Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Arthur L. Jones, Trustee of the Arthur L. Jones Revocable Trust, also known as Eastlake Woodlands Shopping Center ("Eastlake"). Petitioner is not and never has been responsible for the discharge of pollutants at Eastlake within the meaning of Section 376.302. On November 9, 1993, Petitioner requested a determination of eligibility under the "Good Samaritan" program authorized in Section 376.305(6). Petitioner seeks reimbursement of $644,712 in costs associated with the assessment and remediation of perchloroethylene ("PCE") contamination at Eastlake. From May, 1982, through May, 1986, Eastlake included a dry cleaning establishment among its tenants. The dry cleaning establishment utilized PCE. PCE contamination was discovered in June, 1992, when a Publix Supermarket adjacent to the former dry cleaning business ("Publix") requested an environmental assessment as part of its expansion at Eastlake. The environmental assessment was performed by Chastain-Skillman, Inc. ("Skillman"). Skillman first discovered PCE contamination at the site as a result of tests of groundwater obtained from behind the former dry cleaning establishment. From July, 1992, through August, 1992, Skillman confirmed the PCE contamination through tests of additional groundwater samples from 10 other locations. In October, 1992, Petitioner orally notified Respondent of PCE contamination at the site. The PCE contamination was not reported to Respondent's Emergency Response Coordinator. The PCE contamination was not an emergency. Emergencies typically include incidents such as a petroleum spill related to a vehicular accident, a chemical spill, or a fire related release. The PCE contamination did not constitute an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. It did not constitute a threat to potable water wells at the site. PCE is a solvent commonly used in the dry cleaning business. Release of PCE is a relatively common occurrence in the dry cleaning business. On September 27, 1993, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a consent order with regard to PCE contamination at the site. In relevant part, the consent order requires Petitioner to submit a Contamination Assessment Report and Remedial Action Plan. Petitioner submitted a Contamination Assessment Report in November, 1992. Petitioner did not submit a Remedial Action Plan because Respondent placed a moratorium on enforcement actions undertaken with regard to PCE contamination at dry cleaning establishments. Respondent is in the process of implementing a program for state funded cleanup of contaminated dry cleaning sites throughout the state. Respondent is developing a priority system for cleanup of contaminated dry cleaning sites based upon relative threat to the public health and environment. There are approximately 2,800 contaminated dry cleaning sites around the state that will be affected by Respondent's dry cleaning program. Petitioner is entitled to apply for reimbursement of future costs once Respondent implements its dry cleaning program. Respondent has issued a policy memorandum concerning the review of Good Samaritan applications. Respondent's policy differentiates between petroleum contamination and non-petroleum contamination, such as PCE contaminated sites. Reimbursement of petroleum contamination is funded through the Inland Protection Trust Fund ("IPTF"). Reimbursement of non-petroleum contamination is funded through the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund ("WQATF"). IPTF funds are statutorily limited to reimbursement of costs associated with petroleum contamination. Respondent's policy is to exhaust the enforcement process before WQATF trust funds are utilized for the assessment and remediation of non- petroleum contamination. Respondent's policy requires a Good Samaritan to obtain prior approval from Respondent's Emergency Response Section or On-Scene Coordinator before initiating cleanup of a non-petroleum site such as the PCE contaminated site at Eastlake. The requirement for prior approval is designed to allow Respondent to preserve the amount of personnel, equipment, and resources available for statutorily prescribed priorities, including emergency responses. 2/ The requirement also allows Respondent to determine the endpoint of the emergency phase of a cleanup and the beginning of the remedial phase of the cleanup. The requirement for prior approval may be waived in the event of an imminent hazard. Respondent adequately explicated its non-rule policy for a moratorium on dry cleaning sites and for prior approval of remediation of non-petroleum sites including dry cleaning sites contaminated with PCE. Respondent's explication was adequate even if its policy constitutes an unwritten rule within the meaning of Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes. Petitioner failed to show good cause for waiver of the requirement for prior approval. The PCE contamination at the site was neither an emergency nor an imminent hazard. The public was restricted from the contaminated area by a fence surrounding the site. The public was not exposed to or threatened with contamination by inhalation. No potable water wells are near the site. Therefore, there was no threat of public access to contaminated drinking water. Petitioner did not obtain prior approval for its remediation of the site. Remediation was undertaken to complete the Publix expansion in a timely manner. Petitioner's efforts in assessing and remediating the site have been exemplary. Petitioner has fully cooperated with Respondent in assessing and remediating the site. In July, 1993, Petitioner retained American Compliance Technologies ("ACT") as a consultant to assist Petitioner in the remediation of the contaminated site. ACT prepared a health and safety plan for workers on the site. The plan addressed the risk to workers of exposure to PCE during construction and demolition activities necessary for the Publix expansion. Construction and demolition activities included removal of the concrete slab at the location of the former dry cleaning business. Disturbance of the soils contaminated with PCE created a potential for exposure of workers to PCE. The health and safety plan developed by ACT required workers to wear standard protective gear utilized by the industry. The plan satisfied the requirements of OSHA. ACT did not prepare a risk assessment addressing the potential for exposure of the general public to PCE. Nor did ACT prepare a risk assessment for the potential impact of PCE on groundwater or potable wells. The PCE contamination did not constitute an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent, Kingsley Service Company, should be granted an operating permit to increase the capacity of its Fleming Oaks Waste Water Treatment Plant from .490 MGD to .720 MGD.
Findings Of Fact The Fleming Oaks Waste Water Treatment facility is located on Fleming Island, at the south end of Bahia Road. (T 25). It includes three units, a .180 MGD, a .150 MGD and a .490 MGD plant. (T 49). The facility is owned and operated by Kingsley Service Company, the largest utility in Clay County. (T 24) Kingsley has operated in Clay County for more than 26 years and presently services the equivalent of over 17,000 homes. (T 23). Fleming Island is a relatively large piece of land bounded on the east by the St. Johns River, on the south by Black Creek, and on the north by Doctors Lake. On the west, Black Creek and Doctors Lake are connected by Swimming Pen Creek and a swampy marsh area. (T 25-26). In 1982, a .080 MGD sewage treatment plant was built at the present Fleming Oaks location. In 1984, a .0150 MGD plant was added, bringing the total facility capacity to .230 MGD. Effluent from those plants was discharged through a pipe to the St. Johns River. On February 25, 1986, Kingsley received permit No. D010-115962 authorizing continued operation at the Fleming Oaks facility of the 0.080 MGD and 0.150 MGD sewage treatment plants. This operation permit expired on February 25, 1991. (RE #1). On October 8, 1987, the Department issued permit No. DC10-139744 to Kingsley to expand "the existing 0.230 MGD...Sewage treatment plant by constructing a separate 0.490 MGD extended aeration sewage treatment plant with a total design capacity of 0.720 MGD." (RE #2). On January 25, 1990, the Department issued permit No. D01-104228 to Kingsley, "[t]o operate a 0.490 MGD extended aeration sewage treatment plant." This permit required Kingsley to apply for an operation permit for the full capacity of the plant, 0.720 MGD, when the new plant, 0.490 MGD reaches a load of approximately 90% of its capacity. The operation permit for the .490 MGD expires on January 25, 1995. (RE #3). Pursuant to the permit requirement referenced in the preceding paragraph, Kingsley applied to the Department on January 17, 1991 for an operation permit to "[p]lace [the] existing 0.230 MGD WWTP into service raising treatment capacity to 0.720." (RE #5). After reviewing that application, the Department executed a notice of permit issuance, authorizing Kingsley to operate a parallel 0.490 MGD extended aeration waste water treatment plant ("WWTP"), a 0.150 MGD contact stabilization WWTP and a 0.080 MGD contact stabilization WWTP having a combined design capacity of 0.720 MGD serving Fleming Island and authorizing discharge of the treated effluent into the St. Johns River, via an existing 500-foot pipe, 8 inches in diameter. (RE #7). This permit allowed the previously-constructed 0.230 MGD plant to be placed back in service. It is this permit which the Petitioners challenge. The system in question was designed by a qualified engineering firm with substantial experience in the design of waste water treatment plants (R 46, 47 & 48) and in compliance with Department regulations. (R 63-64). The system, as designed and constructed, is being operated by qualified personnel and consistent with Department regulations. (R 280, R 124, 131, 132). The 0.490 MGD plant consists of an aeration tank, a digester, and a clarifier. (RE #8; T 51). Raw sewage is pumped from lift stations into a "surge tank," where it falls through a bar screen and grid chamber which take out large items and sand which accumulate in the sewage system. (T 55-56). Raw sewage is then pumped from the surge tank to the aeration portion of the plant. (T 56). In the aeration tank, solids and liquids, called "mixed liquor," are evenly distributed throughout the depth of the liquid in the aeration tank, where the breakdown process occurs. (T 65). A control box is located between the aeration tank and clarifier which allows waste water from the aeration tank to flow into the clarifier once it reaches a certain level in the aeration tank. (T 56-57). The flow moves through the control box and into the portion of the clarifier called an "annular weir." The annular weir is approximately 18 inches from the outside wall of the clarifier and looks like the outer ring of a bull's-eye target from above. The purpose of the annular weir is to distribute flow evenly into the clarifier. At the center of the circular clarifier is a rectangular-shaped structure called an "effluent weir." (T 57). In the part of the clarifier outside the rectangular effluent weir, undigested solid material settles out onto the bottom. The liquid portion which remains after the solids settle out flow over the top of the effluent weir into the interior of the rectangular structure. The interior of the effluent weir can only be reached from the top. There are no entry points at the bottom, where the solids are. (T 66). The clear liquid that flows over the effluent weir and the sludge that settles to the bottom of the clarifier undergo further, separate treatments. The clarified effluent that flows over the top of the effluent weir is piped to the chlorine contact chamber for disinfection. (T 52). Chlorine is fed into the effluent to destroy pathogens which may be present. (T 81). The final 2-1/2 feet of the chlorine contact chamber is where dechlorination takes place. (T 62). Dechlorination is required so that the chlorine level in the effluent is reduced. (T 54). Dechlorination occurs when sulfur dioxide is mixed with the chlorinated effluent. Discharge monitoring takes place in the chlorine contact chamber. (T 62). The treated and dechlorinated effluent is pumped to the St. Johns River through an outfall which is 500 feet from shore. (T 53, 63). The sludge which settled to the bottom of the clarifier is drawn off at the bottom of the clarifier and directed into the "digester" where, under aerobic conditions and without additional food, bacteria die-off occurs. (T 59). The sludge is actually a liquid substance, approximately 97% water and 3% solids. (T 98-99). The digester is an ancillary process separate from the treatment of waste water. (T 57). The digester stabilizes and further reduces the organic content of the sludge. (T 51). Tanker trucks regularly remove the sludge from the digester and transport it to dairy farms where it is applied to the land. (T 98-101; RE #11 for invoices). The 0.490 MGD plant "has been designed and constructed to meet all the requirements currently posted or regulated by the State of Florida." (T 64). The construction and operation of the Fleming Oaks plant, when compared with the other 600 in the Department's Northeast District, is "very good." (T 131). Although the BOD and TSS limits are 20, the Fleming Oaks plant consistently gets better than 10 and many times less than 5 for these parameters. (T 131). Sampling of the St. Johns River at the end of the outfall pipe has shown that the water quality standards have been met for each sample. (T 141). The Monthly Operating Reports show that required parameters are almost always met. (RE #11). On June 7th, a machine sampled sewage coming into the plant and sewage that was leaving the plant. Two samples were taken, one where raw sewage comes in and one the final effluent. The raw sewage had a BOD of 205 and the treated effluent had a BOD of 1. (T 283-286). TSS was run the same way. Raw sewage had a TSS of 182 while the treated sewage had a TSS of 1. (T 287). Petitioners' concerns about the permitting of the 0.230 MGD capacity center around the buildup of "muck" in the river in the vicinity of the existing outfall. Petitioners assert that Kingsley pumped sludge through the outfall which "polluted" their waterfront as "muck." Donald Loop, who lives 4,000-5,000 feet to the south of the outfall, described the muck buildup as starting 18 months ago "at two to three inches and over a period of time increas[ing] to 18 inches in some places and other places over 24 inches." In conjunction with the muck buildup was "extreme devastation of all greenery, starting with cattails and many other green plants that grew out there." (T 153-154). During this time frame, the rainfall was 25% below the annual average and "the river flows were much less than normal." (T 153, 270). Damon Loop, Donald Loop's brother, lives on a canal, 350-400 feet off the St. Johns River. The canal is approximately 1,000 feet north of the outfall of the Fleming Oaks facility. (T 233). He noticed a muck buildup "when Kingsley Service Company first started putting the effluent into the river." (T 228). At that time, the end of the canal area started filling up with muck. The muck now covers almost 4-1/2 feet and has been there for six or seven years. (T 228). Two or three hundred feet out in the St. Johns River, where it is 10 feet deep, there is a black silt one foot to 15 inches deep. (T 229). Other witnesses also described the muck. Saxton Weir, who lives approximately one-half mile to the north of the outfall, described the muck as being 43 or 44 inches thick. (T 200, 204). The muck extended along his shoreline "over 500 feet" and extended out into the water "from 5 feet to over 100 feet." (T 212-213). Mr. Weir actually saw muck extending as far out as "485 feet from the shoreline." (T 214). The accumulated muck was blown away after three days of rain and a storm. (T 205). A video tape of the conditions caused by the muck was received and viewed. There are tons and tons of muck in this area. Petitioners believe that the muck was actually sludge or TSS illegally discharged from the Fleming Oaks facility. This belief was based upon the mistaken conclusion that the 0.430 MGD treatment process was requiring an inappropriately large amount of chlorine. Petitioners concluded that there was excessive chlorine in the water because of the death of barnacles on pilings in the area. Chlorine kills bacteria and oxidizes other organic materials. (T 116). Small amounts of organic matter which have not been completely digested by the treatment process can be oxidized by chlorine. (T 102). Chlorine is increased to treat unoxidized organic material. (T 83). The MOP/11 operation waste water manual, characterized by Mr. Loop as the "Bible of waste water treatment," indicates that about three parts per million chlorine is appropriate. (T 176). For June of 1990, the average chlorine feed was actually 3.3 parts per million. (T 297-298). The chlorine levels were within normal limits. The barnacles were killed by some other factor, perhaps the drought which occurred at about this time. Because of the muck-related complaints, a sample of sludge was taken by a Department employee from an unknown location in the area and analyzed at the Department laboratory, where it was microscopically determined that the sample was decaying vegetation. (T 138). Without intentionally discharging large amounts of sludge over a period of time, the chance of even noticing any buildup along the shoreline is very, very small. The particles left in the effluent are very small and very light. The ability of this material to settle in a water flowing at even low velocity is difficult. The velocity of the current at the outfall is sufficient to prevent any particles from settling out. (T 96). The "muck" in the river in front of the houses of the Petitioners was not shown to be sludge from the Fleming Oaks Waste Water Treatment Plant after testing by the Petitioners. (R 252). The capacity at issue in this proceeding, 0.230 MGD capacity, consists of 0.080 MGD plant, composed of two tanks, and a 0.150 MGD plant that is composed of three tanks. (T 49-50). Both of these plants are contact stabilization plants. ( T 67). Although permitted until February of 1991, these two plants ceased operating in April of 1989. (T 37). The St. Johns River is Class III waters of the State of Florida. Secondary treatment, which is required for these plants, is sufficient to maintain the water quality standards for the St. Johns River. (T 124-125, 130). When the 0.080 and 0.150 MGD plants were operational, they operated within the limits of the permit at issue here. (T 67). They will meet the requirements for issuance of the permit. (T 124). When the .230 MGD capacity is brought on line, raw sewage entering the surge tank will be routed to each of the three plants rather than just to the aeration plant alone, as it is at present. (T 88). Waste water will be pumped proportionately to the separate plants through variable speed pumps. (T 89). After appropriate treatment in the 0.80 MGD and 0.150 contact stabilization plants, clear liquid effluent will be transferred from them to the chlorine contact chamber where it will be chlorinated, dechlorinated and then pumped to the St. Johns River through the existing outfall. (T 90).
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of the Kingsley Service Company for the waste water treatment operating permit at issue be granted, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Department's Draft Permit, in evidence as Respondents' Exhibit 7. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 13th day of March, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to continue participating in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sunset Square General Partnership, is the owner of Sunset Square Shopping Center located in Clearwater, Florida, and in which Tux Cleaners, Department of Environmental Protection Identification No. 529501419, was a tenant conducting a drycleaning business. At all times relevant hereto, the Sunset Square Shopping Center was managed by the Stuart S. Golding Company on behalf of Sunset Square General Partnership. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Tux Cleaners was owned and operated by Angelo Guarnieri. In June 1996, Petitioner submitted an application to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program (Program/ Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program). The application was signed by a representative of Petitioner and by Guarnieri. David Scher, an employee of the Stuart S. Golding Company, was listed on the application as the contact person for Petitioner. All applications to the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program are joint applications that include the real property owner, the operator of the drycleaning facility, and the owner of the drycleaning facility. Thus, in this instance, the applicant was Petitioner, the owner of the real property on which the drycleaning facility was located, and Guarnieri, the owner and operator of the facility. Petitioner was listed as the "designated applicant" on the aforementioned application filed with the Department. The "designated applicant" served to advise and provide the Department with a single point of contact. Upon review of Petitioner's application, the Department determined that Petitioner met the prescribed eligibility requirements for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. Thereafter, by letter dated September 27, 1996, the Department notified Petitioner that its site, Tux Cleaners, was eligible for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. The letter advised Petitioner that its "participation in the Program is contingent upon continual compliance with the conditions of eligibility set forth in Section 376.3078(3), F.S." At the time Petitioner's letter of eligibility was issued, Section 376.3078(7), Florida Statutes (1995), required that owners and operators of drycleaning facilities install secondary containment by January 1, 1997. This statute was enacted in 1995, the year before Petitioner was determined eligible for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. To maintain its eligibility in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, Petitioner was required to install secondary containment at Tux Cleaners by January 1, 1997. As of January 1, 1997, secondary containment had not been installed at Tux Cleaners. Consequently, on January 2, 1997, Petitioner and Tux Cleaners were no longer in compliance with the eligibility requirements for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. On January 21, 1998, Margaret Hennis, a Pinellas County environmental inspector, conducted an inspection of Tux Cleaners as part of a Title V compliance inspection. During the inspection, Hennis discovered that Tux Cleaners did not have the required secondary containment and advised Guarnieri that secondary containment needed to be installed. Guarnieri then informed Hennis that the equipment had been ordered in late 1997. Guarnieri initially ordered secondary containment for Tux Cleaners in June 1997 but cancelled the order because he thought the business had been sold. When the business was not sold, Guarnieri reordered the secondary containment in late 1997, almost one year after it should have been installed. There is no evidence that the secondary containment was ever delivered to Tux Cleaners; and it clearly was never installed at Tux Cleaners. Prior to becoming eligible for the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, Petitioner hired an environmental consultant, who subsequently advised Petitioner to apply for participation in the Program. After the application of Petitioner and Tux Cleaners was approved, Petitioner believed that the environmental consultant would monitor the drycleaning facility to ensure that the site was in continual compliance with Program eligibility requirements. Although Petitioner and Guarnieri submitted a joint application to the Department, they never discussed the need to install secondary containment at Tux Cleaners. It was only after receiving the February 26, 1998, letter described below that Petitioner had actual knowledge of the secondary containment requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner never asked Guarnieri whether the secondary containment had been installed or directed Guarnieri to install the required secondary containment. Furthermore, Guarnieri never discussed with Petitioner the January 1997 inspection of Tux Cleaners, Hennis' notification that secondary containment needed to be installed, or any matters relative to Guarnieri's ordering and reordering of the secondary containment. By letter dated February 26, 1998 (notice of cancellation), the Department notified Petitioner of its intent to cancel Petitioner's eligibility for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program and of the reason for the cancellation. According to the notice of cancellation, the reason for the cancellation was that Tux Cleaners had "fail[ed] to continuously comply with the conditions of eligibility set forth in s. 376.3078(3), F.S." The February 26, 1998, letter stated, in pertinent part, the following: The Department has determined that the referenced site is no longer eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program for the following reason: Pursuant to s. 376.3078(7)(a), Florida Statutes (F.S.), owners or operators of drycleaning facilities shall by January 1, 1997, install dikes or other containment structures around each machine or item of equipment in which drycleaning solvents are used and around any area in which solvents or waste- containing solvents are stored. As of January 21, 1998, secondary containment had not been installed at the referenced facility. Failure to meet this requirement constitutes gross negligence (s. 376.3078(7)(d), F.S.). Also, failure to meet this requirement constitutes a failure to continuously comply with the conditions of eligibility set forth in s. 376.3078(3). Pursuant to s. 376.3078(3)(n)1., F.S., the Department shall have the authority to cancel the eligibility of any drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility that fails to continuously comply with the conditions of eligibility set forth in s. 376.3078(3), F.S. Persons whose substantial interests are affected by this Order of Eligibility Cancellation have a right, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., to petition for an administrative determination (hearing). The Petition must conform to the requirements of Chapters 62-103 and 28-5, F.A.C., and must be filed (received) with the Department's Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of this Notice. Failure to file a petition within the forty-five (45) calendar days constitutes a waiver or any right such persons have to an administrative determination (hearing) pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. * * * If a petition is filed, the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate agency action. Accordingly, the Department's final action may be different from the position taken by it in this Notice. * * * This Order of Eligibility Cancellation is final and effective forty-five (45) calendar days after the date of receipt of this Order unless the attached site access form is signed and returned to the Department or unless a petition is filed in accordance with the preceding paragraph. Upon the timely filing of such petition, this Order will not be effective until further order of the Department. Please be advised that mediation of administrative disputes arising from or relating to this Order of Eligibility Cancellation is not available [s.] 120.573, F.S.; when requested the Department will continue to meet and discuss disputed issues with parties adversely affected by this order. The February 26, 1998, notice of cancellation contained a typographical error in that it referenced an "attached site access form." That reference was as follows: "This Order of eligibility cancellation is final and effective forty-five (45) calendar days after the date of receipt of this Order unless the site access form is signed and returned to the Department or unless a petition is filed in accordance with the preceding paragraph." The reference in the notice of cancellation to the site access form was irrelevant to the notice and improperly and inadvertently included in the notice. That reference should have been omitted from the notice of cancellation and the sentence which mistakenly referred to the site access form should have stated: This Order of Eligibility Cancellation is final and effective forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt of this Order unless a petition is filed in accordance with the preceding paragraph. The February 26, 1998, notice of cancellation complies with the requirements of Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, notwithstanding the aforementioned typographical error contained therein. Consistent with the statutory requirements, the letter gives written notice to the applicant of the Department's intent to cancel Petitioner's program eligibility and also states the reason for the cancellation. Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, provides that the "applicant shall have 45 days to resolve the reason for the cancellation to the satisfaction of the Department." Typically, the Department's cancellation notices do not state that applicants or participants have 45 days to resolve the reason or reasons for cancellation of their eligibility. Nevertheless, the Department affords this opportunity to adversely affected parties. To facilitate this process, the Department's cancellation notices advise these parties that, when requested, the Department will "continue to meet and discuss disputed issues with parties adversely affected by this Order." Petitioner availed itself of the opportunity to discuss the disputed issues with the Department. In fact, shortly after receiving the notice of cancellation, Petitioner contacted the Department officials to determine what steps it could take to remain eligible for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleaning Program. Thereafter, Petitioner took immediate steps in an attempt to resolve the reasons for cancellation of its eligibility. After extensive discussions between Petitioner and Department officials, the Department concluded that the notice of cancellation had been properly issued. The Department reached this conclusion after Petitioner acknowledged that Tux Cleaners did not have secondary containment installed by the January 1, 1997, the statutorily prescribed deadline for such installation. Having determined that the secondary containment had not been installed by the January 1997 deadline, the Department concluded that the reason for the cancellation of Petitioner's eligibility could not be resolved or corrected. The Department has interpreted the 45-day language in Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, to allow Program applicants or participants the opportunity to resolve items that do not constitute gross negligence within the meaning of the statute. In an attempt to bring the facility into compliance, Petitioner insisted that Guarnieri shut down all drycleaning operations at Tux Cleaners and remove all machines and solvents from the property. By mid-March 1998, Tux Cleaners had shut down all drycleaning operations and by the end of March 1998, all drycleaning machines were removed from the facility. Moreover, in mid-March 1998, after the drycleaning operations ceased, Tux Cleaners continued only as a dry drop-off facility. Any store operating solely as a dry drop-off facility is not required to have secondary containment. Secondary containment was not installed at Tux Cleaners by January 1, 1997, the statutorily prescribed deadline, even though it operated as a drycleaning facility from January 1, 1997, until mid-March 1998. Consequently, beginning in January 1, 1997, and through March 1998, Petitioner and Tux Cleaners were not in compliance with the eligibility requirements of the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding that Petitioner's facility is not eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha L. Nebelsiek, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Richard M. Hanchett, Esquire Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A. 2700 Barnett Plaza 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Post Office Box 1102 Tampa, Florida 33601-1102 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Department should issue a Warning Letter to the Respondent because of his application of a pesticide in a client's home on September 16, 1994.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Agriculture was responsible for the registration, licensing and regulation of pest control applicators in Florida. In September, 1994, Crystal S. Tipton contacted the Respondent, Michael A. Kaeler, as the representative for Terminix International, and requested that he come to her home, located at 6253 Old Trail in New Port Richey, to spray for bugs and fleas. Mrs. Tipton had a contract with Terminix, dated July 19, 1994, which called for periodic applications, and this was the second visit under the plan. On September 16, 1994, Respondent came to the home in response to the call, arriving about 9:00 AM. At that time, Mrs. Tipton advised him that she had had a bad reaction from the July spraying. On September 16, 1994, Mrs. Tipton was in the house alone. Respondent started treating the house shortly after he arrived. Mrs. Tipton had told him not to spray her daughter's bedroom because of the reaction the child had had from the prior treatment. Mrs. Tipton remained in the house, cleaning, while Respondent applied the substance. At no time, she asserts, did Respondent instruct her to leave the house or give her any instructions except to tell her to wear shoes when she walked on the carpet. He did not tell her to stay off the carpet until it dried. According to Mrs. Tipton, while Respondent was applying the pesticide, on occasion she was in the same room with him, and she could smell the spray. At no time did he advise her to leave the room while he sprayed. Respondent also got behind the baseboards to spray, and put pesticide on the ground outside the house. He then left. According to Mrs. Tipton, the smell was worse this time than after the first spraying. Though she opened all the windows, even while Respondent was spraying, the smell remained for hours, and at 11:30 PM, the carpet was still damp, she claims. As she recalls it, the smell stayed in the house until the following day. After Mrs. Tipton realized there was a problem, she contacted several experts to come out and see what could be done. Her husband contacted Mr. Bowen, the Department's local representative, and told him what had happened, but no other complaint was filed. Mrs. Tipton called Terminix the Monday after the spraying to tell them that all the people in the house were sick. They did not respond promptly, so she had the carpets cleaned and a maid service in to clean the house, but even after that the smell was still present. Mrs. Tipton does not know what chemical was applied in her home by Respondent either in July or in September. She recalls only that in July Mr. Kaeler also told her to wear shoes on the damp carpet. On that occasion, the carpet was damp for three to four hours after spraying, but she does not know how much chemical was applied. During the September application, Mrs. Tipton remained in the family room and the kitchen while Mr. Kaeler was applying the substance throughout the house, and even when he was applying in the kitchen, which is tiled. Though he used a broadcast spray in those areas which were carpeted, including the living room, the dining room, the family room, the master bedroom, the halls, and the entrances to the children's bedrooms, he used a pin spray in the kitchen. Whereas the broadcast spray gives a wide application, the pin spray is exact and puts the pesticide in a very limited area. She had told him not to spray in the children's rooms, and claims she asked him not to use the same spray he had used in the earlier visit. Mrs. Tipton claims Mr. Kaeler did not tell her he had used the same spray but in a diluted strength or in a lesser volume. She claims he said he would not use the same spray and would not spray the daughter's bedroom. It would appear he did not spray the children's rooms, but there is no indication he used a different spray in September than in July. Mrs. Tipton claims the carpet remained damp far longer than it did during the July spraying and she thought this was unusual. When Mr. Bowen, the Department's entomologist inspector, was contacted by Mr. Tipton, he gave Mr. Tipton some advice on how to deal with the problem. The children's doctor also called Bowen about what Bowen had told Mr. Tipton. When Mr. Tipton finally suggested that the pesticide had been applied improperly, Bowen opened his investigation. He took Mrs. Tipton's statement and got the doctor's comments. He also took a statement from Mr. Kaeler and his records for the July and September applications, as well as copies of the labels from the containers of the pesticide applied. The Department requires that all products be used consistent with the labeling instructions and the standards of the Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA). From his investigation, Mr. Bowen determined that the Respondent used Dursban L.O. Mr. Bowen is familiar with that product and determined that the Respondent applied the product at a concentrated rate in a broadcast pattern over the carpets. This was appropriate, but if it were done while people other than the applicator were in the structure, he contend this was specifically prohibited by the label. In his opinion, Mr. Kaeler's actions constitute a violation of the statute and the Department's rule. None of the information received by Mr. Bowen from the family doctor or the Health Department related to the propriety of Respondent's application of the product. These contacts related only to the health of the children. The only reference to possibly improper application is found in Mrs. Tipton's undated statement. The label on the Dursban L.O. product indicates, "Other than the applicator, treated areas should be vacated during application. Do not permit humans or pets to contact treated surfaces until the spray has dried." Mr. Bowen did not contact the manufacturer to see what "areas" being treated meant. He feels that the interpretation is up to his agency, and he agrees with the agency determination that the entire residence must be vacated. No direct evidence was presented to show the agency determination, however, and it appears the determination of propriety of application was left up to Mr. Bowen. A broadcast spray is used for large areas. A pin stream is used for cracks and crevices. A pin stream application does not, in Mr. Bowen's opinion, require vacation of the structure. The broadcast spray for flea control does, however, as he sees it. If the manufacturer were to hold that application did not require evacuation of the entire structure, but only the room being treated, then in that case, Mr. Bowen would conclude that the application by Mr. Kaeler was appropriate. As he recalls, Mr. Kaeler used one half gallon of 1/4 percent solution for an 1800 square foot application. This was a fairly light treatment. Mr. Bowen has, himself, applied Dursban L.O. at this rate. Mr. Kaeler has been employed by Terminix since November, 1993 as a service technician. He underwent 30 days of a training program in identification of insects and application techniques and requirements of pesticides, including Dursban, with the company. He is not licensed. Terminix holds the license under which he operates. Mr. Kaeler admits that when he treated the Tipton house on September 16, 1994, Mrs. Tipton complained of her daughter's head aches resulting from the prior application and asked him not to spray the child's bedroom, but she did not object to the use of this pesticide. He broadcast sprayed all the carpeted area up to the entry to the girls' bedrooms. In all the girls' rooms there were clothes, books and toys on the floor so he did not spray inside. In the kitchen, which, he claims, was the only location where Mrs. Tipton was present while he sprayed, he used the pin stream technique. The entire spraying took about 30 minutes. Mr. Kaeler also sprayed the windows and doors from the outside and the garage, using the pin stream spray in all those locations. The one half gallon of solution was used to do all the spraying at the Tipton's house that day, both inside and out. Mr. Kaeler believes that the solution he sprayed on the carpeted areas on September 16, 1994 should have dried in no more than an hour. He confirms that Mrs. Tipton opened the windows and turned on the fans while he was still spraying. He had told her to do this the first time. As Mr. Kaeler understands it, Terminix's policy is that occupants of property being broadcast sprayed for insects should stay off the carpet being sprayed but need not vacate the structure. Dr. Ellen Thoms, an entomologist working for the manufacturer of the chemical in issue, indicates that the label instructions on containers of Dursban L.O. were intended by the company to mean that the term "area" where the chemical is being applied by broadcast spray includes not the entire structure but the immediate area of the application because of the possibility of spraying the chemical on someone. The danger is in contact with the substance through the skin or through oral ingestion, not in the odor or the fumes. In Dr. Thoms' opinion, Mr. Kaeler's application was consistent with the terms of the label, which uses the term "should" rather than the term "must". The drying time for carpet sprayed with Dursban L.O. by broadcast spray is effected by the thickness of the carpet and the relative humidity in the sprayed area. Since a greater amount of applied substance dried more quickly in the high humidity of July, in Dr. Thoms' opinion it is unlikely a smaller amount applied in September would take more than 14 hours to dry. She does not know what the climate factors were that day, however. Dr. Mangold, a technical specialist for Terminix, and an entomologist certified in all four categories of pest control, reviewed all the material evidence in this case and heard the testimony given at hearing. He has concluded that what Mr. Kaeler did was conservatively to apply a very diluted spray, usually applied at a rate of one gallon per 1,600 square feet. His one half gallon application for an 1,800 square foot house, plus outside, is an appropriate maintenance application. In Dr. Mangold's opinion, Mr. Kaeler's application in September, 1994 was consistent with the label requirements in amount, concentration and percent, and with the requirement that all other persons be out of the area being treated. He does not believe, in light of what was shown, it could have taken in excess of fourteen hours for this application to dry. In his opinion, drying should have taken between twenty minutes and an hour, and he can see no possible explanation for it having taken as long as Mrs. Tipton claims. Dr. Mangold defines the term "area treated" as being the immediate area being treated - an eighteen inch swath and some adjacent area, to-wit: the area being contacted by the spray. Mr. Lemont, a fully certified entomologist-consultant reviewed the file on this case and heard the testimony given at hearing. In his opinion, the term, "area treated" includes the contact area, not the entire structure. He believes Mr. Kaeler performed consistently with the label instructions and there was no violation. The words, "should" and "may", are interpreted in the trade as permissive and non-enforceable. Stronger words, such as "shall" and "must", are directive and enforceable. Mr. Lemont agrees that the application by Mr. Kaeler was a light application. Drying depends on humidity, but often an application dries before the operator leaves. He cannot believe this application would have taken more than two to three hours, even under the most adverse atmospheric conditions. Certainly, it would not have taken more than fourteen hours. In Lemont's opinion, the issue of how close an applicator can come to others while applying Dursban L.O. by broadcast spray is a judgement call. The issue is contact. Mrs. Tipton was not positive on the issue of Mr. Kaeler's being in the room with her, other than the kitchen, while applying the substance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT a Warning Letter not be issued to either Michael A. Kaeler or Terminix International Co., LP., as a result of Mr. Kaeler's application of Dursban L.O. at the Tipton residence in New Port Richey, Florida on September 16, 1994. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 24th day of July, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Worley, Esquire Department of Agriculture Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James M. Nicholas, Esquire P.O. Box 814 Melbourne, Florida 32902 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper General Counsel Department of Agriculture Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program with regard to its Kendale Lakes facility should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Environmental Protection is the state agency responsible for administering the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program set out in Section 376.3078, Florida Statutes (1995). Dryclean USA is a Florida corporation and is the owner of commercial real property located at 14099 Southwest 88th Street in Miami, Florida. Dryclean USA is an operator of a drycleaning facility at that location, as those terms are defined in Sections 376.301(8) and (21), Florida Statutes. The facility, known as the Kendale Lakes facility, has been operated by Dryclean USA as a drycleaning facility for approximately twenty years. Drycleaning establishments use solvent in the cleaning process. Tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene, is a commonly used drycleaning solvent and is considered a hazardous substance. Tetrachloroethylene is saturated in water at 150,000 parts per billion. The drycleaning process produces lint that can contain tetrachloroethylene; contact water, which is water that has, at some point during the drycleaning cycle, come into contact with tetrachloroethylene; and sludge from the mechanism that separates pure tetrachloroethylene from water and solid materials produced during the drycleaning process. In addition, tetrachloroethylene accumulates in the filters used in the drycleaning machine. These substances must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Steiner Atlantic Corporation is one of the largest distributors of drycleaning equipment in the country, and Dryclean USA purchases its equipment from this company. The drycleaning machine in the Kendale Lakes facility was purchased from Steiner Atlantic and has been in use at the Kendale Lakes facility since 1991. The machine is a third-generation machine that uses closed-loop technology. Tetrachloroethylene is introduced into the system from a pressurized container that is connected to the drycleaning machine through quick-disconnect valves. The tetrachloroethylene is pumped directed into the machine so that it does not come into contact with the air. Once the cleaning cycle is completed, tetrachloroethylene and water are extracted from the clothes, heated, and turned into a vapor. The vapor is routed across condensing coils that chill the vapor and turn it back into a liquid. The liquid goes into a separator, where the tetrachloroethylene and the water are separated; the tetrachloroethylene is returned to the drycleaning machine and the water, called separator water, is collected in a hazardous waste drum, which is hauled off the site by a company which is licensed to dispose of hazardous waste. Steiner Atlantic develops training programs for its customers and for a number of years has worked with Dryclean USA to develop training programs for Dryclean USA managers and employees. The Dryclean USA training programs are among the most extensive programs that Steiner Atlantic has developed and rank among the best in the country. The training for Dryclean USA managers both now and in 1995 consists of an intensive three-week program. In addition to courses on how to manage the business, Dryclean USA managers are trained in the operation and maintenance of all the equipment in the drycleaning facility, including the drycleaning machine, and in the legal requirements for handing hazardous waste. The program also includes training in environmental and safety issues, as well as hands-on instruction on the proper handling of tetrachloroethylene and equipment that comes into contact with tetrachloroethylene. Managers are provided with on-going training in addition to the initial training program. Dryclean USA also has a training program in hazardous waste management for all of its employees, and this program was in place in 1995. All of Dryclean USA's employees receive this training from in-house training personnel or from district managers, and the employees must read a training manual, watch a video, and pass several tests that deal with handling hazardous waste. The employees are taught that tetrachloroethylene and substances contaminated with tetrachloroethylene must be disposed of in hazardous waste containers, which are then hauled away and disposed of by a hazardous waste disposal company. Managers at the Dryclean USA facilities are responsible for ensuring that tetrachloroethylene and substances contaminated with tetrachloroethylene are disposed of properly. All Dryclean USA employees receive training in handling spills of tetrachloroethylene and substances contaminated with tetrachloroethylene, although the manager is the person responsible for ensuring-that spills are handled correctly and in accordance with the following procedures. First, all employees who will not participate in cleaning up the spill are evacuated from the premises. Certain designated employees, including the manager, use the spill kit provided in each facility to contain and absorb the spill. The spill kit consists of safety equipment for the employees handling the spill and of absorbent cloth, such as comforters or blankets, to absorb the tetrachloroethylene. The cloth used to absorb the spill is put through the drycleaning cycle to extract the tetrachloroethylene. Dryclean USA requires that all spills, no matter how small, be immediately reported to the Dryclean USA maintenance department, which promptly dispatches an engineer to assist with the spill if it is the result of an equipment malfunction. Additionally, the employees are required to keep internal records of any spill that is less than one quart and to report to the state any spill in excess of one quart. These procedures are set out both in the Dryclean USA Written Hazard Communication Program manual provided to all employees and in the Dryclean USA Emergency Contingency Plan posted on the bulletin board at each Dryclean USA facility. No spills were reported at the Kendale Lakes facility in April or May 1995. In addition to the training given to managers and other employees, the maintenance manager of Dryclean USA is also the environmental officer, and he performs semi-annual audits of each facility operated by Dryclean USA with respect to health, safety, and environmental standards. During these audits, the environmental officer ensures that the employees of each facility are aware of the procedures for the routine collection and disposition of substances contaminated with tetrachloroethylene and of the emergency contingency plan for handling spills of tetrachloroethylene and substances contaminated with tetrachloroethylene. No deficiencies were found at the Kendale Lakes facility during the 1995 audits. In 1994, the soil and groundwater at the Kendale Lakes facility was found to be contaminated by tetrachloroethylene. At that time, Dryclean USA was leasing the property, but, upon learning of the contamination, it purchased the property. Dryclean USA notified DERM of the contamination, and, in the spring of 1994, it retained the U.S. Environmental Group, an environmental consulting firm that, among other things, performs contamination assessments and develops and institutes remediation plans for sites contaminated with tetrachloroethylene. U.S. Environmental Group prepared a contamination assessment report delineating the area of contamination in the soil and groundwater around the Kendale Lakes facility. It also developed and implemented an interim remedial measures plan for both soil and groundwater contamination. Neither DERM nor U.S. Environmental Group nor any other agency or entity has identified the source of the contamination at the Kendale Lakes site. When U.S. Environmental Group began its assessment of the contamination in 1994, it did not find any discharge occurring from the drycleaning system in place at that time and so concluded that the contamination was historical. DERM assigned Nicholas Simmons as project manager for the Kendale Lakes site. In the spring of 1995, Mr. Simmons held the position of Hydrogeologist II in DERM's hazardous waste remediation program. His primary responsibilities in this position were to review contamination assessment reports, remedial action plans, and other documents relating to contaminated sites in Dade County and to make recommendations as to whether the reports and plans should be approved or disapproved. He was project manager for a number of sites contaminated with drycleaning solvents. Before he became a Hydrogeologist II with DERM, Mr. Simmons was a Pollution Control Inspector I with that agency, and his responsibilities included making field inspections of industrial facilities in Dade County, including drycleaning establishments. During his time as a pollution control inspector, Mr. Simmons visited approximately 20 to 30 drycleaning sites, although he did not personally inspect all of them. On April 28, 1995, Mr. Simmons made a visit to the Kendale Lakes facility in his capacity as DERM project manager to observe U.S. Environmental Group install a new monitoring well inside the facility. While at the facility, Mr. Simmons decided to make a cursory inspection to see if he could locate a source of the contamination at the site. He was unsuccessful in this respect, but he found several "items of concern" at the facility, none of which constituted a violation of any federal, state, or local laws, rules, or regulations or involved a discharge of tetrachloroethylene into the soil or groundwater. One "item of concern" he identified during his April 28 inspection was what appeared to be a leak from a pipe connected to the drycleaning machine. The liquid dripping from the pipe was clear and was dripping into a three-gallon bucket. Mr. Simmons did not take a sample of the liquid to determine if it was contaminated with tetrachloroethylene, nor did he observe the method of disposal of the liquid. The temporary manager, who was manager at the Kendale Lakes facility only one day per week, told him that he presumed the liquid was disposed of as hazardous waste. Mr. Simmons prepared a memorandum dated April 28, 1995, to Mark Pettit, a DERM code enforcement officer, in which he reported in detail the inspection, the observations he made, and the conversations he had with Dryclean USA employees during his visit to the Kendale Lakes facility on that date. Mr. Simmons visited the Kendale Lakes site again on May 2, 1995, to observe U.S. Environmental Group install equipment for a soil vapor extraction pilot test. Mr. Simmons took the opportunity to re-inspect the facility. Monica Resconi, the manager of the Kendale Lakes facility, was present during this inspection. In addition, Eddie Rodriguez, then-president of Dryclean USA, was present during most of the May 2 inspection. Mr. Simmons observed that clear liquid was still dripping from the pipe connected to the drycleaning machine into a small bucket. Mr. Simmons asked for and received permission from Ms. Resconi and Mr. Rodriguez to take a sample of the liquid in the bucket, and he submitted it for testing to the DERM laboratory. The laboratory analysis established that the sample contained 220.5 parts per billion of tetrachloroethylene. Mr. Simmons did not ask Ms. Resconi or Mr. Rodriguez how this liquid was disposed of, and he did not observe anyone actually disposing of the liquid. During Mr. Simmons' May 2 visit to the Kendale Lakes facility, he also observed a whitish liquid in a drum labeled "Hazardous Waste" that was located close to the drycleaning machine. A hose connected the drycleaning machine and the drum, but Mr. Simmons did not know whether there was liquid traveling through the hose or whether liquid would travel from the machine to the drum or vice versa. He also observed what appeared to be the same liquid in a puddle on the floor. He asked Ms. Resconi what the liquid was, and she put her hand into the puddle and identified the liquid as water. She wiped it up with a rag. Mr. Simmons did not observe her disposing of the rag, and he did not take a sample of either the liquid in the drum or the liquid on the floor. When Mr. Simmons showed Mr. Rodriguez the dripping liquid he had first observed on April 28 and the area where he had observed the puddle of whitish liquid, Mr. Rodriguez immediately called the maintenance manager for Dryclean USA, and a maintenance technician and the maintenance supervisor were promptly sent to the Kendale Lakes facility. They reported to the maintenance manager that the liquid dripping from the pipe was water that had condensed on the outside of a refrigerator pipe because some of the insulation was missing. They also reported that there were no other leaks from the drycleaning machine. When he inspected the machine the following day, the maintenance manager found that the insulation on the pipe had been replaced and that the pipe was no longer dripping. He also found no other leaks in the drycleaning machine. Finally, Mr. Simmons observed a yellow bucket just inside the back door of the facility during his May 2 inspection. The bucket contained dirty water and a mop with a green handle. He asked Ms. Resconi what the bucket contained, and she explained that it was water that had been used to mop the floor of the facility. When he asked how this water was disposed of, Ms. Resconi stated that it was thrown out the back door. Mr. Simmons asked for and received permission from Ms. Resconi and Mr. Rodriguez to collect a sample of the water in the bucket, but the sample he took was not acceptable for analysis and was discarded. For some time prior to Mr. Rodriguez's meeting with Mr. Simmons, Dryclean USA's policy regarding the disposal of mop water required that water used to mop the front, or store area, of the facility be discarded down the toilet and that water used to mop the back area of the facility where the drycleaning equipment was located be discarded in hazardous waste containers. When Mr. Simmons told Mr. Rodriguez on May 2 that he was concerned that the water in the mop bucket might contain tetrachloroethylene, Mr. Rodriguez responded by directing Ms. Resconi to dispose of all mop water in the hazardous waste containers. Mr. Simmons prepared a memorandum dated May 2, 1995, to Mark Pettit, a DERM code enforcement officer, in which he reported in detail the inspection, the observations he made, and the conversations he had with Dryclean USA employees during his visit to the Kendale Lakes facility on that date. In accordance with Mr. Simmons' recommendation, a detailed inspection of the Kendale Lakes facility was ordered. On May 11, 1995, Heather Wright, an inspector with DERM's hazardous facilities section, visited the facility to perform this inspection. Ms. Resconi was not at the facility, but Ms. Wright met with Brad Clayton, the temporary manager at Kendale Lakes, and with Steve Lundy, Dryclean USA's district manager responsible for the Kendale Lakes facility. Ms. Wright made a detailed inspection of the facility on May 11, 1995, and found that the floor around the drycleaning machine was dry and that there was no evidence of leaks from the drycleaning machine. Mr. Lundy discussed with Ms. Wright the procedure for cleaning up spills of tetrachloroethylene or substances known to be contaminated with tetrachloroethylene, and he told her that spills were picked up with absorbent cloth, which was then put into the drycleaning machine to extract the tetrachloroethylene from the cloth. He also told her that any other materials known to be contaminated with tetrachloroethylene were disposed of in hazardous waste druMs. Ms. Wright questioned Mr. Lundy on the method of disposing of water in the mop bucket, which was located just inside the back door of the facility. He told her that it was thrown out the back door of the facility, but he also told her that spills were not cleaned up with the mop, which was used only to mop the floors of the facility. Ms. Wright collected a sample of the water in the mop bucket and submitted it to the DERM laboratory for testing. The laboratory analysis established that the sample contained 121,928 parts per billion of tetrachloroethylene, an amount close to saturation.3 Ms. Wright did not observe the manner in which the employees of the Kendale Lakes facility disposed of the water in the mop bucket. Ms. Wright prepared an Incident Report dated May 11, 1995, in which she reported in detail the inspection, the observations she made, and the conversations she had with Dryclean USA employees during her visit to the Kendale Lakes facility on that date. When Mr. Rodriguez learned that the sample of water taken from the mop bucket at the Kendale Lakes facility contained almost 122,000 parts per billion of tetrachloroethylene, he instituted a new policy regarding the handling of mop water at all Dryclean USA facilities. Pursuant to a memo dated June 8, 1995, the new procedure requires that two mop buckets be maintained in each Dryclean USA facility, one to be used exclusively for mopping in the front "store" portion of the facility and one to be used exclusively for mopping in the back of the facility where the drycleaning equipment is located. The bucket used for mopping the back of the facility must be red, and the mop used must have a red handle. The water in the bucket used to mop the front of the facility must be discarded into the toilet, and the water in the red bucket, as well as the mop heads, must be disposed of as hazardous waste. According to samples taken by U.S. Environmental Group in November 1996, the level of tetrachloroethylene in samples of groundwater taken from Monitoring Well Number 2, located just outside the back door of the Kendale Lakes facility, was 499 parts per billion, a very small amount but one which was significantly higher than the samples taken from other monitoring wells at the Kendale Lakes site. This indicates that there has been a discharge of tetrachloroethylene in the vicinity of the back door of the facility, but the contamination in this area is in the form of pockets of pure tetrachloroethylene in the soil under the asphalt in the back of the facility. This is not consistent with the discharge of tetrachloroethylene that is dissolved in water. From 1994, when it began working at the Kendale Lakes facility, until the present, U.S. Environmental Group has found no indication of additional or increased contamination from tetrachloroethylene at the Kendale Lakes facility. On April 1, 1996, Dryclean USA applied to the Department for a determination that its Kendale Lakes facility was eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. As part of its review process, the Department requested that DERM provide answers to certain questions relating to the Kendale Lakes facility. One of the questions was whether DERM was aware of any "willful" discharge of contaminated materials at the Kendale Lakes site; DERM answered "Unknown." Also in response to the Department's inquiries, DERM provided the Department with materials that included the inspection reports submitted by Mr. Simmons and Ms. Wright in late April and early May 1995 and the laboratory analysis of the mop water sample taken by Ms. Wright on May 11, 1995. The Department relied on the information received from DERM in reviewing the application. In a letter dated August 2, 1996, the Department notified Dryclean USA that its application for the Kendale Lakes facility was denied because it had determined that Dryclean USA had willfully discharged drycleaning solvents "onto the soils or into the waters of the State." The sole basis for this conclusion was the information in Mr. Simmons' and Ms. Wright's reports that Ms. Resconi and Mr. Lundy stated during the inspections on May 2 and May 11, respectively, that the water in the mop bucket found beside the back door of the facility was routinely thrown out of the back door and on the laboratory results showing that the sample of water taken from the mop bucket on May 11, 1995, contained approximately 122,000 parts per billion of tetrachloroethylene. The parties have stipulated that, except for the issue of whether there has been a willful discharge of drycleaning solvent at Dryclean USA's Kendale Lakes facility subsequent to November 1, 1980, the application at issue in this proceeding satisfies all of the statutory criteria to establish Dryclean USA's eligibility to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program for that facility. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to support a finding that there were willful discharges of drycleaning solvent at the Kendale Lakes facility subsequent to November 19, 1980. The evidence does not establish that spills of tetrachloroethylene and substances contaminated with tetrachloroethylene were routinely cleaned up with a mop and the mop water discharged out the back door of the Kendale Lakes facility. Dryclean USA's employees received extensive training in the proper disposal of hazardous waste and the proper method for handing spills of tetrachloroethylene and substances contaminated with tetrachloroethylene, and its managers were given additional training that included information on the legal and environmental aspects of tetrachloroethylene contamination. There was no plausible reason suggested by the evidence for Ms. Resconi to flout the policies and procedures established by her employer. Furthermore, the evidence presented by the Department is simply too tenuous to establish, as the Department proposes, that Ms. Resconi admitted to Mr. Simmons that spills of tetrachloroethylene and substances contaminated with tetrachloroethylene were routinely cleaned up with a mop and the mop water discharged out the back door of the Kendale Lakes facility.4 At most, the evidence establishes that water used to mop the floor of the Kendale Lakes facility was most likely discharged out the back door until May 2, 1995, when Mr. Rodriguez directed Ms. Resconi to dispose of all mop water at the facility in the hazardous waste containers, and that, on May 11, 1995, the water in the mop bucket contained a significant amount of tetrachloroethylene. There is no evidence that Dryclean USA or its employees knew that the water in the mop bucket on May 11, 1995, contained tetrachloroethylene or that the water in the mop bucket on May 11, 1995, was discharged out the back door of the facility or that any mop water containing tetrachloroethylene was discharged out the back door of the facility. In fact, the uncontroverted evidence is that there has been no increase in the level of tetrachloroethylene contamination at the Kendale Lakes facility since at least 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a Final Order granting the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program Application submitted by Dryclean USA of Florida, Inc., for its facility located at 14099 Southwest 88th Street, Miami, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 2nd day of January, 1998.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 is eligible for state- administered cleanup under the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program pursuant to Section 376.3078, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Metropolitan Dade County (Petitioner) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 24, Metropolitan Dade County Code, Petitioner regulates, among other things, the use, storage, and disposal of industrial wastes and hazardous substances in Dade County. Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 (Respondent Industrial) is a Florida corporation and the owner of commercial real property located at 2035-2055 Northwest 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida. At this facility site, Respondent Industrial conducts business as a wholesale supplier of drycleaning supplies. The Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) is an agency of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapters 20, 376, and 403, Florida Statutes, Respondent DEP, among other things, regulates and is charged with the protection of the State's surface waters, groundwater, and other natural resources. On June 29, 1993, Petitioner's Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) issued Respondent Industrial a Notice of Violation and Order of Corrective Action (NOV). The NOV provided that evidence of "industrial waste discharges to the ground and groundwater" and that samples collected from Respondent Industrial's monitoring well revealed levels of tetrachloroethylene, also referred to as perchloroethylene (PERC), in violation of Chapter 24, Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Protection Ordinance.2 On or about September 20, 1993, in response to the NOV, Respondent Industrial's environmental consultant, Wingerter Environmental, prepared and submitted to DERM a Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP). On November 30, 1993, the CAP was approved by DERM, and subsequently modified on January 29, 1994. The CAP provided for the installation and sampling of five monitoring wells and four soil borings, and the surveying of relevant groundwater elevations. Analytical results from the soil and groundwater sampling identified elevated levels of PERC. Based on the analytical results, in May 1994, DERM and Respondent's new environmental consultant, AB2MT, discussed the need for expanding contamination assessment activities, including the installation and sampling of additional soil borings, shallow wells and a deep well. AB2MT completed the additional installation and sampling. Analytical results from the expanded assessment identified elevated levels of PERC, vinyl chloride and trichlorethylene. In May 1994, House Bill No. 2817, the Drycleaning Solvent Contamination Cleanup Act (Drycleaning Act), passed the Florida Legislature and was submitted to the Governor for signature. The Drycleaning Act became law, Chapter 94-355, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1994.3 On May 8, 1994, after passage of but prior to the Drycleaning Act becoming law, Respondent DEP announced that it was suspending all enforcement actions against drycleaning and wholesale supply facilities based on the Florida Legislature's passage of the Drycleaning Act. On May 16, 1994, Respondent Industrial's expanded contamination assessment report prepared by AB2MT was verbally approved by DERM. On January 24, 1995, DERM forwarded a Final Notice Prior to Court Action (Final Notice) to Respondent Industrial. The Final Notice stated that Respondent Industrial was not in compliance with the NOV, requested that Respondent Industrial enter into an administrative consent agreement within thirty days, and indicated that the case would be turned over to the County Attorney's Office if the referenced violations were not corrected.4 On August 30, 1995, a guidance document, regarding applications under the Drycleaning Act, was issued by Respondent DEP. The guidance document stated that Respondent DEP would begin accepting applications to the state-administered program created by the Drycleaning Act upon adoption by Respondent DEP of a rule to implement the program. In a meeting on January 25, 1996, DERM informed Respondent Industrial that it had a continuing obligation to cleanup and that it possibly could be found grossly negligent for failing to conduct a cleanup. On March 13, 1996, Respondent DEP adopted the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program Rules (Rules), Chapter 62- 781, Florida Administrative Code. The Rules specified eligibility requirements for applications submitted under the Drycleaning Act. On April 21, 1996, Respondent Industrial made application to Respondent DEP for acceptance into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. On September 16, 1996, Respondent Industrial was accepted by Respondent DEP into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, pursuant to Chapter 62-781, Florida Administrative Code. By Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing served October 4, 1996, Petitioner appealed Respondent DEP's acceptance of Respondent Industrial into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. According to Petitioner, Respondent Industrial's willful failure to assess and remediate contamination at the site of the wholesale supply facility constitutes gross negligence, thereby precluding its eligibility in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order finding Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 5th day of May, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Howard Boulette, held a Division of Hotels and Restaurants license number 74-03147R, issued to Howard's Restaurant (Howard's), owned by Respondent and located at 488 South Yonge Street, Ormond Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Steve Tyler (Tyler), an Environmental Health Specialist, employed by the Volusia County Health Department since September, 1984, inspected the premises at Howard's on November 17, 1986 and cited Respondent for several violations which were recorded on the Food Service Inspection Report (Report) prepared by Tyler on November 17, 1986 and left with an employee of Respondent's. The Report issued a warning requiring of both major and minor violations to be corrected by November 20, 1986. The violations found and noted on the November 17, 1986 Report by Tyler were violation under: (a) Item-03, Potentially hazardous food meets temperature requirements during storage, preparation, display, service, transportation; (b) Item-05, thermometer provided and conspicuous; Item-06, Potentially hazardous food properly thawed; (c) Item-08, Food protection during storage; (d) Item-12, Hands washed and clean, good hygiene protection; (e) Item-22, Food Contact Surface of equipment and utensils clean; (f) Item-23, non-food contact surfaces of equipment and utensils clean; (g) Item-35, Presence of insects/rodents; (h) Item-36, Floors Clean and; (i) Item-5l, Other conditions - sanitary and safe operation. The Report indicated that Items 03, 05, 06 and 35 were both major and minor violations whereas Items 08, 12, 22, 23 and 51 were minor violations and Item 36 was only a major violation. Tyler upon his follow-up inspection on November 20, 1986 found that Respondent had not complied with previous violations under Item 03, 05, 22, 23, 35 and 36 listed in the November 17, 1986 Report. Specifically, Tyler on his follow-up inspection of November 20, 1986 found: (a) Potentially hazardous foods such as tuna fish salad and ham being kept in preparation coolers at 52 degrees F and 50 degrees F, respectively when the rule requires 45 degrees F or less; (b) An ice cream freezer, pie cover and a white vertical freezer without thermometers or thermometers not located where they are easily and readily observed; (c) The food contact surface of the meat slicer not clean in that particles of food were left on the slicer, (d) The non-food contact surfaces of grill, deep fat fryer and hood was very greasy; (e) An extremely bad infestation of roaches, especially in kitchen and (e) Dirty floor under grill and deep fat fryer, counters and equipment in kitchen. Tyler made his inspection of Respondent's restaurant between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m., a period during which food is being prepared and served or in close proximity to a period of time when food is being prepared and served. Respondent's restaurant was on a monthly inspection and treatment plan for insects such as roaches with Terminix, a pest control company. The testimony of Respondent, which I found credible, was that the treatment for insects was ineffective and roaches were present during the period of time of the inspection by Tyler. Respondent terminated Terminix and on December 5, 1986 contracted with TPE for insect control. Tyler's testimony that other restaurant's had coolers that would maintain a temperature of 45 degrees F during the time food is being prepared and served was credible. Tyler did not discuss the Report of November 17, 1986 or the Call Back/Re-Inspection Report of November 20, 1987 with Respondent but did leave a copy of each with Respondent's employee on each occasion and on November 17, 1986 advised the employee that compliance was required by November 20, 1986 the day of the Call Back Inspection.
