted an approximate 150 foot by 300 foot area of the site with 3 to 5 feet of "wallboard type material," which consisted of "both ground up and large pieces of wallboard." In the middle of the filled area was an additional pile of the same material around 20 to 25 feet high. Petitioner's Exhibits A, D, and E are photographs which provide an accurate representation of the site on the date of the inspection. Based on a visual inspection, but without having the benefit of his own laboratory analysis,2 Mr. Morgan concluded that the material was a solid waste made up of discarded industrial products. Under Department rules, the deposit of solid waste on such a site requires a waste facility management permit from the Department. A check of Department records indicated that Respondents do not hold a permit to operate a solid waste management facility. (DDD does hold a valid air pollution permit for grinding concrete.) During his inspection, Mr. Morgan also observed that the land adjacent to the filled area was wet, had a lower elevation than the compacted area, and contained small pockets of standing water. This was confirmed by photographs received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits D and E. A DDD employee who was present on the site during the inspection indicated that approximately 900 truck loads of the material had been transported to the site from Plant City after Mr. Stanton had "lost" a lease on the property on which the material had previously been placed. This was confirmed by Mr. Stanton who arrived at the site shortly after the inspection began, and who indicated that he intended to use the compacted wallboard as a sub-base (or foundation) for a wallboard recycling facility. A second site inspection by Mr. Morgan conducted on February 5, 2002, confirmed that the conditions (regarding the piles of fill material but not the standing water) at the site were unchanged from those found on October 8, 2001. On that visit, Mr. Morgan observed the site from his automobile but did not walk the property. Two other site visits were made, one on June 19, 2002, by other Department personnel. Except for a photograph (Petitioner's Exhibit C) dated June 19, 2002, which indicates the piles of material were still intact and had not been removed, the results of those inspections are not of record. Shortly after the initial inspection, the Department's Tampa District Office issued a warning letter to Mr. Stanton describing Mr. Morgan's observations and outlining the potential violations. The letter also invited Mr. Stanton to resolve the matter informally and to present a corrective action plan to mitigate the site. When the matter could not be resolved informally, the Department issued its Notice on October 10, 2002, alleging that Respondents had operated a solid waste facility without a permit and had deposited solid waste in an area prone to flooding. Even though the matter was not informally resolved, Mr. Stanton has cooperated with the Department in good faith throughout the regulatory process. The Material on the Site Invoices received in evidence reflect that the source of the deposited material was James Hardie Building Products in Plant City, Florida, and that the material was described on the invoices as "Dry Waste Material," Wet Waste Material," and "Foreign Material." James Hardie Building Products manufactures HardieBoard, which is a one-half to one-inch thick concrete formulated product used in the construction of homes and other buildings, and HardiePipe, which is used in road and bridge construction, culverts, storm sewers, and concrete pipes. The material being deposited was material used in the manufacture of HardieBoard. Mr. Stanton's long-range plans are to grind up, or recycle, the material (after all necessary permits, if any, are obtained) and then sell it to other persons, including cement manufacturing plants in the area, who will then use it for a variety of purposes, including subbase and base material, cement and concrete re-additive, and cement production. HardieBoard (as well as HardiePipe) is a variable mixture of Portland cement, water, fine silica sand, less than 10 percent cellulose (a non-toxic organic material commonly added to such products as ice cream, shampoo, baby diapers, and rayon clothing), and less than 10 percent of inert materials. The cellulose fibers are added to the concrete to avoid cracking and shrinkage and to reduce the weight of the product. Unlike concrete used for driveways and the like, HardiBoard does not have any large aggregate. Disposal of Solid Waste and Clean Debris Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300(1)(a) prohibits the storing, processing, or disposing of solid waste except at a permitted solid waste management facility. In addition, no solid waste may be stored or disposed of "[i]n an area subject to frequent and periodic flooding unless flood protection measures are in place[,]" or "[i]n any natural or artificial body of water including ground water." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.300(2)(d) and (e). These requirements form the basis for the charges in the Notice. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113) defines solid waste in relevant part as "discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from domestic, industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or governmental operations." Section 403.707(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), provides, however, that a permit is not required for "[t]he use of clean debris as fill material in any area." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.220(2)(f). "Clean debris" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(15) as: any solid waste which is virtually inert, which is not a pollution threat to ground water or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. The term includes brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete including embedded pipe or steel. The term "virtually inert" is not defined by statute or rule. However, the parties agree that in order for a material to be "virtually inert," it must have no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater. In addition, if a deposited material releases contaminants into the groundwater thereby posing a threat to human health, it is considered a "threat to [groundwater]" within the meaning of the rule. The rule also provides that the material must not be a fire hazard. Finally, if a material decomposes over time after being used as fill, and releases contaminants into the groundwater, it is not "likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use." Therefore, if a material has no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater, is not a threat to groundwater, is not a fire hazard, and is not likely to decompose over time, it constitutes clean debris and is exempt from the waste management facility permitting requirements. As noted above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.200(15) identifies four materials that are considered to be clean debris: brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete. If a waste product is classified as uncontaminated concrete, it constitutes clean debris and may be used as fill without a permit from the Department. Further, clean debris may be deposited in an area subject to frequent or periodic flooding so long as flood protection measures are taken, or in a natural or artificial body of water so long as other appropriate permits (such as an Environmental Resource Permit) are obtained. Here, the central issue is whether the material deposited on Mr. Stanton's property is solid waste or clean debris. This issue turns on whether the material is virtually inert, is not a pollution threat to groundwater or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. Assuming these criteria are satisfied, the material is exempt from Department permitting requirements for solid wastes. On this issue, the Department contends that the material is not virtually inert and is unlikely to retain its physical and chemical structure. Conversely, Respondents assert that the material is clean debris and falls within the category of uncontaminated concrete. Is the Deposited Material Clean Debris? In determining whether a material is virtually inert, or is a pollution threat to ground or surface waters, two extraction procedures have been sanctioned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to assist in the measurement of the amount of contaminants that will leak from a material: the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP). Under both procedures, the material being tested is ground up into small sand-size particles, mixed with an extraction fluid, and tumbled for 18 hours in a rotary agitator while the liquid solution extracts various metals that are found in the solids. The extracted liquid solution is then filtered and analyzed to determine the concentration of metals actually leached from the solids. Under state water drinking standards found in Table 1 of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-550, the maximum contaminant levels for chromium and barium (stated in milligrams per liter (mg/L)) are 0.1 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively. In reaching its conclusion that the fill material is a solid waste, the Department relied principally on certain tests of the material run by various laboratories between 1998 and 2000, which showed that the amount of chromium and barium leaking out of the product exceeded the State drinking water standards. See Petitioner's Exhibits K, L, M, and O. However, in every one of those tests, the laboratories used the TCLP, rather than the SPLC, which produced a worst case scenario. For the reasons stated below, the TCLP is not the appropriate procedure to be used for this purpose. The TCLP is the more aggressive of the two procedures, uses a much harsher solution than the SPLC, and generally leaches higher concentrations of metals. However, its principal purpose is to determine whether a material should be classified as a hazardous waste based on its leaching properties or characteristics. Using it to predict whether a material will leach into ground water is inappropriate because it will "leach things out in the laboratory that will never leach in the field." This is because it does not mimic conditions in the field and is "just not supposed to be used for this purpose." Therefore, TCLP leachate values should not be applied to drinking water standards. Conversely, the SPLC uses a less harsh solution during the preparation process, evaluates the potential for leaching metals into ground and surface waters, and is designed to provide a more realistic assessment of metal mobility under actual field conditions. In other words, the SPLC simulates what would happen if the sample were exposed to groundwater and rain to determine if under those conditions metals might leach into the water system below. Therefore, the SPLC is the more appropriate procedure to use here to determine whether the HardieBoard material will leach certain metals into the groundwater at levels that exceed State drinking water standards. Even various Department guidance documents provide that the SPLC (rather than the TCLP) should be used to determine if a material will leach metals into the ground water. See Respondents' Exhibits M, N, and O. Respondents' witness Foster collected three samples of HardieBoard deposited by Respondents at another site and submitted them to PPB Environmental Laboratories, Inc., in Gainesville, Florida, for a clinical analysis using the SPLC test. Those results, which have been accepted as being reliable,3 indicate that none of the leachate concentrations for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver exceed (or even approach) the drinking water standards. Therefore, the material is virtually inert, and the groundwater quality will not be adversely impacted by use of this material as fill. The parties agree that the material is not a fire hazard. Prior to depositing the material, Mr. Stanton used a commercial waste reduction machine (a Smorcazy Bandit Beast 3680 Horizontal Trough Grinder) to grind or pulverize some of the material into fine particles. As noted earlier, a small amount of cellulose fibers are added to the product during the manufacturing process. The Department contends that after the grinding process occurs, these fibers will separate from the remaining fine particles and dissolve into the ground water. Because of this separation, the Department asserts that the material does not retain its physical or chemical structure after being deposited onto the property. Although cellulose fibers are added to the product during its preparation to strengthen the material (and have been added by cement manufacturers since the 1920s), they are distributed throughout the matrix in the material. This means that the fibers become "part and parcel of the mixture" and will not deteriorate, fall out, or leach out of the material even after routine grinding processes, such as that done by Respondents. As such, the cellulose is not biodegradable, and there is no concern that the cellulose will dissolve into the groundwater. Indeed, HardiePipe, which is used in the construction of culverts, storm sewers, and drainage pipes and has essentially the same constituents as HardieBoard, was approved by the Florida Department of Transportation in 2001 for use on State road and bridge projects. Therefore, it is found that the fill material will retain its physical and chemical structure after being deposited onto the ground. Expert testimony by Dr. McClellan established that the material meets the general definition of concrete, and because it is uncontaminated, it should properly be classified as uncontaminated concrete. As such, the material is clean debris and is not subject to the Department's solid waste management permitting requirements. Finally, the Department points out that the compressive strength (measured in pounds per square inch (PSI)) is much greater for concrete used in driveways than for HardiBoard (2500 PSI versus 20 to 30 PSI), and therefore Hardiboard is not a true concrete product. While the PSI values are indeed substantially different, the load bearing ratio or compressive strength of the material does not determine whether a material falls within the generic category of concrete. Water Issues As noted above, if a material is classified as clean debris, it may be deposited into an area prone to flooding or in a natural or artificial body of water, including groundwater (subject, of course, to other unrelated requirements or safeguards). There is no evidence that the filling occurred in a "natural or artificial water body," or directly into the groundwater. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that in October 2001, the ground next to the filled area had small pockets of standing water measuring no more than a few inches deep. However, when the inspection was made, and the photographs taken, Polk County was experiencing rather heavy rainfall, presumably due to the El Nino phenomenon. Whether these conditions (pockets of standing water) exist on the property only during the rainy season is not of record. Further, prior to the filling, Mr. Stanton contacted both the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the United States Geodetic Survey and he asserted, without contradiction, that neither agency indicated that his property was prone to flooding. In any event, even assuming that the area is subject to "frequent and periodic flooding," the permit requirements or other necessary safeguards, if any, associated with filling clean debris in such an area are not the subject of this proceeding. Investigative Costs A Department representative spent 66 hours investigating this matter for the Department. At a then-hourly rate of $18.54, this totals $1,223.64 in investigative costs. The reasonableness of this amount was not disputed by Respondents.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner has standing to bring this action and, therefore, whether the Intervenor has standing; whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances of its entitlement to a construction permit for the facility; whether the applicant is precluded from availing itself of a separate biohazardous waste storage general permit through notification to the Department; whether the Petitioner is entitled to challenge the notice requirements of the general permit; and whether the facility to be permitted should be characterized as a biological waste incineration facility or a biohazardous waste treatment facility.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners ("County"), is the governing body of Hamilton County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The operation of the political subdivision of Hamilton County is conducted by and through its duly-elected Board of County Commissioners. The County conducts a variety of official functions, including but not limited to, the levy and collection of taxes, construction and maintenance of county-owned buildings, roads, bridges and other facilities, the funding and maintenance of county recreational parks and related facilities, and the funding and operation of county health and welfare programs, as well as the regulation and disposal of solid waste and sewage. TSI is a Florida corporation organized to specialize in the construction and operation of incineration facilities, including biohazardous waste incineration facilities. The project sub judice is the first incinerator facility proposed for construction by TSI. The corporation and its directors, officers or operational personnel have not participated in the construction or operation of any type of incinerator facility in the past. DER is an agency of state government charged with the responsibility of regulating the quantity and quality of emissions from facilities such as the incinerators involved in the case at bar, and with reviewing applications for permits for the construction and operation of air pollution source facilities, including incinerators, as well as biohazardous waste disposal and treatment facilities and solid waste resource recovery and management facilities. Its reviewing responsibility is performed by weighing such permit applications against the yardsticks set forth in Chapter 403, Florida Statutues, and Rule Chapters 17-2, 17-4, 17-6, 17-701 and 17-712, F.A.C., which it employs to determine, among other parameters, whether a particular air pollution source facility can be reasonably assured to comport with the standards embodied in those rule chapters. The Intervenor, City of Jasper ("Jasper"), is a municipality located within Hamilton County, Florida. The Jasper Industrial Park is the site of the proposed biohazardous waste incinceration facility. That site is within the city limits of Jasper. Description of Facility and Process Incineration is the most commonly used procedure for treating medical waste. The combustion of waste is especially appropriate for hospital "redbag" waste, also known as medical waste. The combustion of medical waste destroys pathogens infectious materials and spores. TSI proposes to burn medical waste in two Basic Model 3500 biohazardous waste incinerators. The incinerators will be enclosed within a large building at the Jasper Industrial Park in Jasper, Florida. Each has a charging capacity of 35 tons per 24-hour day. The proper incineration of medical waste requires a residence time of one second in a secondary chamber, having a temperature of at least 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. These time and temperature requirements will be achieved by the proposed Basic incinerator. The incinerator's loading door will not open until the secondary chamber temperature reaches 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Unlike other systems, the patented Basic incinerator system has three combustion zones in the incinerator, the main chamber, the secondary chamber, and the tertiary chamber. By means of these three stages, the Basic incinerator minimizes emissions of hydrocarbons, CO and nitrogen oxide. It is characterized by a "ram feeder" which allows the waste material to enter the incinerator through an air lock so as not to disturb control of the air within the furnace. It also has a "mechanical pulse hearth" which moves and tosses the burning material while moving it through the incinerator, shaking it up, much like logs in a fireplace. It thus mixes the waste material in the air for more complete combustion. Finally, a backhoe-type device digs the ashes out of the ash pit for disposal after combustion. The third stage of the Basic incinerator changes vapors coming from the main chamber to superheated gas. The "thermal exciters" in the third stage increase turbulence and mixing in this upper zone. With the addition of air in this third stage of burning, the gas burns like natural gas, thereby completely destroying the products of incomplete combustion from the previous stages. The gas will have a residence time of at least one second in the last combustion chamber, at no less than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, as required by Rule 17- 2.600(1)(d)4.A., F.A.C. The Basic incinerator is designed with an air lock door which prevents it from opening until the chamber temperature reaches the required 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. This insures more complete combustion of waste and insures that the ignition of waste does not commence until the last combustion chamber temperature requirement of Rule 17-2.600(1)(d)4.D., F.A.C., is attained. After the tertiary stage, the gases resulting from combustion go to a heat recovery boiler system incorporating a heat exchanger involving water- filled tubes. The superheated gas flows past these heat exchanger tubes which reduce the gas temperature to approximately 250 degrees Fahrenheit. This serves to start condensing the HCL acid gas so that it will be amenable to reduction and conversion by the injection of finely-powdered lime on the way to the "baghouse" scrubber device. Additionally, at this stage, a portion of the superheated gases are recirculated to the combustion chamber for further exposure to combustion temperatures in order to achieve optimum burnout of all combustible materials. When the superheated gases reach the boiler-heat recovery, steam- generating device, they are at approximately 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. In part, they consist of metallurgical fumes containing salts, oxides, heavy metals, leads and zincs. In order to prevent these salts from clogging the boiler, the cooling device reduces their temperature so that the oxides and metals form powders. Then if any of the resultant powder adheres to the boiler tubes, conventional coal-blowing equipment blows the resulting powders on through the boiler to the emission control device or "baghouse". This, in turn, maintains the temperature reduction efficiency of the boiler heat exchanger. Because of the various combustion stages or chambers incorporated in the incinerator, as well as the heat exchanger and gas recirculation feature, the Basic incinerator prevents burning particulate particles from entering the baghouse and burning holes in the Gortex filter bags. This, of course, insures optimum emission control efficiency. After the combustion gases exit the heat exchanger-boiler device, their temperature has been reduced to approximately 250 degrees Fahrenheit. Lime is injected at this point, which reacts with the HCL acid gas and neutralizes it in part; the reaction occurring as the gas flows toward the baghouse, with the reaction being completed on the surface of the Gortex bags of the baghouse, as the lime collects thereon. The County does not contest that the Basic Model 3500 incinerator, as proposed, will perform in a manner that will satisfy most of the criteria set forth in Rule 17-2.600(1)(d), F.A.C. It will achieve approximately 95% burnout in the combustion chambers. Mr. Cross, the County's expert witness, was concerned that DER had no criteria for a standard of "burnout" of the bottom ash. In fact, DER interprets the term "complete combustion" (in the above Rule), as requiring ash burnout of approximately 95%. The Basic incinerator will achieve 95% burnout. The high rate of burnout is achieved both by the multiple combustion chambers and the use of the moving pulse hearth which constantly shakes or stirs the burning material, ending with chains suspended at the end of the pulse hearth to impede bulky waste materials from exiting the combustion chamber before they are completely combusted. Odor is controlled, in accordance with Rule 17- 2.600(1)(a)2., F.A.C., by using air for combustion purposes which is drawn by blowers from the storage area of the untreated waste. The combustion blowers pull air from the waste storage area into the incineration system. The best means of odor control is by burning, which this incinerator will achieve. The County agrees that CO emissions from the incinerators will not exceed 100 parts per million by volume, dry basis, corrected to 7% 02, on an hourly average basis. Thus, CO will be within acceptable regulatory limits and is not at issue in this proceeding. Pursuant to stipulation, the only emissions at issue with regard to the proposed facility and permit are visible emissions, particulate matter and hydrochloric acid (HCL). Particulate matter consists of finely divided solids or liquid, and the hydrochloric acid is formed when chlorinated plastics are burned. Emissions are reduced in two ways. First, emissions from the stack of the incinerator will be diluted by ambient air which dilution increases as the stack height above ground increases. Airborne emissions are also reduced by directing combustion gases through pollution control equipment before they exit the stack. The pollution control equipment proposed for the incinerators at issue is an acid gas, dry lime scrubber baghouse, with dry lime injection. The incinerator facility cannot meet particulate and hydrochloric acid standards without the addition of a pollution control device, such as a dry lime scrubber baghouse. The baghouse is the best available technology for controlling particulates and hydrochloric acid, as well as controlling metals emissions. The baghouse works much like a vacuum cleaner with a vacuum cleaner bag to trap particulate matter. Baghouses have been in use since 1970, and the technology has been scientifically demonstrated and accepted. The proposed baghouse would consist of a multiple number of bags in excess of ten feet long. They are made of fiberglass, coated with Gortex, a permeable membrane material. They have an air to cloth ratio of 3 to 1. The Gortex bags are capable of trapping 99.5% of particles in the range of 1/10th of a micron in diameter. They are, thus, capable of trapping cigarette smoke, for instance, and are resistant to acids, certain alkalines, and temperatures up to 500 degrees Fahrenheit. The bags are wrapped around a wire cage and attached to a steel plate, anchoring them to the flues, which conduct the gases to them. All of the flue gases enter the baghouse and go through the bags and then exhaust to the atmosphere through the stack. The bags, thus, trap most particulate matter and metals. Additionally, lime will be injected into the flue gas stream for acid control before the flue gases reach the bags. The lime dust, a base, reacts with HCL, an acid, to produce calcium salts, which are PH neutral. The dry lime will be conducted from a silo or other means of storage in the form of fine dust or talc which enters a metering hopper so that the amount of lime injected into the system can be controlled. The lime is injected immediately after the gases are condensed and cooled to a 250 degree Fahrenheit level. This causes optimum reaction of the acid gases with the lime which then travel together to the bags. The Gortex bags are coated by the lime dust which further enhances the HCL removal reaction. Because of the recirculation of the superheated gases and the cooling of them through the heat exchanger device, it is very unlikely that any sparks or embers from the incinerator chambers will land on the bags to burn holes in them and, thus, reduce their efficiency. This is an inherent advantage of the design of the Basic incinerator when used with the Gortex' baghouse scrubber. There is a biohazardous waste incineration facility in operation at Stroud, Oklahoma. It uses a Basic incinerator also employing an acid gas, dry lime scrubber baghouse, in essence like the one proposed here. That incinerator has been tested for visible emissions, particulate matter emissions, and HCL emissions. The tests occurred while the incinerator was actually combusting twice the amount of medical waste proposed for the proposed incineratcrs. The visible emissions test at that facility resulted in an opacity of less than 5% (visible emissions). The PM test resulted in 0.014 grains per dry standard cubic foot. HCL emissions from the incinerator were tested at 43.6ppm (parts per million). The Stroud system thus achieved a 97.2% removal of HCL. A medical waste incineration facility is located at Fairfax, Virginia, which uses a baghouse and lime injection system. The Fairfax facility test results also establish that a baghouse lime injection system reduced particulate matter and HCL emissions to below the Florida standards. Experts testifying on behalf of both the applicant and the County agree that the design characteristics and pollution control capabilities of various lime injection systems and baghouses differ markedly. Certain baghouse designs would not be appropriate for the pollution control application at issue. The County's expert noted that the method of lime injection is a critical component of overall HCL control. Certain baghouses incorporate intermittent lime injection systems which are effective for protecting the individual baghouse components, but inappropriate for HCL removal purposes. The applicant's expert, Mr. Basic, also recognized the importance of the type of lime injection system involved. Various baghouse manufacturers inject lime at differing points within the system; and certain injection applications are, in his opinion, inappropriate for effective HCL control. Temperature is a critical factor in the effectiveness of the lime injection procedure in neutralizing the acid gases (HCL). The method proposed by the applicant of cooling the gases to approximately the range of 250 degrees Fahrenheit before injection of the lime has been shown to be effective in neutralizing the HCL gases at issue, when coupled with the Gortex-laminated, fiberglass bags upon which further neutralization will occur as the dry lime powder is deposited thereon and the gas passed through it. The baghouse cleaning system is also a component of major importance. Baghouse cleaning involves the removal of calcium chloride particulate buildup from the surface of the filter bags. They eventually become clogged with the precipitate, reducing the systems effectiveness unless they are periodically cleaned. Baghouses can be cleaned while the incineration system is shut down which is known as "off-line cleaning". They can also be cleaned during operation by "on-line cleaning". "Pulse-jet" cleaning involves taking a portion of the bags off line with a damper system bypassing the flue gases to other bags which remain in operation. The bags taken off line are then injected with a rapid pulse or pulses of compressed air, thereby removing the calcium chloride cake from the bags. The County's expert opined that pulse-jet cleaning is less effective than off-line cleaning and that it also requires a dedicated air compressor, as air from within the plant may contain moisture, oil or other contaminants, which are inappropriate for injection into the baghouse since they may permanently clog or otherwise harm the bag material. The applicant's expert, Mr. Basic, expressed like concerns regarding the baghouse cleaning system. He testified at length about the characteristics and appropriateness of on-line versus off-line cleaning. He established that off-line cleaning, also knowh as "reverse air" or "reverse jet" cleaning, is the most effective under the situation prevailing in this project and, in essence, agreed with the County's expert on this subject. Reverse air cleaning involves both the incinerator and the air pollution control system being shut down, with air from the blower being blown in reverse through the bags to remove the calcium carbonate residue. Mr. Basic's testimony establishes that a reverse air, off- line cleaning process can maintain the effectiveness of the Gortex- fiberglass filter bags and, thus, assure that emission and ambient air standards are continuously met by the facility. Stack Emissions Modeling of the stack emission results predicted at the facility with the originally-proposed 40-foot stack height was performed by Mr. David Buff, the applicant's expert witness in this regard. The model he employed demonstrated compliance with all ambient air quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-2, F.A.C. There is no ambient air quality standard in the rules at the present time for HCL, however. DER does have a policy, established without dispute in this record, that an acceptable ambient level of HCL would be 150 micrograms per cubic meter for a three-minute value and 7 micrograms per cubic meter on an annual average. Shortly prior to hearing, a "re-modeling" of the stack and resultant emissions was done, postulating a stack at 98 feet high. Five years of meteorological data from the Valdosta, Georgia, weather station were used to include such factors as prevailing winds, etc., which modeling ultimately demonstrated a three-minute maximum HCL concentration of 16.4 micrograms per cubic meter. This resulted in a maximum HCL concentration at ground level of a factor of 10 below the 150 micrograms per cubic meter level, which is acceptable under DER policy. The average annual impact of HCL concentrations would be 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter, well below the acceptable level of 7 micrograms per cubic meter annual average. Mr. Buff's model also predicted a maximum annual average impact at any location in the vicinity of the proposed incinerator of HCL at .16 micrograms per cubic meter. This maximum value is a factor of more than 40 below the administrative level of 7 micrograms per cubic meter on an annualized basis. A spatial distribution of the annual average hydrochloride concentrations in the vicinity of the incinerator demonstrates an annual average concentration declining to 0.09 micrograms per cubic meter in the direction of the City of Jasper. The 98-foot stack proposed by TSI thus meets all ambient air requirements. Although the stack height was changed from the 40 feet shown in the application to 98 feet, all other design elements of it, such as stack diameter, stack temperature, and gas flow rate, remain unchanged. The modeling of the 98-foot stack included all of the design criteria found in the application. There is, in essence, no dispute regarding the efficacy of the modeling performed by Mr. Buff. All modeling and modeling results were not controverted. In addition to the main stack, there is an emergency relief stack, also known as a "dump stack". The dump stack does not have pollution control equipment. It is opened when the system is first started up in order to purge the system. No waste is burned at that time. The stack is also opened after a shutdown during a cooldown period after all waste has been removed from the furnace. The likelihood that the relief stack will operate outside of a startup and cooldown period is very slight. The facility will have an electrical generator backup emergency power source in case of power failure. The primary reason for the stack's opening, power loss, is thus eliminated by the system as proposed. There is a relief valve in the steam line so that if steam pressure in the boiler exceeds operating pressure, the system can be relieved through the relief valve with the only loss being steam which would have to be replenished with soft water. Such a malfunction would not result in the emergency stack opening, however. The only other circumstance under which the emergency stack would open, and vent gases to the atmosphere without emission control, would be a malfunction of the blower or induced draft fan system which pulls the gases out of the main stack. This could be caused by failure of the drive belts or a burnout of a motor. With proper maintenance, the belts will not fail and the motors will function for years without replacement. In an emergency situation, however, if a shutdown does occur, the frequency of the pulse hearth can be increased to push the waste stream into the quench pit in approximately 20 minutes, thus, eliminating emission of pollutants through the stack. The County's expert, Mr. Cross, also agreed that most of the causes of the opening of the emergency dump stack have been eliminated by the proposed Basic design. In any event, even in an emergency situation where the dump stack must open, the inherent design capabilities of the incinerator, related to operating temperature, residence time and the multiple combustion chambers, result in only one part per million CO, as well as very low nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbon levels being emitted from the facility even with no other pollution emission control provisions. In the event the emergency stack opens, the highest HCL emissions occur immediately, but then quickly drop to acceptable levels. This is so because combustion of materials immediately in the furnace would be finished, but no other charging of the furnace would occur until the malfunction is alleviated. Rule 17-2.250, F.A.C., allows, in any case, with an emergency opening of dump stack, the excession of permit limits for up to two hours. The results of modeling the operation of the dump stack at a 40-foot height and at 30 pounds per hour of HCL emissions shows that the 7,500 threshold limit value ("TLV"), which the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") sets to protect worker safety, will not be exceeded anywhere off the plant property, which boundaries lie 50 meters or more from the stack location. The HCL administrative level set by DER (by policy) of 150 micrograms per cubic meter will be exceeded in an area out to approximately 400 meters from the stack. Beyond 400 meters, the level is less than that and drops off rapidly thereafter so that at 800 meters, under the model prediction, the level of HCL concentration would be only 57 micrograms per cubic meter and at 2,000 meters, 37 micrograms per cubic meter. The county prison site, the Hamilton County landfill, recreation park, middle school, county road camp, senior citizens center, other schools and a nursing home, of which concern was expressed about proximity to incinerator emissions, are all 900 meters or more from the site of the incinerator and the location of the stack. It has thus been established that ambient HCL concentrations will not reach the prohibited level of 150 micrograms per cubic meter for the three-minute average at any of these locations. The permit applied for is a "minor source construction permit". Such a permit allows the applicant to construct the source, having an initial startup and performance compliance testing period to demonstrate that the facility can meet emission standards provided for in the permit and related rules. After demonstrating compliance, the applicant can then seek an operating permit. The test methods required as conditions by DER's proposed grant of the permit and the "draft permit" are standard ones sanctioned by the U.S. EPA. They are reliable and acceptable and have undergone independent testing and development and are used by all states. Thus, the combustion chamber exit temperature must be monitored for the purpose of determining if the unit complies with the 1,800 degree Fahrenheit rule, the criteria for complete combustion. Oxygen must also be monitored for the purpose of determining if the incinerator is operating properly and achieving good combustion which is essential to control of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, CO and other pollutants. When oxygen falls below certain levels, the computerized micro- processor monitoring system shuts down the loader to prevent charging of the furnace until combustion standards are again reached to prevent insufficient combustion due to low oxygen and excession of pollutant limits. In order to insure that the CO limit of 100 parts per million is not exceeded, a continuous CO monitoring capability will be installed within the incinerator. The lower the CO, the better the combustion efficiency. Although the rules require a 100 parts per million limit, CO test results at the Stroud facility, which is essentially identical to the one proposed, averaged 1.1 parts per million. Test results at the Stroud facility also demonstrated that the dry lime scrubbers installed there accomplish high HCL and particulate removal. The Stroud facility meets all Florida rule standards. Mr. Cross acknowledged that the test results on that facility demonstrate that dry lime scrubbers on medical waste incinerators "will do the job". Design details of the 98-foot stack and the lime injection baghouse scrubber facility were not included in their entirety in the application and the evidence adduced. Design details of the 98-foot stack, however, were provided in the application on page 6 as to the 40-foot stack. The changing of the stack height to 98 feet does not change the remaining design details, and they are still valid and have been proven so. Although no design or plans for the lime injection baghouse proposed have been adduced, the testimony of Mr. Basic establishes that such a facility will meet all pertinent emission standards prevailing in the Florida rules and policies, as such a facility did in the Stroud tests. Mr. Basic's testimony was unrefuted and establishes that the dry lime injection baghouse scrubber facility, such as he proposes and about which he is knowledgeable, based upon his manufacture, installation and operation of other incineration facilities, will reasonably assure that all pertinent disputed emission standards will be met (for particulate matter, opacity and HCL). Mr. Basic, as equipment vendor for the project, has responsibility for the entire incineration facility. He will oversee construction, installation and testing of the incinerators and emission control equipment (baghouse and stacks). He has guaranteed that all Florida emission standards will be met as the manufacturer and vendor for the project. A grant of the permit at issue should be conditioned upon Mr. Basic performing, as testified at the hearing and as agreed to by the applicant, as overseer for the construction, installation and testing of the proposed facility. Specific Condition No. 14 in DER's notice of intent to grant the permit requires the applicant to test the resultant ash to see if it is hazardous. Ash from the proposed facility must be tested in accordance with 40CFR 262.11, which requires testing and characterization of the waste. Ash from the proposed facility will be tested; and if it tests as hazardous, it will be handled as hazardous waste by sending it to an approved hazardous waste landfill or treatment facility. In any event, it has been stipulated by the applicant that the ash will not be deposited in a Hamilton County landfill; and the permit should be so conditioned. Most ash coming from infectious waste incineration is non-toxic. Controlled air incineration produces a sterile ash, which is a non-combustible residue, and may be disposed of in an ordinary landfill. Ash tested at the Stroud facility, after burning medical waste of the type to be incinerated in the instant facility, tested as non-hazardous. The ash will be removed from the facility in closed containers. Storage of Biohazardous and Biomedical Wastes DER regulates biohazardous waste incineration under the air permitting program, requiring an air permit, as sought in the instant case. DER does not require a separate solid waste treatment and sewage permit. Biomedical waste is regarded as a special waste which requires an element of care beyond solid waste, but does not require the extraordinary care required of hazardous waste. Sections 17-712.420 and 17-712.800, F.A.C., deal with the permitting of biohazardous waste storage. There are two ways in which an applicant can notify DER of its intent to use a general permit for the storage of biohazardous waste: It can apply for a general permit by notifying DER on a specific form of its intent to use a general permit for the storage of the waste; or It can include the information as part of an air permit application. With either option, there is no difference in the way DER processes the two types of notification. DER reviews the information submitted to make sure that it indicates that the facility will meet the requirements of Rule 17-712.420, F.A.C. The DER district waste program administrator, Mr. Mike Fitzsimmons, established in his testimony that the applicant has met the qualifications for the general permit for biohazardous waste storage. Five areas have been designated for storage of the biomedical waste to be incinerated at the TSI facility. It is anticipated that most of these areas will normally be empty. The storage areas are available, however, in case one of the incinerators is inoperative for any reason. There are contingency plans for re-routing the waste in the event one or both incinerators are inoperative for a significant period of time. Area A is the primary area of the facility where boxes are loaded onto a conveyor system and continuously fed into the furnaces. Area B is considered a secondary storage area where palletized boxes can be stored pending their placement onto the conveyor system for charging into the incinerators. The secondary area here can also be used for backup storage. Areas C and D are truck unloading docks,. The trucks, themselves, also can be used for storage capacity. Area E on Exhibit 7, the permit drawings, shows an outdoor storage area which will hold a number of trucks which transport the biohazardous waste. All of the trucks bringing waste into the facility will remain locked until brought to the unloading dock for unloading and incineration of their contents. The loading docks for the trucks located at the back of the facility are designed with drainage to prevent storm water runoff. Both the indoor and outdoor storage areas will be concrete. The concrete joints will be grouted and sealed, and the concrete will have an impermeable sealant placed on it. To maintain a sanitary condition, the area will be swept daily; and any spill area will be disinfected. The indoor areas will be disinfected weekly regardless of spills. Access to the proposed facility will be restricted to prevent entry of unauthorized persons. The outer perimeter will be enclosed with an 8-foot cyclone fence. It will be monitored with closed-circuit television. The building itself will only be accessible by authorized persons. The fence and all of the entrances will be marked with the international biohazardous symbol with the words "biohazardous wastes or infectious wastes". The facility will be operated so as to prevent vermin, insects or objectionable odors offsite. All materials will be packaged according to Rule 17-712.400(3), F.A.C. Refrigeration is not contemplated because EPA guidelines on management of infectious waste do not recommend refrigeration. Instead, storage times will be kept as short as possible prior to incineration. There will be minimal handling of boxes at the facility. Semi-trailers will be unloaded by means of an extendo conveyor system which will convey the boxes directly to the incinerators. If a box is dropped, breaks or a spill occurs, the area will be disinfected immediately. All floor drains, which will be installed both indoors and outdoors, will have a slight slope in the direction of the drain so that the floors can be scrubbed and hosed down and disinfected with all liquid material being flushed down those drains. Liquid waste created by the disinfection process can be safely disposed of thereafter in the city sanitary sewer system. The storm water management system on the site and the drainage sewage system are entirely separate, however. Employees will be required to wear either rubber or plastic gloves and white disposable clothing. All biohazardous waste generators (hospitals, etc.) and transport companies will be required to put the waste in "red bags", strong plastic bags. The medical waste will be required to be sealed in strong plastic bags, which are then placed by the generator of the waste in sealed cardboard boxes having a 275-pound bursting strength. All boxes must be marked with the name and address of the generator of the waste (hospital, etc.). The transporter of the waste, typically a trucking company, will be required to keep the trailers transporting the waste locked and the boxes intact and unopened. The applicant, as a condition of the permit, will not accept delivery of any waste shipments not so packaged and maintained. In fact, in addition to the rules governing the packaging and transport of biomedical waste contained at 17- 712.400, 17-712.410, F.A.C., TSI will require, by written contract, generators and transporters of the biomedical waste to insure delivery of waste properly packaged in accordance with Florida law regardless of which State the waste is generated and transported from. Additionally, the applicant will maintain records of waste origins and shipments in accordance with Rule 17-712.420(7), F.A.C., in its computerized record system. A detailed contingency plan will be prepared for the proposed facility by Lloyd H. Stebbins, P.E., an expert in environmental incident planning. The contingency plan will include more detail than is required by the biohazardous waste rules. The plan will address how medical waste is handled in order to insure public safety and the safety of employees as it is transported to and enters the plant and how ash will be safely handled when it exits the plant. Mr. Stebbins will also prepare an operation plan which will include personnel training in disinfection procedures and a description of those procedures for submittal to DER as a condition of a grant of this permit. That operation plan will contain procedures for all three types of disinfection methods authorized by Rule 17-712, F.A.C. This will enable the applicant to have the flexibility to use all three procedures, hot water, sodium hypochlorite, iodine or an EPA approved germicide. Mr. Stebbins will direct and provide training to insure that personnel comply with the regulations concerning disinfection and proper application of disinfectants. As an additional safety factor, the facility is designed to operate efficiently at approximately 85% of its actual capacity in order to allow for "down time" and maintenance. Standing TSI has challenged the County's standing to participate in this proceeding, asserting that Hamilton County, through its duly-elected Board of County Commissioners, does not possess a substantial interest in the outcome of this proceeding different from that of the public generally. It contends that the concerns various members of the general public might have concerning location and installation of the incinerator facility are the only concerns that the County has in participating in this proceeding; and, therefore, that the County has no substantial interest of its own justifying its standing to be a party to this proceeding. The record, however, reveals a strong citizen opposition in the County and City of Jasper to the applicant's proposed project. During the public comment portion of these proceedings, it became obvious that the citizens of Hamilton County have a variety of health and safety concerns which have engendered wide spread opposition to the applicant's project. Principal concerns are the matters of transportation and potential spillage of infectious hospital- generated medical wastes which the incinerator will be treating. Additionally, a strong concern has been expressed by various citizens of Hamilton County and the City of Jasper, concerning potential HCL emissions and their potential negative health effects on residents of the city and county, particularly those who utilize the many publicly-owned facilities located in proximity to the project site. These facilities include a middle school, a senior citizen center, a county road camp or prison, the county landfill, county equipment, a bridge and other buildings, as well as the fact that the material to be incinerated will be transported on trucks through a residential area. Additionally, the Hamilton County Correctional Institution is immediately adjacent to the proposed project site and employs several dozen county residents. Concerns were also expressed about increased traffic flow resulting from trucks bringing waste through the county and city to the proposed incinerator site, as well as the health and safety of the citizens who will be employed at the proposed facility itself, and the lack of sufficient emergency equipment and facilities within Hamilton County. Many citizens expressed their opposition to the proposed facility at the public comment portion of the hearings, through petitions submitted to their city council and the board of county commissioners and at public meetings conducted by those two governmental bodies. Thus, it can be inferred that there is a concensus of opposition by citizens of the city and the county which has been expressed to their respective governing commissions, who are the Petitioner and Intervenor in this proceeding. There is no question that the proposed project has the potential to cause some pollution or degradation of air and water in Hamilton County and the City of Jasper. Section 125.01(1), Florida Statutes, delegates broad powers and duties to county governments. Those powers and duties are enumerated in the Conclusions of Law below and include such authority as to establish and administer programs of air pollution control; to provide for and regulate waste and sewage disposal; to operate solid waste disposal facilities pursuant to Section 403.706(1), Florida Statutes; to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for public protection; to perform other acts not inconsistent with the law which are in the common interest of the people of the county, and to exercise all powers and privileges not specifically prohibited by law.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and aguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that DER enter a final order approving TSI's applications for permits for the subject two biological waste incineration facilities in accordance with the conditions specified in the notice of intent to grant the permit and enumerated in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 24th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-6824 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Accepted. 2-11. Accepted, although not necessarily dispositive of material issues presented, standing alone. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not, in itself materially dispositive of material disputed issues. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject[matter and as not directly relevant in the de novo context of this proceeding. 15-22. Accepted. 23. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. 24-31. Accepted, but in themselves materially dispositive of disputed issues and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 32-43. Accepted. 44-48. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on these subject matters and not, standing alone, dispositive of material disputed issues. 49. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. 50-55. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 58-64. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and to some extent, contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 68-73. Accepted. Respondent, TSI Southeast, Inc.`s Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-15. Accepted. 16. Rejected, as a discussion of testimony and not a finding of fact. 17-52. Accepted. 53-70. Accepted. 71-73. Rejected, as not materially dispositive of disputed issues in the de novo context of this proceeding. 74-75. Accepted. 76. Rejected, as unnecessary and immaterial. 77-123. Accepted. 124-129. Accepted, but not themselves dispositive of the material disputed issue of standing. Respondent, DER's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-41. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 David D. Eastman, Esq. Patrick J. Phelan, Esq. Parker, Skelding, Labasky & Corry 318 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John H. McCormick, Esq. McCormick & Drury 2nd Street at 2nd Avenue Northeast Jasper, FL 32052 Ross A. McVoy, Esq. Vivian F. Garfein, Esq. Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash, Block & England Suite 348 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 William H. Congdon, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Bayfront commenced construction of the biological waste incinerator here at issue prior to March 21, 1992, the effective date of the moratorium on construction of biological waste incinerators and was exempt from that moratorium. An inspection of the premises on April 9, 1992, (exhibit 5) showed substantial work had been accomplished and the inspector concluded, and DEP's legal counsel concurred, that in order to have achieved the construction progress shown on April 9, 1992, the work had to have been commenced prior to March 21, 1992. Further, a building permit to renovate the building into which the waste incinerator was placed was issued November 12, 1991, (exhibit 7) and a building permit to install a waste incinerator was issued March 4, 1992, (exhibit 6). No contradictory evidence was submitted by Petitioner. Respondent's witnesses testified without contradiction that Bayfront's application for an operation permit was complete in all respects, including certification by a professional engineer; that all test results showed the emissions into the atmosphere were within the prescribed standards; that certain conditions contained in the construction permit as a result of the settlement agreement resolving the challenge to the issuance of the construction permit are contained in the operation permit; that those conditions exceed the conditions required by the rules for incinerators; and that Bayfront affirmatively provided the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information that the operation of the incinerator will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of DEP's standards as contained in Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code. This testimony is accepted as factual. The draft permit authorizes Bayfront to burn a maximum of fifteen hundred pounds per hour of waste. Each time a test run is conducted to check the emissions, the pounds of waste burned per hour during the test establishes an upper limit on the rate of burning waste. As explained by James L. McDonald, the engineer processing air pollution applications for the Department at Transcript p. 50-51: The construction application asked for a permit at fifteen hundred pounds per hour. So the construction permit is -- the condition that we would want, the Department would normally want the test within ten percent of that fifteen hundred pounds an hour in order to go ahead and issue, if its in total compliance, to issue an operating permit at fifteen hundred pounds. Since the test came in at a reduced rate, below the ten percent, then that's why in the operating permit condition twenty-one says you're limited to the rate that we're, the test was conducted. [sic] Now, also, its interesting to note that in their test, if you look at their runs two and three -- because there are rules that say the Department could accept two runs out of three if a condition occurred that was out of their control -- if your average runs two and three, they would average within ten percent of fifteen hundred. So, as a permit processor, it even gave me some reasonable assurance that they could probably comply with the fifteen hundred. But, since the test of all three runs came in as an average of twelve fifty-one, then the operating permit included that twelve fiftyone. And like the real world out there, just like power plants, when it comes time for their annual testing, if they are at half speed, their business is down, it allows them to test at half speed. We won't require them to go up to full speed. They can test at half speed. But then they are limited there. And if they go above it at a later date they would have to retest. So they can work their way back up to where the Department has reasonable assurance that the upper limit of fifteen hundred pounds -- that's where later in condition twenty-one of the operating permit it says but in no case shall the maximum permit or burning rate of fifteen hundred pounds per hour be exceeded. Petitioner's second two grounds for challenging the issuance of the operation permit was answered by McDonald's testimony, above quoted, and this evidence was not rebutted by Petitioner. The primary thrust of the evidence presented by Petitioner was that Bayfront had somehow misled the City of St. Petersburg regarding the operation of the incinerator and had not complied with all of the City's requirements in other respects, ergo, Bayfront could not be relied on to comply with the conditions in the operation permit. This evidence is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not the operation of the incinerator complies with all of the Department rules. The conditions of the operating permit require Bayfront to submit periodic reports to the Department from which the Department can determine whether the conditions in the permit are being complied with. Furthermore, the Department requires the permittee to notify the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management at least fifteen days prior to the date on which each formal compliance test is to begin (Permit Condition No. 22) to allow them to witness the test, if desired. The construction permit, complying with the settlement agreement, required Bayfront to adhere to more frequent testing and more extensive testing then is required by the rules for operating biological waste incinerators. All of the tests and reports submitted by Bayfront on the operation of this incinerator met all of the requirements in the construction permit and the draft operation permit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Bayfront Medical Center be issued Permit No. AO52- 224337 to operate a biological waste incinerator at Fifth Avenue South and Eighth Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Adrian W. Helm, Esquire 925 14th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Daniel N. Burton, Esquire Thomas K. Maurer, Esquire Terri L. Gillis-Tucker, Esquire Foley and Lardner 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
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
