The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether a site certification should be issued to Hillsborough County for the construction and operation of a fourth municipal waste combustor unit (“Unit No. 4”) at Hillsborough County’s Resource Recovery Facility, in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant The Applicant, Hillsborough County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The County owns the existing Facility and will own the proposed Project. The Facility was designed, built, and is operated by a private company pursuant to a long-term contract with the County. It is anticipated that a private company will design, construct, and operate the Project for the County. Hillsborough County’s Existing Solid Waste System The County has adopted a solid waste Comprehensive Master Plan (the “Master Plan”) in conjunction with the Cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City. The Master Plan provides for state-of-the-art technology and innovative approaches to recycling, waste reduction, and waste disposal. In accordance with the Master Plan, the County has developed: (a) an aggressive recycling program that significantly reduces the quantity of materials requiring disposal; (b) a resource recovery facility for waste reduction and energy recovery from those materials that are not recycled; and (c) a landfill for the disposal of ash and by-pass waste (i.e., materials that are not recycled or processed in the Facility). Hillsborough County and the three cities have used a cooperative, regional approach to solid waste management issues, while providing environmentally protective, cost-efficient programs for local residents. Despite the County’s comprehensive recycling program, the amount of solid waste generated in the County has increased each year since the Facility began operation, primarily due to population growth. The amount of solid waste generated in the County now significantly exceeds the Facility’s design capacity. Consequently, large quantities of solid waste currently are being diverted from the Facility to the County landfill. In 2005, the Board of County Commissioners decided to expand the Facility, consistent with the County’s long-standing Master Plan, rather than dispose of ever-increasing amounts of solid waste in a landfill. The Board’s decision was based on a thorough evaluation of the County’s solid waste disposal options. For these reasons, on November 21, 2005, the County filed an application with DEP for the construction and operation of Unit No. 4. The Site The Facility is located next to Falkenburg Road in an unincorporated area in the County. The Facility is southeast of the City of Tampa, west of Interstate 75 (“I-75"), and north of the Crosstown Expressway and State Road 60. The Facility was built on a 50.4-acre site (“Site”), which is in the southern portion of a 353-acre tract of land owned by Hillsborough County. The Surrounding Area The Facility is surrounded by a variety of governmental and industrial land uses. The Facility is bounded: on the south by the County’s Falkenburg Road Wastewater Treatment Plant and a railroad track that is owned by the CSX railroad company; on the west by a 230 kilovolt transmission line corridor and easement owned by Tampa Electric Company (“TECO”); on the north by vacant improved pasture land, the Falkenburg Road Jail, the Hillsborough County Department of Animal Services, and the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (District 2); and on the east by Falkenburg Road and vacant land. The Facility is compatible with the adjacent and surrounding land uses. The nearest residential area is approximately 1 mile away from the Facility. It is located on the opposite (east) side of I-75. Zoning and Land Use In 1984, the Siting Board determined that the Site and Facility were consistent and in compliance with the applicable land use plans and zoning ordinances. The Siting Board’s determination was based on the County’s plans for the construction and operation of four MWC units at the Facility. The Site is currently zoned “Planned Development”, and is designated “Public/Quasi-Public” under the County’s comprehensive land use plan, specifically to allow the Facility and the Project to be built and operated on the Site. The Existing Facility The Facility currently has three MWC units. Each MWC unit has a nominal design capacity of 400 tons per day (“tpd”) of municipal solid waste (440 tpd when burning a reference fuel with a higher heating value of 4500 British thermal units (“Btu”) per pound). The three MWC units are located inside a fully enclosed building, which also contains the air pollution control systems for the MWC units, the “tipping floor,” the refuse storage pit, and a turbine generator. The Facility also includes an ash management building, cooling tower, stack, stormwater management ponds, water treatment system, transformer yard, electrical transmission lines, and ancillary equipment and facilities. Municipal solid waste (e.g., household and commercial garbage) is delivered to the Site in trucks, which drive inside the refuse storage building to the tipping floor, where the trucks dump the MSW into the refuse storage pit. Two overhead cranes mix the waste in the refuse storage pit and then load the waste into the charging hoppers that feed the three MWC units. The combustion of the municipal solid waste produces heat, which is used to produce steam. The steam is used in a turbine generator to produce approximately 29.5 megawatts (“MW”) of electricity. The Project The Project involves the construction and operation of a fourth MWC unit at the Facility. The new unit will be substantially the same as the three existing MWC units, but larger. The new unit will be designed to process approximately 600 tpd of municipal solid waste (660 tpd @ 5000 Btu/lb). A new turbine generator also will be installed, which will increase the Facility’s electrical generating capacity by approximately 18 MW, thus increasing the Facility’s total net generating capacity to approximately 47 MW. In addition, the Facility’s cooling tower will be expanded, the refuse and ash management buildings will be expanded, two lime silos and a carbon silo will be installed, a new settling basin will be installed, and other related improvements will be made. Construction of Unit No. 4 The Facility was designed and built to accommodate the addition of a fourth MWC unit, thus making the construction of Unit No. 4 relatively simple, without disrupting large areas of the Site. Unit No. 4 will be located adjacent to the three existing MWC units. The construction of the other Facility improvements also will occur adjacent to the existing components of the Facility. Only about 0.3 acres of the Site will be converted from open space to a building or similar use. Construction of Unit No. 4 will occur in previously disturbed upland areas on the Site that are already used for industrial operations. Construction of Unit No. 4 will not affect any wetlands or environmentally sensitive areas. No new electrical transmission lines will need to be built to accommodate the additional electrical power generated by Unit No. 4. No new pipelines or other linear facilities will need to be built for the Project. The construction of Unit No. 4 will not expand the Facility beyond the boundaries of the Site that was certified by the Siting Board in 1984. Operation of Unit No. 4 The basic operation of the Facility will not change when Unit No. 4 becomes operational. Municipal solid waste will be processed at the Facility in the same way it is currently processed. The Facility has operated since 1987 and has an excellent track record for compliance with all applicable regulations, including regulations concerning noise, dust, and odors. All of the activities involving solid waste and ash occur inside enclosed buildings. The tipping floor and refuse storage pit are maintained under negative air pressure, thus ensuring that dust and odors are controlled within the building. Since the operations at the Facility will remain the same after Unit No. 4 becomes operational, no problems are anticipated in the future due to noise, dust, or odors. The Facility’s basic water supply and management system will remain the same after Unit No. 4 becomes operational. Treated wastewater from the County’s co-located Falkenburg Road Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) will be provided via an existing pipeline to satisfy the Facility’s need for cooling water. Potable water will be provided to the Facility via an existing pipeline from the City of Tampa’s water supply plant. The Facility does not use groundwater or surface water for any of its operations. The Facility will not discharge any industrial or domestic wastewater to any surface water or groundwater. Most of the Facility’s wastewater will be recycled and reused in the Facility. Any excess wastewater will be discharged to the Falkenburg Road WWTP. Stormwater runoff from the Project will be collected and treated in the existing system of swales and ponds on the Site. The County will modify two existing outfall weirs to provide improved treatment of stormwater and to ensure compliance with water quality standards. A traffic analysis was performed to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the operation of the Facility, after the Project is completed. The analysis demonstrated the Facility will not have any significant impacts on the surrounding roadway network, even when Unit No. 4 is operational. Air Quality Regulations The County must comply with federal and state New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) and Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”) requirements, both of which impose strict limits on the Facility’s airborne emissions. The County also must comply with Ambient Air Quality Standards (“AAQS”) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) standards, which establish criteria for the protection of ambient air quality. Best Available Control Technology BACT is a pollutant-specific emission limit that provides the maximum degree of emission reduction, after taking into account the energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs. As part of the BACT determination, all available and feasible pollution control technologies being used worldwide are evaluated. The Department performed a BACT determination for the Project. As part of its BACT analyses, DEP determined that (a) a flue gas recirculation system and a selective non-catalytic reduction system (“SNCR”) will control NOx; (b) a spray dryer with lime injection will control MWC acid gas; (c) an activated carbon injection system (“ACI”) will control MWC organic compounds; (d) a fabric filter baghouse will control particulate matter and MWC metals; and (e) proper facility design and operating methods will control other pollutants. These air pollution control technologies (except flue gas recirculation) and methods are currently used in the three existing MWC units and they have performed extremely well. Unit No. 4 will have better, more modern, and more sophisticated versions of these air pollution control systems, plus a flue gas recirculation system. In its analysis of the Project, DEP determined the emission limits for the Project that represent BACT. All of the emission limits determined by DEP for Unit No. 4 are as low as or lower than the emission limits established in 2006 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in the NSPS (40 CFR 60, Subpart Eb) for new MWC units. The NSPS are based on the use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (“MACT”). Unit No. 4 will be subject to the lowest NOx emission limits imposed on any MWC unit in the United States. The Facility will use an array of continuous emissions monitors to help ensure that the Facility is continuously in compliance with the DEP’s emission limits. Indeed, Unit No. 4 will be the first MWC unit in the United States to be equipped with a continuous emissions monitor for mercury. Protection of Ambient Air Quality The EPA has adopted “primary” and “secondary” National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS"). The primary NAAQS were promulgated to protect the health of the general public, including the most susceptible groups (e.g., children, the elderly, and those with respiratory ailments), with an adequate margin of safety. The secondary NAAQS were promulgated to protect the public welfare, including vegetation, soils, visibility, and other factors, from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of pollutants in the ambient air. Florida has adopted EPA’s primary and secondary NAAQS, and has adopted some Florida AAQS (“FAAQS”) that are more stringent than EPA’s NAAQS. The County analyzed the Project’s potential impacts on ambient air quality, using conservative assumptions that were intended to over-estimate the Project’s impacts by a wide margin. These analyses demonstrate that the maximum impacts from Unit No. 4 will be less than one percent of the amount allowed by the ambient air quality standards. The maximum impact from the Facility (i.e., all four units) will be less than 2.5 percent of the amount allowed by the FAAQS and NAAQS. For these reasons, the emissions from Unit No. 4 and the Facility are not expected to cause adverse impacts on human health or the environment. The maximum impacts of Unit No. 4 and the Facility, when operating under worst case conditions, will be immeasurably small and will be indistinguishable from ambient background conditions. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments The County performed a human health and ecological impact assessment of the risks associated with the Facility’s airborne emissions. The County’s risk assessment evaluated the impacts of the entire Facility, with all four MWC units in operation. The risk assessment was designed to over-estimate the potential impacts of the Facility. The County’s risk assessment was conducted in compliance with current EPA guidance. The risk assessment considered hypothetical human receptors (e.g., infants, children, and adults) that were engaged in different types of behavior (e.g., a typical resident; a beef farmer; a subsistence fisherman) and were exposed through multiple pathways (e.g., inhalation; ingestion of soil; ingestion of local produce, beef, and/or fish) to chronic long term impacts from the Facility. The risk assessment also considered the Facility’s potential impacts on sensitive environmental receptors, including aquatic life (benthic dwelling aquatic organisms), wood storks, and river otters. The County’s risk assessment demonstrates that the potential risks associated with the Facility’s emissions will not exceed, and in most cases will be much less than, the risks that are deemed acceptable by the EPA and DEP for the protection of human health and the environment. The County’s assessment is consistent with the findings in environmental monitoring studies, epidemiological studies, and risk assessments that have been performed for other modern waste-to-energy ("WTE") facilities in the United States. The County’s findings also are consistent with the determinations made by the EPA, which has concluded that WTE facilities equipped with modern pollution control systems are a “clean, reliable, renewable source of energy.” The evidence presented by the County in this case demonstrates that the Facility is not likely to have any adverse effect on human health or the environment, even when all four MWC units are operational, if the Facility is built and operated in compliance with the Conditions of Certification. Potential Impacts on Water Quality The Facility’s emissions of nitrogen oxides (i.e., NOx) will not cause or contribute to violations of any water quality standards in any surface waterbody. Environmental Benefits of the Project The addition of Unit No. 4 will provide significant environmental benefits to the County. Unit No. 4 will reduce the volume of processible solid waste by approximately 90 percent. By reducing the volume of processible waste, Unit No. 4 and the Facility will greatly extend the useful life of the County’s landfill, thus postponing the need to build a new landfill. The Facility also will convert putrescible waste into a relatively inert ash, which poses less threat to groundwater resources. The Project will also provide environmental benefits to the State of Florida. For example, the Facility will produce electricity from discarded materials. In this manner, Unit No. 4 will reduce the need to use fossil fuels to generate electricity at traditional power plants. Unit No. 4 will eliminate the need to use approximately 4 million barrels of oil and thus will save approximately $200 million in oil purchases over the next 20 years. Socioeconomic Benefits of the Project The local economy and labor market will benefit from approximately $100 million that the County will spend to construct the Project. A significant amount of construction supplies, goods, and services are anticipated to be purchased from local businesses. The Project will provide jobs for construction workers. The daily workforce is expected to average between 25 and 75 people over a period of approximately 21 months. The addition of Unit No. 4 will also provide approximately 8 new permanent jobs at the Facility. WTE Criteria in Section 403.7061 Section 403.7061, Florida Statutes, establishes several criteria that must be satisfied before an existing waste-to-energy facility may be expanded. The County has provided reasonable assurance that the Project will satisfy all of the standards and criteria in Section 403.7061, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the County has demonstrated that the County’s waste reduction rate has consistently exceeded the State’s 30 percent recycling goal. Consistency With Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances As required by Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes, the County demonstrated that the Site is consistent and in compliance with the Hillsborough County comprehensive land use plan and Hillsborough County’s applicable zoning ordinances. Compliance with Environmental Standards The Department has concluded and the evidence demonstrates that the County has provided reasonable assurance the Project will comply with all of the nonprocedural land use and environmental statutes, rules, policies, and requirements that apply to the Project, including but not limited to those requirements governing the Project’s impacts on air quality, water consumption, stormwater, and wetlands. The County has used all reasonable and available methods to minimize the impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Facility. The location, construction, and operation of the Project will have minimal adverse effects on human health, the environment, the ecology of the State’s lands and wildlife, and the ecology of the State’s waters and aquatic life. The Project will not unduly conflict with any of the goals or other provisions of any applicable local, regional, or state comprehensive plan. The Conditions of Certification establish operational safeguards for the Project that are technically sufficient for the protection of the public health and welfare, with a wide margin of safety. Agency Positions Concerning Certification of the Project On May 4, 2006, the PSC issued a report concluding that the Project was exempt from the PSC’s need determination process, pursuant to Section 377.709(6), Florida Statutes. The DEP, DOT, and SWFWMD recommend certification of the Project, subject to the Conditions of Certification. The other agencies involved in this proceeding did not object to the certification of the Project. The County has accepted, and has provided reasonable assurance that it will comply with, the Conditions of Certification. Public Notice of the Certification Hearing On December 19, 2005, the County published a “Notice of Filing of Application for Electrical Power Plant Site Certification” in the Tampa Tribune, which is a newspaper of general circulation published in Hillsborough County, Florida. On May 25, 2006, the County published notice of the Certification Hearing in the Tampa Tribune. On December 23 and December 30, 2005, the Department electronically published “Notice of Filing of Application for Power Plant Certification.” On May 26, 2006, the Department electronically published notice of the Certification Hearing. The public notices for the Certification Hearing satisfy the informational and other requirements set forth in Section 403.5115, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-17.280 and 62-17.281(4).
Conclusions For Petitioner Hillsborough County (the “County”) David S. Dee, Esquire Young van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1720 For the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“Department” or “DEP”) Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-300
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting a site certification for the construction and operation of Unit No. 4 at the Hillsborough County Resource Recovery Facility, in accordance with the Conditions of Certification contained in DEP Exhibit 2. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of August, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner purchased a five-acre tract of land in Section 11, Township 28 South, Range 17 East, in Hillsborough County, Florida, to use as a dump site for tree trimmings generated by its tree service business. After being advised by the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Agency (HCEPA) that dumping on this property was illegal and a fire hazard, Petitioner applied for and obtained a permit to burn some of the trimmings that had been dumped on the property. The permit was issued to burn in the northern part of the property and burning logs were observed in the southern part of the property without an adequate firebreak. This permit was later rescinded. At the time Petitioner acquired the property it was enclosed with a barbed-wire fence with access only via an 18-foot-wide road. Brush fires in the vicinity of the property led the fire department to cut the fence so their equipment could be moved through the area when necessary. Frequent inspection by HCEPA led to citations to Petitioner for maintaining a fire hazard (no adequate fire-break around the perimeter of the property), for unauthorized dumping on the property, inadequate security, and for operating a landfill without a permit. An order to cease dumping on this site was issued by HCEPA. Petitioner sought the assistance of the fire department in constructing a firebreak around the property and on two occasions stretched a chain and later a cable across the road to bar access to unauthorized persons. Trespassers tore down the chain and cable and dumped household trash on the property. Petitioner engaged the services of an engineer to prepare its application to DER for a permit to operate a landfill. When advised that the application was incomplete, that a bond was needed, that the property was not zoned properly, and that the security was inadequate, Petitioner applied to Hillsborough County for a zoning change and contacted an insurance company about the required bond and was assured a bond would be issued when requested. Petitioner's application for a zoning change never reached the agenda of the Hillsborough County Commission and Petitioner never presented documentary evidence that the required bond would be issued upon request. Petitioner presented no evidence that anything has been done to improve the security of the property or to keep unauthorized persons out.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified building contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. CB CO24584. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Southern Construction Technologies, Inc. In March, 1988, Alfred and Martha Entrekin entered into a contract with Southern Construction Technologies, Inc., whereby they agreed to pay the sum of $178,000 for construction of a custom-built home. Since the Entrekins were unable to qualify for the financing needed for construction, Southern Construction obtained a construction loan on their behalf. Despite delays, construction commenced in May of 1988 and continued through October, when, the closing on the residence took place, subsequent to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Town of Davie. Just prior to the closing, a "punchlist" was prepared by Respondent and the Entrekins. That punchlist, which became part of the closing, contains 24 numbered items. (Due to misnumbering, the punchlist says 25.) Thirteen 0of those items on the copy of the punchlist offered in evidence by the Petitioner have been crossed off that list. Of the remaining 11 items, the evidence at final hearing reveals that some were corrected and some items were not the subject of any evidence offered by either party at the final hearing. Although additional items appear to have been added to the punchlist by the Entrekins sometime after the closing, those items will not be considered in this cause since no evidence was offered to indicate that those items were agreed to by the Respondent at the time of closing and no evidence was presented as to when those items were added to the original punchlist by the Entrekins. At the time of closing, the sum of $1,500 was placed in escrow to ensure completion of the punchlist by Respondent. Respondent performed some of the punchlist work on the day of the closing and continued working on the punchlist items for the next three weeks. On January 11, 1989, the Entrekins' attorney sent a demand letter seeking the release of the funds placed in escrow at the closing. Attached to that demand letter was a list of 16 items allegedly remaining on the punchlist. Some of the items on the new "punchlist" submitted by the Entrekins did not appear on the punchlist agreed to by the parties at the closing. Others did appear on the closing punchlist but had been struck through and initialed by Mrs. Entrekin, assumedly as having been completed, on the copy of the closing punchlist offered by Petitioner as an exhibit in this cause. In response to the demand letter, Respondent authorized the release of the $1,500 in escrow to the Entrekins. Respondent admits that at the time that the money was released to the Entrekins, there were still some repairs needed to the rake tiles on the roof and he had not seeded the backyard. Respondent testified that four rake tiles on the eaves were missing, some were misaligned, and some had not been "mudded" in with mortar, but no broken tiles remained on the roof. He also testified that he had not seeded the backyard because the Entrekins had not yet placed fill in the backyard, an item which Mr. Entrekin admits was his responsibility as provided in the contract between the Entrekins and Southern Construction Technologies, Inc. The only evidence submitted in corroboration of the complaints of the Entrekins consists of several invoices. In March, 1989, the Entrekins obtained an estimate for roof repairs from Warren Roofing, Inc., in the amount of $1,200. That invoice indicates the need to replace 80 broken tiles on the roof, the need to remove and replace approximately 130 rake tiles to be secured with mortar tinted to match (although Donald Warren testified that the tile used is nail-on tile which does not require mortar), and the need to "repair defects" in two rear valley areas. Warren Roofing was never hired to effectuate the repairs for which it had submitted its $1,200 estimate. The extensive work set forth in the estimate in March of 1989 is inconsistent with the roofing inspection which would have taken place prior to the certificate of occupancy issued prior to the closing in October of 1988. The only roofing repair effectuated to the Entrekin house by anyone other than Respondent was work performed by Warren Roofing in July of 1989 repairing a leak around the skylight. Petitioner also offered in evidence two invoices from pool services dated March of 1989. One invoice in the amount of $275 represents the cost of acid washing the pool, and the other invoice is for $230 to "filter pool water." Due to electrical problems, the water in the pool was not filtered for two days during the period of construction of the Entrekin house. No evidence was offered to show that the absence of filtering a pool for two days would require it to be acid washed, and no evidence was offered in support of the services performed or the need for the services represented by the second invoice. Another invoice represents the cost of 20 loads of muck for the backyard at a cost of $600, and $150 to rent a bulldozer. Since the muck for the backyard was the responsibility of the Entrekins, the bulldozer charge accompanying the 20 loads of muck is, in all probability, also the responsibility of the Entrekins. The last invoice submitted in evidence also bears the date of March of 1989 and represents 50 pounds of grass seed, in the amount of $110.50, a cost item which Respondent admits was his responsibility at the time that the escrowed monies were released to the Entrekins.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of January, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 25th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles N. Tetunic, Esquire Becker, Poliakoff & Streitfeld, P.A. Post Office Box 9057 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310-9057 Joseph Stephen Sharrow, Esquire Post Office Box 8995 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sergio J. Alcorta (Alcorta), is licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department) as a professional engineer, license number PE 0014464. Alcorta is not licensed by the Department as a contractor. Alcorta has a company called mrf building systems, inc. Alcorta d/b/a mrf building systems, inc. is not listed in the records of the Contractors Section, Dade County Building and Zoning Department as a certified contractor doing or contracting for work in the building trades in Dade County. Hurricane Andrew, which hit the Miami area in August, 1992, damaged the home of Kenneth and Elizabeth Quinn. A friend of the Quinns referred them to Alcorta for assistance. By letter dated September 15, 1992, Alcorta outlined a discussion he had with the Quinns. The letter stated: Per our discussion, I will assist you in dealing with your insurance carrier and other construction workers to ensure that all hurricane damages are accounted for and the work is properly performed. I will prepare an initial damage evaluation report of all damages for the insurance adjuster and facilitate on your behalf the transfer of funds from your mortgage holder to you and to any pertinent party. My fees will be $150 for the initial evaluation and $500 at the end of construction work where you require my assistance. By letter dated September 16, 1992, Alcorta advised the Quinns of his findings concerning the damage to their residence. The engineer's report was prepared on the letterhead of Nu-Tech Engineering Services. Alcorta contacted a general contractor to see if the contractor could perform the work required to repair the Quinn's house. The contractor advised Alcorta that only a roofing permit would be required for the job and that because of the work he was already committed to do, he did not know when he could complete the repairs. Alcorta and Mr. Quinn signed a proposal on mrf building systems, inc. letterhead dated September 29, 1992. The proposal provided: We propose to furnish all materials, labor, tools, and equipment to repair the storm damaged dwelling at the above referenced location as follows: Roof recovering with shingles and ply- wood sheathing repairs $7,500. Structural repairs to concrete columns, stucco repairs as necessary $2,500 Enclosing terrace with new exterior walls and french doors $7,500 Retiling terrace room and pool area $2,000 Securing cabinets and other interior damage $1,000 Removal, installation of solar collector $500 New terrace central air conditioner $2,000 Exterior fencing $3,000 Total repair estimate $26,000 TERMS: One third down payment upon execution of the contract. Partial payments upon completion of work segments. Estimated time for completion of job: 21 days. On mrf building systems, inc.'s letterhead dated September 30, 1992, Alcorta provided Ms. Quinn with an estimate for interior painting, taking off the roof mounted solar collector and reinstalling it on the new roof, replacing roof insulation, structural epoxy repair, and replacing torn vent screens. Alcorta was paid approximately $14,650 by the Quinns on this project. Alcorta in turn paid for some of the materials and labor used on the project. The checks from the Quinns were made payable to Alcorta, not to mrf building systems, inc. By letter dated October 2, 1992, on mfr building systems, inc., letterhead, Alcorta forwarded a copy of the contract with the Quinns to the Quinn's mortgage company advising them that the Quinns had given him a down payment of $4,000 and listing the anticipated completion dates for the various tasks to be performed. Alcorta bought supplies and had laborers come to the site to perform work. There was no licensed contractor on the job. The only building permit pulled on the project was obtained by Elizabeth Quinn, the homeowner. The building permit did not carry the disclosure statement required by Section 489.103(7), Florida Statutes. Alcorta witnessed Ms. Quinn's signature on the application for building permit. Alcorta did not advise the Quinns that they were to act as contractors per Section 489.103(7), Florida Statutes. The Quinns did not supervise the construction on the project but relied on Alcorta to supervise the work. Alcorta was not an employee of the Quinns. The Quinns experienced problems with the roofing work performed pursuant to the contract with mrf building systems, inc. The roof leaked, requiring the Quinns to have the roof replaced at a cost of $10,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Sergio J. Alcorta violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), and assessing an administrative penalty of $3,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Bass, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Sergio J. Alcorta Nisky Center, Mail Box 401 Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 Lynda Goodgame, Genral Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent conducted an auto salvage operation under the name, All-States Auto Salvage, Inc., at its site located at 1331 22nd Street North in St. Petersburg. Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection, was the state agency responsible for enforcing the terms of the rules and statutes of this state dealing with pollution of the land, air and waters of Florida. As a part of Respondent's salvage operation, it dismantled derelict automobiles to salvage parts for further use, if possible, and to obtain scrap metal for processing. This operation is carried out at its business site located on a roughly triangular piece of land in St. Petersburg bordered on one side by 13th Avenue North, by 22nd Avenue North on another side, and on the third side by a water filled ditch which ultimately empties into Booker Lake, classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. On June 9, 1991, Investigator Weeks, of the Department's Southwest District office, conducted an inspection of the Respondent's business site on the land in question, which was rented from someone else, based on a complaint filed with the Department on December 19, 1990. That complaint was that Respondent's salvage operation was discharging various types of polluting fluids from the vehicles being dismantled at the site. Mr. Weeks found that car fluids were being discharged onto the ground during engine removal. He was told by Respondent's employees that the entire site was paved with concrete under the surface dirt. Respondent confirmed that at hearing, indicating further that the eight inch concrete slab was underlaid by a non-porous plastic sheet designed to act as a barrier against seepage. Though neither Mr. Weeks or subsequent investigators who visited the site confirmed the presence of the barrier, neither was its presence disproved, and it is found such a plastic sheet indeed exists. Mr. Weeks noticed, however, that no berms existed to control and contain fluids for later collection and disposal. When Ms. Hinson, also a Department investigator, visited the site again on April 29, 1992, she did not notice any berms surrounding the property, and saw puddles of standing water which had a sheen on them indicating the presence of petroleum products. Mr. Weeks report indicates that storm water falling on the site has been washing these polluting fluids off the property and into the adjacent ditch which ultimately empties into a jurisdictional water. This ditch had distressed vegetation on the side adjoining Respondent's property. This same situation was observed by Ms. Hinson during her April, 1992 visit to the site. Ms. Hinson has an undergraduate degree in biology with minors in chemistry and physics. She is but one semester from completing her Master's degree in environmental health. Based on her education and experience, she concluded the ditch vegetation was damaged because of the contamination of petroleum products from Respondent's yard. If a concrete pad exists and is not properly pitched and sloped, it would increase wastewater runoff into the ditch, and since concrete is somewhat permeable, contaminants could leach through it into the soil beneath unless stopped and rerouted by any existing barrier. She took no water or soil samples from either the site yard or the ditch, however. No direct evidence was presented as to whether the polluted water runoff actually went into the ditch, and no direct evidence was introduced to show that the water in the ditch was ever tested for pollutants at the time of either visit. Mr. Kristensen indicated the distress to the vegetation was caused by weed control spraying by the county or the city. A check with the city office responsible for spraying in the area revealed the last spraying at that site was in October, 1993, and the only one before that was 18 months previously, in June, 1992, after Ms. Hinson's first visit. It is found, therefore, that the vegetative distress was caused by runoff from Respondent's salvage yard though no evidence of pollution was identified in the ditch water. On April 29, 1992, Ms. Hinson was asked by a member of the St. Petersburg Police Department to accompany a team on a joint inspection of Respondent's operation. This is not unusual as she receives similar requests from law enforcement agencies in the several counties which make up the Department's Southwest District. In this case, the police were going to look for stolen vehicles and wanted Ms. Hinson to look for possible environmental violations. When she went through Respondent's site on that occasion, she saw automobiles being dismantled on what appeared to her to be the bare ground to the left of the entrance to the yard. Autos awaiting dismantling were being stored to the right of the entrance. Also on the right side, progressing toward the back of the site, beyond the autos, was a large pile of tires which, she estimated to number between 1,200 and 1,800, lying against the building toward the back of the property and against the side fence. There were no fire lanes provided as the pile extended against the side of the building and the fence. Ms. Hinson saw auto parts lying on the ground all over the site. It appeared to her, from the appearance of the ground, that it was made up of a black, sticky substance smelling of petroleum, whereas regular soil in that area of town was grey and sandy. She did not dig into this covering and does not know how deep it was or whether it overlaid a concrete pad, as Mr. Kristensen asserts. She did notice puddles of fluid on the ground which had a sheen on them, and she did not see any containment efforts being made. There were barrels available for waste fluids, but it was clear to her that not all fluid was getting into them. In fact, she saw an employee removing gasoline tanks from vehicles, and this process was dripping fluid, presumably gasoline, right onto the ground. Admittedly, not much leakage occurred at any one time, but from the condition she observed on the ground, it was evident to her the practice had been going on for a long time. Ms. Hinson asked Mr. Kristensen about how fluids were accumulated, stored, and disposed of. In response, he showed her receipts indicating he had sold reclaimed oil to a processor. Receipts from 1989 - 1993, introduced at the hearing, indicate that waste oil and diesel was periodically sold to processors and in January, 1991, some 20 gallons of waste water was delivered to a recovery firm. Ms. Hinson again visited the site shortly before the hearing but did not go in. She noted, however, that the yard had far fewer vehicles on it, and the dismantled pieces are now neatly stacked. The soil still appears black, however, and the ditch still appears the same as on her previous visit. In her professional opinion, a need exists for a contamination assessment. Though the volume has been substantially reduced since her initial inspection, the contamination she observed then does not appear to have been corrected. There is a need to prevent contamination, and if some occurs, to contain it. She did not observe any control measures in progress. Sometime after Ms. Hinson's visit in April, 1992, Mr. Kristensen received a Final Order from the District Director requiring him to make certain corrections to his place of business and its operation. This Final Order was issued by mistake, however, but at no time until late in 1993 did anyone from the Department notify Mr. Kristensen of that fact or of his responsibilities in light of that mistake. Upon receipt of the Order, Mr. Kristensen set upon a course of corrective action designed to rectify the identified violations. The tire pile was reduced; a suction pump was purchased to collect standing water; an expensive piece of equipment to drain fluids from vehicles was purchased and put into operation; berms were constructed which, with the existing pitch and slope of the slab, should keep all fluids on site for mechanical removal; and all hazardous waste is now stored in a manner approved by the fire department. In addition to the above, since 1986 or before, a standing written procedure has been in existence regarding the handling of hazardous waste. Though this directive is required reading for all employees, it is obvious it was honored more in the breach than in the compliance. According to Mr. Kristensen, the soil which overlays the concrete slab is no more than one quarter of an inch thick. This would appear to be a rather conservative estimate, however. Review of the photographs introduced by both parties reveals the thickness of the mixture to be much greater. Regardless, Mr. Kristensen asserts this soil is periodically collected and dried to remove the petroleum before being put down again and used as an absorbent. This process, however, is not likely to remove more than the odor of petroleum as a result of evaporation. The actual contaminants remain. This absorbent was present as late as October 26, 1993, when the site was visited by Ms. Cangro. At the time of her visit it was raining and the ground was covered with a wet, black substance which gave off an odor of petroleum. Ms. Hinson spent between six and eight hours on this case. She earns approximately $120.00 per hour. Other expenses incurred on the matter include attorney and clerical time. No figures were provided to establish actual or estimated costs in this regard. Taken together, the evidence indicates Respondent is a person within the meaning of the pertinent statutes; automobile fluids and tires constitute solid waste within the meaning of the pertinent statutes; and Respondent's operation at the property constitutes a solid waste management facility within the meaning of the appropriate statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent has violated those provisions of Florida Statutes cited on the Department's Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective Action, and imposing such restrictions and conditions upon Respondent's continued operation as are lawful, necessary and proper under the circumstance. Costs are not assessed. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1994, 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 29th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-5517 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Presumed correct but not proven. - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as likely but not proven to have occurred. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 33. Accepted. Accepted. & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37. - 39. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carl H. J. Kristensen, Jr. Qualified Representative All-States Auto Salvage Incorporated 1331 22nd Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 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 to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the above-named Respondents applied pesticide chemicals to a pre-construction application site for pre-treatment for termites and wood-destroying organisms, which was contrary to label instructions, by not applying the specific amount (volume) and concentration designated by the label in alleged violation of Section 482.051(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 5E-14.106(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents are certified operators and applicators employed by pest control companies in the Panama City area. Stephen W. Daniels holds License No. 43026. Earl G. Pettijohn holds License No. 92006. Mr. Pettijohn is an applicator at Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., and Mr. Daniels is a certified operator for Environmental Security of Panama City. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure, operations, and practices of pest control operators, applicators, and licensed pest control businesses in the State of Florida. The pre-construction termite treatment in question occurred on October 16, 2001. The treatment or job site was at the new construction of the Northwest Florida Community Hospital at 1360 Brickyard Road, in Chipley, Florida. Two trucks were used on the October 16, 2001, job: one was a truck marked "Killingsworth Environmental," driven by Mr. Pettijohn; the other truck was marked "Atlas" and was driven by Mr. Daniels. The chemical used in the pre-treatment for termites at the job site was a soil pesticide known as "Cyren-TC." The label for Cyren-TC indicates a requirement of 0.50 percent to 1.0 percent concentration, with an aqueous emulsion used for pre-treatment for termites. The laboratory report and analysis of the pesticide sample taken from Mr. Daniels' truck tank, at the hose end, was found to contain 0.38 percent chlorphyrifos (active ingredient), which represents a 24 percent deficiency from the minimal required rate of 0.50 percent per the Cyren-TC label. The Respondents, Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn, were called by the contractor of the job in Chipley on the evening of October 15, 2001, with his request that they perform a pre-treatment termite treatment the next morning for a monolithic slab described as being of an area of 12,000 square feet. The Respondents, therefore, filled their trucks, mixing the pesticide, based upon that measurement on the evening of October 15, 2001. They arrived at the job site the following morning at 7:15 a.m. They did not use the two trucks to treat any other sites between the filling of the trucks and their arrival on the job site in question on the morning of October 16, 2001. Upon inspecting the job site, Mr. Daniels measured the slab and determined the actual square footage to be approximately 9,300 square feet. That figure is not disputed. The truck Mr. Daniels was driving had a tank and spray capacity of 700 gallons. The 700 gallons was represented by a 500-gallon tank and by an additional 200-gallon tank. The truck was completely filled when it arrived on the job site. The truck Mr. Pettijohn was driving contained a capacity of 600 gallons in two tanks of 300 gallons each. It was completely full when it arrived at the job site. Mr. Owens, the Department's field inspector who testified in support of the Administrative Complaint, did not inspect either truck to determine or estimate their total capacities. He was not aware of how much either truck employed on the job in question actually held in total volume. He also did not observe how much chemical was left over still in the tanks in each truck when the first treatment application effort had concluded, on or shortly before 9:00 a.m., on October 16, 2001. The Respondents applied an aqueous emulsion of Cyren-TC to the 9,300 square foot monolithic slab by spraying a volume from each truck. Mr. Daniels' truck pumped five to seven gallons per minute, and Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped seven to nine gallons per minute. Both trucks were fitted with gravity-fed pumps. The pumps on each truck would pump a higher volume, closer to seven gallons per minute or nine gallons per minute respectively, as to Mr. Daniels' and Mr. Pettijohn's trucks when the tanks were more nearly full because of the higher pressure feeding the gravity-fed pump. The volume per minute pumping rate would gradually decrease as the level in the tank became lower. Both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn started pumping at essentially the same time or within one minute of each other. Mr. Daniels testified that he and Mr. Pettijohn applied the pesticide for 73 minutes measured by the digital clock on his radio. Mr. Daniels determined the amount of time necessary to pump the pesticide on the site from both trucks by taking an average of the output volume of the pumps on each truck. He began timing the application when he pulled the hose to the far end of the slab and turned it on. When the treatment application was complete, Mr. Daniels had approximately 50 gallons of chemical remaining in the 500-gallon tank on his truck. He had not yet used any of the 200-gallon tank on his truck. Mr. Pettijohn had approximately 55 to 60 gallons of chemical left from the two tanks totaling 600 gallons on his truck when he started the application. The testimony as to the amount of chemicals left in the tanks after this first application is unrefuted and is accepted. Mr. Daniels established that, although when the tanks were approaching empty (when the calibration was made by Mr. Owens), at which time Mr. Daniels' tank would only pump at a rate of five gallons per minute, that the pumps would pump at a higher rate, approaching seven gallons per minute as to Mr. Daniels' truck and nine gallons per minute as to Mr. Pettijohn's truck, when the tanks were full. Consequently, if one takes an average of the output volume for each truck of slightly over six gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck and slightly over seven gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck, one arrives at an application volume for Mr. Daniels' truck of 438 to 450 gallons of chemical applied. One also arrives at a volume applied for Mr. Pettijohn's truck of approximately 547 gallons if one uses an average application rate of 7.5 gallons per minute. Since the testimony as to the remaining product in the tanks is unrefuted because Mr. Owens did not observe the amount of product left in the tanks on the two trucks, and if one uses an average application rate of 7.5 gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck and six gallons per minute or slightly more for Mr. Daniels' truck, one arrives at a figure of between 50 and 60 gallons of product remaining in Mr. Pettijohn's truck, and approximately 50 to 60 gallons remaining in Mr. Daniels' truck if one uses Mr. Daniels' factor of 73 minutes to multiply times that average application per minute rate. Thus, the approximate amount of product remaining in the tanks of both trucks being unrefuted, it is thus established that Mr. Daniels' figure of 73 minutes as the application time is most nearly correct. While the pre-treatment application was being performed, Investigator Owens was parked at a nearby parking area observing the application procedure and timing it with a stopwatch. Mr. Owens determined that Mr. Daniels had pumped for 45 minutes and 30 seconds and Mr. Pettijohn pumped for 45 minutes. Using Mr. Owens' figure of seven gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck and five gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck (the lowest pumping rates) for the entire pumping operation (which for the reasons found above is not accurate), Mr. Owens came up with an approximate application volume for Mr. Daniels' truck of 228 gallons and approximately 315 gallons for Mr. Pettijohn's truck. This figure is not realistic when one considers the amount of product left in the tanks of the two trucks at the end of the first application operation. There certainly was not an excess of 250 gallons of product left in the 500-gallon tank of Mr. Daniels' truck and 285 gallons of product left in the tank of Mr. Pettijohn's truck at the end of that first pumping operation on or before 9:00 a.m., on October 16, 2001. It cannot be determined from the testimony and evidence why there is such a great disparity in the time period Mr. Owens postulated for the treatment operation he observed, versus the most accurate 73-minute period established from Mr. Daniels' testimony. After confirming that the Respondents had completed their application effort, Mr. Owens conducted an inspection with regard to both trucks, obtaining information, and filling out necessary paperwork. Mr. Owens then took a sample from Mr. Daniels' truck only when he completed the calibrations of the trucks. That calibration, as found above, noted an application rate of five gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck at a point when there was only approximately 50 gallons of product left in the 500-gallon tank to feed the gravity-supplied pump on Mr. Daniels' truck. Mr. Owens took a sample of the pesticide from the hose-end of the pump on Mr. Daniels' truck and placed it in a 32-ounce jar covered with a lid. The jar was not pre-labeled with a sample number. Mr. Owens taped the lid of the jar, and initialed it, so that the tape seal could not be broken without disturbing his initials and put the jar in the trunk of his car in an ice chest with ice. As a matter of practice, Mr. Owens does not offer a duplicate sample to an operator unless he asked for one and he did not ask Mr. Daniels to sign the tape on the jar. Mr. Owens did not take a chemical sample from Mr. Pettijohn's truck and there is no evidence as to what concentration of pesticide was in the tank on Mr. Pettijohn's truck. In the two pesticide applications on the morning of October 16, 2001, Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped a total of 600 gallons of product on the site. It is not possible to make a factual determination as to the chemical concentration of the volume of product in Mr. Pettijohn's truck. The water used to mix the chemical for application at the job site was obtained from the water plant in Panama City. It had been, at some point, chemically treated with chlorine. There is no evidence as to any chlorine content in the water, which is chemically treated with chlorine, at least in the potable water stage and possibly in the waste water treatment stage. The sample was collected, as noted above, on October 16, 2001, but was not delivered to the laboratory to be analyzed as to the pesticide concentration until October 26, 2001. There is no indication on the laboratory report of the actual date of processing by the lab, but the final report was issued on November 14, 2001. There was at least a lapse of ten days from collection to analyzation by the laboratory. Testimony was presented concerning a study done by a Clemson University scientist which indicated that chlorine in municipal tap water was enough to degrade pesticides like that involved in this case by a factor of 32 percent in three hours. It has not been established that that occurred here, although logically some chlorine content may have been in the water that was used to mix the chemical. It is also well-known in the pesticide industry that an appropriate reaction and safeguard for a chemical spill of Chlorpyrofos is the application of bleach or chlorine to neutralize or degrade the chemical. It is not clear whether the deficient concentration pumped from the Daniels'-operated truck resulted from only chlorine content in the mix water or by the lapse of time caused by mixing the chemical the evening before it was to be used the following morning (in the interest of arriving at the job site early that morning per the instructions of the contractor). It may have been simply operator error in the proportions of water to chemical which were mixed when the tanks were filled or a combination of these three factors. Moreover, it cannot be determined precisely what concentration was actually deposited on the surface at the job site because Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped approximately 600 gallons of total volume on the site in two applications and Mr. Daniels' truck pumped approximately 438 to 450 gallons in the first application and approximately 220 gallons in the second application, and the concentration of the chemicals pumped from Mr. Pettijohn's truck is unknown in so far as the evidential record in the case is concerned. Thus, it cannot be definitively determined what concentration of chemical actually was deposited on the surface of the job site. In any event, after Mr. Owens had calibrated the pump on Mr. Daniels' truck and taken his sample, both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn rolled up their hoses, got in their trucks, and left the job site. After they left the job site, Mr. Owens notified the builder that the pre-treatment had been inadequate in terms of the volume of pesticide applied and so the builder requested that Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn return and apply more chemical. They arrived at the job site some 15 to 20 minutes after they had initially left and began spraying the additional chemical in the second application that morning. When Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn returned to the site, Mr. Daniels told Mr. Owens that he disagreed with Mr. Owens' volume calculations. In any event, Mr. Owens directed both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn to pump additional volume onto the site. Thus, at Mr. Owens' direction, they pumped the volumes remaining in their trucks onto the site (with the exception of approximately 30 gallons, which was finally remaining in Mr. Daniels' truck), for a total of approximately 1,280 to 1,300 gallons being pumped on the job site. Thus, in light of the above calculations and findings, the site actually received approximately 280 to 300 gallons more than the prescribed labeled rate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondent Stephen W. Daniels in the amount of $350.00, and it is further recommended that the Administrative Complaint as to Respondents Earl G. Pettijohn and Environmental Security of Panama City be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert O. Beasley, Esquire Litvak & Beasley, LLP 220 West Garden Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 13503 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3503 Jack W. Crooks, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Room 520, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Mail Stop 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact On January 31, 1979, Respondent Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners filed an application with the Northwest Florida District Office of Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to construct a solid waste resource recovery and management facility near Baker, Florida at the intersection of State Road 4 and State Road 4B. The proposed facility would be a sanitary landfill approximately 36 acres in size which would receive solid waste for disposal from the municipalities of Baker, Milligan, Holt, Crestview, and Blackman. Approximately six to eight additional acres at the site were previously used by the County as a dump for household trash and garbage for a period of approximately eight years. Some of the waste was burned and the remainder was buried. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibit 1) The proposed landfill is located in a rural area primarily used for agriculture which is sparsely populated. The site is surrounded by forested lands but some recent removal of trees has opened a portion of the site to public view from State Road 4. The land at the site slopes gradually in a west- east direction, and the slope is more pronounced on county land adjoining the east border of the site for a distance of about 900 feet. At this location, several springs form the headwaters of Mill Creek which flows cast through two lakes located on about 224 acres of private property owned by Petitioners Donald C. and Mary Ann Long. Mill Creek becomes a defined water course after leaving the Long property and flows into the Yellow River which is approximately two and one-half miles from the Mill Creek headwaters. The Yellow diver flows some 10 to 20 miles into Blackwater Bay near Milton. A shallow well from which potable water 15 obtained is located on the Long property but not within 1,000 feet of the landfill site. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibits 1-2) The applicant intends to use the trench method in disposing of solid waste. Trenches will be excavated to a depth of about 15 feet, but in no case will the bottom of a trench be underlain by less than two feet of the "fine sandy loam" which occurs in a layer of varying depth beneath the overlying Lakeland sand soil. Test holes dug in the landfill site indicate that the bottom of the "fine sandy loam" layer in depths of some three to twelve feet is located about eighteen feet below the surface of the ground. The applicant intends to check at 100 foot intervals while digging trenches to insure that at least two feet of that material underlies the trench bottom. If not, sufficient additional amounts of the material will be placed in the trench and compacted to make a two-foot thick layer. There will be a distance of 50 feet between centers of trenches. The trenches will be 30 feet wide at the top and 15 feet wide at the bottom. The bottom of each trench will have a slope of less than 5 percent designed to drain the trenches and lifts of rainwater before they are filled. The upper lift will vary in depth from 5 to 7 feet depending upon the final contour desired. Wastes will be deposited either at the top or bottom of the working face of the trench and will be spread by a crawler tractor in two foot layers and then compacted. Compacted waste will be covered daily with one foot of soil and a final cover of at least two feet of sandy clay material will be obtained from a county borrow pit adjacent to the landfill and placed over trenches to prevent the movement of water into the buried solid waste. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten, Exhibits 1-2) The applicant plans to construct a barrier to contain the movement of leachate along the eastern border of the landfill which will be a minimum of five feet wide and as deep as necessary to "tie-in" with the existing layer of "fine sandy loam" beneath the site. The barrier is designed to prevent leachate from moving horizontally downslope toward Mill Creek. The barrier material will be compacted, but not the sides of the trenches. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten) The groundwaters under the site are from 55 to 65 feet below the surface of the land. Although the elevation of groundwaters normally will follow the contour of the land surface, borings at the site have not been made to the depth of the watertable. The approximation of the depth of the groundwaters was obtained from data of two monitoring wells located on county land directly east of the proposed landfill site. Twenty-four holes were dug across the site to determine the location of the "fine sandy loam" soil layer which exists below the surface. Eight additional holes were dug to obtain samples of the material for a texture analysis. In its natural state, this material has a permeability rate of about 2.5 to 5 inches per hour. After compaction, the permeability rate will be about .02 to .2 inches per hour. No permeability rate is required by pertinent DER regulations for liner material. Recent soil tests of material taken from the county borrow pit some 200 yards west of the landfill site showed a permeability rate of .004 inches to .0027 inches per hour. A recent sample taken from the bottom of an existing pit at the landfill reflected a permeability rate of .01 inch per hour. Proposed guidelines of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contemplate a permeability rate of only .00014 inches per hour for liner materials to restrict the rate of flow of leachate from the bottom of a landfill. The material proposed to be used by the applicant for liner material therefore will permit fairly rapid movement of leachate through the sides and bottoms of trenches, and under the eastern barrier. Further, the coarser sand underlying the "fine sandy loam" liner layer has a much higher permeability rate. As a result, an unknown amount of leachate will eventually reach the groundwater table and flow laterally downslope in an easterly direction. Leachate generation will be impeded by the vegetated, relatively impervious final top layer over the landfill, the wedge of soil located between each trench, and the eastern barrier. These measures will serve also to attenuate suspended solids in the leachate, but not organic materials and most metals. There will also be a certain amount of dilution after any leachate reaches the groundwater table. (Testimony of Rogers, Edmisten, Meister, Tomlinson, Exhibits 1-2, 5, 7) Water samples taken from in and around the area of the springs located both on county and private property to the east and from wells in the general area show that the water generally is of high quality. There is no indication that past landfill operations at the site have degraded the water quality in the vicinity of the nearby creeks, ponds and wells. (Testimony of Meister, Rogers, Long, Exhibits 1-2, 8-9) The applicant plans to control surface runoff and any consequent erosion by means of terraces, berms, and swales. However, other than notations on engineering plans of provision for a highway drainage swale, no design of such items is shown in the application. Prior erosion in the area has been satisfactorily corrected in the past by the county by the use of similar methods to those planned for the landfill site. (Testimony of Rogers, Long, Exhibit 2) The application was reviewed by DER's Southwest District permitting engineer. He found that the application and supporting documents met the statutory and regulatory criteria for the issuance of a construction permit. However, soil borings did not extend at least ten feet below the proposed excavations. (Testimony of Diltz, Exhibit 2) By letter of March 27, 1979, the Northwest District Manager of DER issued a Notice of Intent to issue a construction permit for the proposed sanitary landfill under standard and special conditions. The special conditions required construction of two approved monitoring wells east of the landfill and analysis of water samples from the wells and from a surface water sampling point in the headwaters of Mill Creek prior to issuance of an operation permit. A further condition required the applicant to submit verification that the bottoms of trenches contained at least two feet of the material specified in the application. At the hearing, DER and Okaloosa County submitted a stipulation wherein they agreed that additional monitoring wells should be placed upgradient from the site, at the downstream boundary of the first trench, at the north end of the clay barrier, and immediately east of boring number 8 prior to issuance of an operation permit. The conditions further required that well logs will be kept on all monitoring wells and reports on soils, geology and groundwater elevation he submitted to DER prior to issuance of an operating permit. Further, any identification of leachate contamination in the wells by a method to be spelled out in any operation permit will require extension of the earthen barrier west to State Road 4. Finally, a special condition required that the bottom lining material of all trenches and the barrier must be compacted prior to the issuance of an operating permit. (Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That the requested permit be issued to the Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners as herein specified. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jacob Varn Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wright Moulton, Esquire Post Office Box 591 Pensacola, Florida 32593 John R. Dowd, Esquire Okaloosa County Attorney Post Office Box 1964 Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548
The Issue Whether Respondent's explosives license should be revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 4A, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in Administrative Complaint, dated June 9.1981, as amended. This proceeding arises under an Administrative Complaint filed by the State Fire Marshal, Department of Insurance, against Respondent, F. R. Jahna Industries, Inc., alleging that on or about February 26, 1981, Respondent violated Rules 4A-2.19(6) and (8), Florida Administrative Code, by detonating explosives in such a manner that rocks, dust and blast debris encroached on Highway 491 and residences in Beverly Hills, Florida. Violation of the aforesaid rules is predicated upon the allegation that the blast was done in a congested area, in close proximity to structures and highways, without using a mat to prevent fragments from being thrown, and by failing to block off adjacent roads. The State Fire Marshal seeks to revoke Respondent's explosives license issued under Chapter 552, Florida Statutes, or to impose any appropriate lesser penalties. Respondent filed a petition requesting a Section 120.57 (1), F.S., hearing and the petition was referred to this Division for the appointment of a Hearing Officer. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of seventeen witnesses, including deposition testimony of two witnesses. Respondent called seven witnesses and submitted ten exhibits in evidence. Proposed recommended orders filed by the parties have been fully considered, and those portions thereof which have not been adopted herein are considered either to be unnecessary, irrelevant or unsupported in fact or law.
Findings Of Fact Respondent E.R. Jahna Industries, Inc. is licensed by Petitioner Department of Insurance under Explosives License No. 0463570178-00, for the operations of its limerock mine located on Highway 491 four miles north of Lecanto, Florida. Respondent was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Pleadings) Respondent's Lecanto mine or quarry is comprised of approximately 100 acres where blasting operations are conducted for the purpose of producing limestone aggregate in various sizes for use in asphalt, concrete block, and ready-mix concrete. Blasting takes place along the "face" of the quarry and each "shot" is designed to dislodge and move a predictable amount of limestone. The Respondent routinely follows standard industry "state of the art" procedures in conducting its blasting operations under the supervision of state licensed "blasters" employed by the firm. The customary procedure employed is to decide on the desired location of a blast, strip the soil from the top of the rock deposit, and lay out the shot pattern on the ground with red marking paint to designate the holes into which the explosives will be placed. A. specified number of holes are drilled to a predetermined depth, after which the explosive material and detonating devices are inserted into the holes, leaving enough room at the top for "stemming" material which consists of the drill cuttings which are tamped by a wooden rod. Stemming is designed to hold pressure in the hole for a long enough period to achieve maximum blasting force for movement of rock. Too little stemming can cause "fly-rock," which are uncontrolled pieces, to fly out of the top of the hole in a ballistic trajectory at great speed. Such an occurrence would almost always be due to the negligence of blasting personnel in failing to insert sufficient stemming material for the particular blast. In quarry blast operations, it is customary to use a plastic "sleeve" in the drilled hole into which the explosive material is poured. A sleeve is used in order that the powder will not concentrate in a fissure or other void and thus cause a "blowout" of the explosion through the face of the quarry. (Testimony of Day, Froedge, Respondent's Exhibit 10, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 8-9) Respondent's rock mine is directly across Highway 491 from the Beverly Hills residential development. A forested buffer area lies between the housing development and Highway 491. (Testimony of Hubbard, Connor, Respondent's Exhibits 1-4 a-c) On February 26, 1981, at 4:50 P.M., Respondent's personnel conducted a blasting operation at the mine. The location of the blast was 1065.32 feet in a straight line direction west of Highway 491, and 1660.21 feet from Washington Street in Beverly Hills. The shot pattern consisted of 22 holes 30 feet deep placed 14 feet apart in three rows. There was a 12 foot separation between each row. Two hundred and fifty pounds of explosive material consisting of nitrocarbonitrate was poured into a plastic sleeve inserted into each hole. Nitrocarbonitrate is ammonium nitrate fertilizer with 6 percent diesel fuel. Total explosive material for the shot was 250 pounds per hole for a total of 5500 pounds. Two primers per hole were used for a total of 44 pounds. The holes were tamped with eight feet of stemming material each. Preparation for the shot and the loading of the explosive materials was supervised by Respondent's general manager, Aggregates Division, who is a licensed blaster, and by the mine superintendent, Willard Thompson. The head foreman was Billy McCranie, a licensed blaster who supervised the drilling and loading of the holes, and personally wired and stemmed the shot. A tape measure with a weight was used to insure that each hole contained eight feet of stemming. The manner in which the shot was prepared and detonated followed customary practice and was appropriate under the prevailing conditions for the amount of rock intended to be moved from the face of the mine. Although in prior mining operations, blasts had been conducted some 750 feet closer to Highway 941 than the shot on February 26th, there had never been an incident where fly-rock or other material had reached the highway. At the time the February 26th shot was laid out, there was a prevailing northwest wind of approximately 15 to 20 miles per hour which was gusty, but would not normally have impacted significantly on the blast. The wind did increase considerably at the time of the blast, but the superintendent did not consider it sufficient to warrant postponing the shot with the requisite notification to the State Fire Marshal. It is hazardous to leave explosives in the ground overnight unless it cannot be avoided. However, wind does not blow rock particles larger than a "BB" in size for any distance. Larger particles or rocks would simply be blown up and come down in the same locale, regardless of the strength of the wind, unless on a ballistic trajectory due to negligence in stemming of the shot. In such cases, rocks would travel at great speed and ultimately be imbedded in the earth. (Testimony of Day, McCranie, Thompson, Froedge, Respondent's Exhibits 5-6) At the time of the blast, general manager Day was located approximately 800 feet away from the site of the shot, foreman McCranie was approximately 400 feet away underneath a loader, and Thompson was at the front entrance of the mine. All three individuals observed that the rock was displaced in a normal manner as a result of the explosion and that no rocks reached their positions. They saw a large dust cloud drift across the area toward Highway 491 which was somewhat farther than normal due to the prevailing wind. At no time, did any of them believe that unusual precautions were necessary such as blocking off the highway. They did not consider the use of a blasting mat to cover the explosion. Such a mat, which is usually constructed of steel cable or chain, is not feasible for use in industrial mining operations due to the great size and weight required, and because an explosion would simply disintegrate the steel material and create a hazardous condition. Blasting mats are primarily used for small shots in heavily congested urban areas. Experts in the field of blasting are of the opinion that blasting mats are totally inappropriate for use in mine blasting operations. They further are of the opinion that the conditions of the shot on February 26th did not warrant any unusual precautions such as road closing, due to the location and type of blast, plus the fact that it could not be reasonably anticipated that any material would be thrown by the explosion more than three to four hundred feet from the blast site location. (Testimony of Day, McCranie, Muldrow, Thompson, Younginer, Froedge) The impact of the blast on various residents of Beverly Hills was varied, but there was general agreement among those who testified at the hearing that they heard a loud blast which shook the ground and was followed by a large grey or black cloud which drifted across Highway 491 into the Beverly Hills development at a height of several hundred feet. The cloud contained dust particles of salt size which peppered a number of the residents who were standing in their yards. One individual, Sidney Holt, who lives on the second street of the housing area from Highway 491, observed several pebbles fall in his yard which looked like sandstones, including one as big as a "pullet egg" which imbedded itself about a half inch in the sandy soil. Another resident, H. R. Hubbard, who lives on Washington Street, which is the first street of the development, was in his yard at the time and heard stones falling close by. Although he did not personally see any rocks fall, he later found three large stones bearing greyish marks lying on the surface of an open ground area behind his house toward Highway 491. The largest of these stones was approximately the size of a grapefruit and the other two were somewhat smaller. Although Hubbard testified that he had raked that area the day before and the rocks had not then been present, expert opinion testimony of blasting experts rules out the probability that the rocks were thrown or otherwise resulted from the February 26th blast, due to the distance involved and the fact that ammonium nitrate would leave a white rather than gray powder burn. Insufficient evidence was presented to warrant a finding that the rocks found on ground as described by Hubbard resulted from the explosion. (Testimony of Froedge, Connor, Hubbard, J. Baffuto, Holt, Rospierski, Neison, Muldrow, Pease, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5) Other manifestations of the explosion experienced by Beverly Hills residents included chandeliers shaking and one falling from its mounting in a home three-quarters of a mile east of Highway 491. Another home owner approximately one-half mile east of the highway observed his awning windows open and close slightly from the blast. An individual who resides some one and three-quarter miles west of Respondent's mine saw his sliding glass patio doors "whip" or vibrate against the door frame several times. One Beverly Hills resident who lived two blocks east of the highway noticed that a pot on her stove vibrated onto the adjacent kitchen counter. Occupants of two motor vehicles traveling near the mine entrance at the time of the blast felt a strong concussion and observed the large dust cloud cross the highway into Beverly Hills. They also saw rocks the size of a fist and as large as a grapefruit in the air. One individual, Robert H. Martin, heard a rock hit his car and he also observed rocks falling on the highway. He slowed down and stopped at the time due to poor visibility caused by the dust cloud. He later found that there was a dent in his right front fender. The other automobile driven by Andrew Pustay was near the entrance of the mine at the time of the explosion. He continued driving although the blast caused him almost to lose control of his car and the dust obscured his visibility to approximately twenty or twenty five feet. He later observed a number of marks or dents on the hood, fenders and doors of his car -- several about the size of a dime --- where the paint had been removed and which had not been present prior to the explosion. The blast effect on residents would have been similar to lightning striking the ground. (Testimony of Jay Baffuto, DeMarta, Tripp, C. Baffuto, Martin, Schuster, A. Pustay (Deposition, Petitioner's Exhibit 3), M. Pustay Petitioner's Exhibit 2)), Froedge) Respondent has maintained a seismograph near the mine site for the past several years to measure ground vibrations and over-pressure from blasting operations. The seismograph was operating on February 26, 1981 at the time of Respondent's blast and failed to register any vibration. Such a failure is indicative of the fact that vibration as a result of the blast was minimal and not sufficient to cause damage in the surrounding area of Beverly Hills. (Testimony of Straw, Respondent's Exhibit 7) James R. Vereen, Petitioner's Chief, Bureau of Explosives, expressed the agency policy as to the use of blasting mats to be that the use of mats should be considered by the explosives user any time there is a possibility of fly-rock and consequent property damage or personal injury. However, he has never seen a blasting mat used in a quarry operation. (Testimony of Vereen)
Recommendation That Petitioner impose an administrative fine of $500 against Respondent, E. R. Jahna, Inc., pursuant to Section 552.161(1), Florida Statutes, for violation of Rule 4A-2.19 (8), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 9th day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire Department of Insurance 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32201 Jack P. Brandon, Esquire Post Office Box 1079 Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Don Bradshaw, Esquire 204 West Main Street Inverness, Florida 32650 Honorable Bill Gunter Treasurer and Insurance Commission and State Fire Marshal State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Is Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc. (Watson), entitled to a general permit allowing it to operate a construction and demolition debris facility in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida?
Findings Of Fact DEP, in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, is responsible for enhancing the beauty and quality of the environment; conservation and recycling of natural resources; prevention of the spread of disease and creation of nuisances; protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and provision for a coordinated statewide solid waste management program. It accomplishes these tasks, in part, by regulatory oversight directed to entities who operate solid waste facilities in Florida. That oversight includes permitting the activities by the facilities subject to compliance with statutory and rule requirements. Watson wishes to operate a solid waste facility in Newberry, Florida. In particular, Watson seeks to operate a C&D facility for off-site disposal of C&D debris to be placed where sand has been mined. Watson would pursue this enterprise by using a general permit, as allowed by DEP. Petitioner, City of Newberry (the City), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It opposes Watson's use of a general permit to conduct business as a C&D facility, based upon the belief that Watson has not demonstrated compliance with regulatory provisions that would allow Watson to use a general permit. Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc. (Citizens), is a corporation constituted of persons who oppose the use of the general permit for the same reasons expressed by the City. On July 21, 1994, Watson noticed DEP that it intended to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility. On July 29, 1994, a notice was published in the Gainesville Sun, a local newspaper, concerning the pendency of the use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility in Newberry, Florida. On August 12 and 16, 1994, the Petitioners filed petitions seeking an administrative hearing on the use of a general permit by Watson to operate the C & D facility. On August 19, 1994, DEP issued a Notice of Denial of the permission to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. This permit request was under an arrangement between Watson and a co-applicant, Whitehurst. Following the Notice of Denial, no further action being requested by the applicants, DEP issued an order closing its file. In December 1994, in its name only, Watson resubmitted an application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility in question. The level of consideration at that time was as a pre-application review. This was followed by a formal notice by Watson and application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. The formal application was filed on January 17, 1995. On January 24, 1995, notice was published in the Gainesville Sun concerning the more recent intention to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. On February 6, 1995, Citizens filed a verified petition opposing the use of the general permit contemplated by the January 17, 1995 application. Two days later, the City filed a verified petition in opposition to the most recent request to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. On February 15, 1995, DEP gave notice that it did not object to Watson's use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility. Watson's most recent request to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility was made on a form provided by DEP in accordance with Rule 62- 701.900(3), Florida Administrative Code. The application to use a general permit was sealed by a professional engineer. The legal description of the property in question is described in the application. It is located in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida. The site location for the proposed C&D facility is one and one-eighth mile south of Southwest 46th Avenue on the east side of County Road 337 in Newberry, Florida. Documentation has been provided which identifies the legal authorization to use the property as a C&D facility. The C&D facility has a planned active life of 50 years. It is intended that the sand that is excavated will be replaced by C&D debris at a similar grade. The mailing address and telephone number of the C&D owner and operator is identified. Watson is the owner/operator. There are 158 acres within the proposed site. Approximately 143 acres would be used in the C&D operation by mining sand as a prelude to recontouring the site by placing the C&D debris. It is intended to excavate tan sand and silty sand to a depth of 20-30 feet. Although Watson anticipates excavating sand to a depth of 30 feet, bore hole data reveals the existence of sand below that depth. Watson does not intend to excavate below 62 feet mean sea level (MSL). In any event, it is not the intention to excavate below the interface of the sand and underlying sandy clays. Once the sand has been excavated, it is anticipated that the bottom of the C&D disposal area will be approximately 15 feet above the piezometric water table associated with the Floridan Aquifer, according to the applicant. The proposed site is located in rolling terrain, whose elevations range from approximately 80 feet MSL to 100 feet MSL. To support the use of a general permit, Watson has provided a site plan with a scale not greater than 200 feet to the inch, which identifies the project location, with proposed disposal areas, total acreage of the site and of the proposed disposal area, and other relevant features that exist on or within 500 feet of the site. The property boundaries are identified. The site would be fenced. Access to the facility would be controlled by a locked gate on County Road 337. The gate would be open during daily operations. The site does not contain surface water. There being no surface water, the C&D facility does not require a surface water management permit from the Suwannee River Water Management District. The site does not present a problem with stormwater runoff. A potable well is located within 500 feet of the property boundary. However, placement of C&D debris would be offset by a 500-foot buffer from the well. Wetlands are located 2,100 feet from the southern edge of the proposed site in the eastern part of the adjacent Whitehurst parcel. Within 3,000 feet of the proposed site is an old phosphate mining pit on the Whitehurst parcel, and 6,200 feet from the proposed site is the northern-most unnamed pond associated with Watermelon Pond. The site is not susceptible to flooding at present. The sand mined at the proposed site would be used to build roads and for foundations for houses and other buildings. Clay removed from the building sites to make room for the sand would be placed in the C&D facility. The material that is removed from building sites and substituted by sand fill is clay with a high shrink and swell factor. That material, together with flint rocks, tree limbs and stumps, would be transported to the C&D facility by Watson's dump trucks. At present, Watson has 20 dump trucks. The dump trucks hold 20 yards each. In addition to those materials removed from Watson job sites by dump trucks, Watson has approximately 36 roll-off dumpsters which hold 20 yards each. Two Watson trucks are available to transport the roll-off dumpsters to the C&D facility. The roll-off dumpsters are placed on construction sites, not exclusively Watson's, and construction materials not used in the building process would be placed in the roll-off dumpsters for disposal at the C&D facility. Approximately 70 percent of the fill material to be placed in the C&D facility would be unsuitable soils, trees, limbs and stumps. The remaining material would be the C&D debris from construction at sites where the dumpsters have been placed. The dump trucks that hold the clay, limbs and stumps would be loaded by Watson employees, who can control what is placed in the trucks. Watson would not control what is placed in the roll-off dumpsters at other construction sites. The Watson dump trucks from job sites directly related to its activities would arrive at the C&D facility and dump their loads for compaction. Those loads would not be spotted for unsuitable fill materials. By contrast, the roll-off dumpsters would be examined at the construction site by the Watson driver. If the driver discovers excessive amounts of material not classified for C&D fill, contact would be made with the Watson office and the material taken to the Alachua County landfill for disposal. If the driver picks up the dumpster at the construction site and there are limited amounts of material not suitable for disposition at the C&D facility, the dumpster would be taken to the C&D facility. The material would be spread out, and a spotter would segregate materials that are not suitable for C&D fill. The unsuitable material would be placed in temporary containers at the disposal site and transported off-site to a permitted landfill or other appropriate facility. Some material brought to the landfill would be recycled. Woods, such as pine or hardwood would be recycled. The limbs and stumps would be placed in the pit as fill. Copper, aluminum, steel, iron, and any other metal would be recycled. The metals would be sold to a scrap-iron facility. An employee at the landfill would keep the money earned from recycling. Metal embedded in broken concrete would be used as fill. The C&D facility would be operated by two persons: one, a loader/operator who loads the dump trucks with the sand that is being excavated; the second individual, a bulldozer operator who pushes the dump truck loads of clay, limbs, and stumps into the fill area and spreads them. He would also spot the roll-off dumpsters and segregate the fill material from unsuitable material. The sorted construction material to be used as fill would be pushed into the working face of the pit, where the tree limbs, stumps and clay would have also been placed. It is anticipated that six to ten roll-off dumpsters with C&D material would be brought to the C&D facility on a daily basis. The amount of unsuitable material that must be sorted from the dumpsters would vary with the individual loads. Watson operates an existing C&D facility in Alachua County, Florida. The proposed C&D facility would be similar in its operation. Based upon the experience in the existing facility, there is no indication that the proposed C&D facility could not be adequately operated by two employees, taking into account the need to segregate unsuitable material before filling. The spotter would receive verbal training concerning his duties. The training provided the spotter is on-site training. He would be reminded once a week of the need to do an adequate job of looking for unsuitable materials. At present, Alachua County inspects the existing C&D facility on a weekly basis and reminds the spotter at that facility what is appropriate for placement and what is not. The expectation is that the same function would be performed at the proposed facility. If sinkholes are encountered in excavating the sand, the equipment operator would contact the Watson office. In turn, Watson would contact its consulting engineer to address the problem, to include placing a plug or cap to repair the breach caused by the sinkhole. In the event that limerock is encountered in the excavation, a clay cap will be placed to prohibit leachate from flowing into the ground water. Areas where limerock is located at higher elevations and not covered by clay present the greatest risk for sinkhole formation. The period between excavation and fill will be approximately two years, leaving the site exposed at the level of excavation before fill is replaced. When the site is closed, the front-end loader operator and bulldozer operator will spread 24 inches of soil as a cap and grade the site in preparation for planting of pine trees. The soil material would be constituted as six inches of top soil suitable for planting pine trees. The remaining 18 inches would contain clay with high shrink/swell properties. The planting of pine trees would be done through a contract forester. The equipment operated at the facility would employ approved muffler systems. Odor generated by the facility is not anticipated to be a problem, in that household garbage, if found, would only be temporarily maintained, pending placement in an appropriate landfill. The site will be examined on a weekly basis to remove blown "litter". Proper provision is made for maintenance of slopes and compaction of fill material as it is placed. Through the application process noticing DEP that Watson intends to use a general permit to operate its C&D facility, DEP has been informed of the location of the proposed site. DEP would have permission to inspect the site during normal business hours. In response to Rule 62-701.420, Florida Administrative Code, Watson conducted a geotechnical investigation and prepared a report to support the application for a general permit. In support of the application Kenneth J. Hill, P.E. investigated the subsurface conditions at the proposed site through drilling activities. The drilling was done at the site and adjacent to the site. In May, 1995, Douglas L. Smith, Ph.D., P.G., conducted an electrical resistivity study (ER) at the site to investigate the subsurface conditions. Thomas H. Patton, Ph.D., P.G. and Charles Swallows, P.E. assisted in the investigation of the subsurface conditions at the site. Ralph E. Eng, P.E., signed and sealed the application for general permit for the proposed C&D facility. In rendering a report following his investigation of the subsurface conditions, Mr. Hill signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation. Likewise, Dr. Smith signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation associated with the ER study, together with Anthony F. Randazzo, Ph.D., P.G. The contribution by Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows to the geotechnical investigation did not include signing and sealing a report and documentation. Nonetheless, Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows, when testifying concerning the permit request, as with other professional witnesses, were found qualified to offer testimony consistent with their professional credentials and factual knowledge. 1/ A foundation analysis to determine the ability of the foundation to support the loads and stresses imposed by the fill material revealed that the weight of the construction debris was approximately 70 pounds per cubic foot, whereas the weight of the existing sand to be excavated is approximately 100 pounds per cubic foot. Thus, the placement of fill material following excavation would impose less stress on the subsurface than before. No significant settlement of the fill materials is expected to occur, resulting from its weight. The nature and fate of leachate promoted by the placement of fill at the site, in an environmental susceptible to bio-chemical and physical influences in transport through the subsurface, has the potential to adversely impact ground water. Those impacts could possibly cause violations of water- quality standards, ground-water standards, and drinking-water standards. These issues are considered based upon facts associated with the imperatives which must be properly addressed through the geotechnical investigation. That process anticipates gaining an understanding of subsurface conditions, to include the soil stratigraphy and ground-water table conditions. The ground-water table conditions involves estimations of the average and maximum high ground-water table. The geotechnical investigation should also explore the possibility of and address the existence of any sinkholes on the site. No specific testimony was given concerning the degree to which leachate, when present in the ground water at the Floridan Aquifer, might promote water-quality violations. Leachate properties and constituents were described in general terms of water-quality considerations, for example, hardness, nitrates, nitrites, alkalinity, presence of ammonia, chlorides, iron manganese, phenols, barium, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, zinc, TDS and sulfates, urea formaldehyde, plaster, creosote, glues, and mastic hardeners. The evidence presented concerning the parameters for water quality did include a reference to barium, ranging from .5UG/L to 8UG/L in basically similar circumstances. The fill material can influence the natural PH by creating acidic conditions causing the PH to fall from a neutral 7.0 to 5.5 to 6.5. The process that takes place over time with the fill material also releases gases, such as methane, hydrogensulphide, and carbon dioxide. Rainwater falling on the ground's surface forms the basis for transporting the leachate through the subsurface. Only the Floridan Aquifer is potentially at risk, there being no surface water bodies or surficial aquifer at the site. Taking into account rainfall disposition by evapotranspiration, storm- water runoff, and subsurface infiltration, without certainty as to the amounts in those processes, it can be said that a significant amount of rainfall is available through infiltration to recharge the Floridan Aquifer and to transport leachate promoted by the fill. This is borne out by the absence of surface water bodies and a surficial aquifer on the site. To gain basic information concerning the subsurface conditions, Watson had 14 standard penetration test borings conducted by Mr. Hill and his firm. Those borings were advanced to depths of 35-72 feet. Additionally, three auger borings were performed to a depth of 40-50 feet. The auger borings were at sites A-1, A-2, and A-3, performed on April 17, 1993. In July of 1993, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4. In April of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-5, B-6, B-7, and B-8. In September of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, and B-14. The borings that were performed at the proposed site were at B-2, B-5, B-6, B-9, B-10, and B-14, for a total of six borings. The other borings were performed on the adjacent parcel. The borings at the proposed site were widely dispersed over the 143 acres contemplated for excavation and fill. The borings on the adjacent parcel, referred to as the Whitehurst parcel, were widely dispersed over 475 acres. Logs of the soil borings were prepared depicting the findings in the subsurface. The soil stratigraphy found in the borings was varied with sand, clayey sand, sandy clay and limerock present in some but not all borings. The sands that have been described are Aeolian. The sands are remnants of an ancient coastal dune system. Soil permeability tests were conducted on a limited basis at boring B- 9 at a 25-foot sample depth. The tan and orange clayey sand described had a co- efficient for permeability of 1x10-6. That sample and others described were obtained through a split-spoon. At B-12, at 35 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 2.6x10-8. At B-13, at 30 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found and tested as 2.0x10-8 for the co- efficient for permeability. At B-14, at 30 feet, tan and orange sandy clay was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 9.6x10-9. In describing the soils, sieve analysis was not performed to more precisely classify the sediments encountered. This description of the strata is by appearance and texture. The clayey sand and sandy clay found in the borings retard discharge of the leachate to the ground water in the Floridan Aquifer based upon the permeability in those soils. Generally stated, the tan sands described have a co-efficient for permeability of 10-1 to 10-4. These sands are highly permeable, presenting an easy opportunity to convey the leachate contained in the infiltrating rainwater. Anomalous findings concerning soil permeability are shown at B-4, an off-site location, which portrays only sand in the boring. Also, B-9, which was drilled four to five feet east of a known sinkhole at the site is noteworthy in that the boring log describes tan and orange sandy clay, with trace limerock below 30 feet. This is in contrast to the field notation by the driller of the "p" for push and drilling rod "free fall" from 38 feet BLS to 42.5 feet BLS before encountering limerock, connoting a possible cavity in the 38-foot BLS to 42.5-foot BLS region. The karst feature that is located in the area where boring B-9 was conducted will be surveyed and marked with fence posts prior to excavation. No excavation will be conducted within 200 feet of that site. In addition to the phenomenon at the B-9 boring area, sinkholes at the surface were observed one-half to three-quarters of a mile northeast of the site. Sinkholes can occur when the placement of fill changes the hydraulics and loading in a karst environment. Finally, at B-6, limerock was encountered above the 46.9 feet MSL regional piezometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer. That limerock is considered part of the aquifer system. The head pressure at that location was not sufficient to force the ground water from the Floridan Aquifer. The more typical experience was as shown in B-5, where the surface of the limerock was lower than the regional piezometric surface. In B-5, ground water was not encountered until the clayey layer was breached and water rose in the drill hole. On occasions, such as the experience in B-5, there was an indication that Artesian conditions existed at those places. At the locations where the Artesian conditions were experienced, the Floridan Aquifer is confined. At B-6, where the limestone rises higher than the regional piezometric surface, the Floridan Aquifer is not confined. The bore hole at B-2 was terminated before breaching the clayey layer, and ground water was not encountered. Watson's consultant Hill considered that the ground-water table was found within the Floridan Aquifer at the site whose regional potentiometric surface was 46.9 MSL. He perceived that the findings showed ground water at 45 feet MSL constituting the average for the site. Watson estimated that the "seasonal high" ground-water table at the site was 48 feet MSL. The term "seasonal high" is equated to maximum high. Watson claims that the fluctuation in the ground-water table would be only a few feet. This would mean that the 45 feet MSL from bore hole data would represent not only the average across the site but the average value at the site at any point in time during the year. Watson makes this assertion notwithstanding that the borings were made over two years during different seasons. The basis for the estimate of maximum high ground-water table is not evident. In Dr. Patton's remarks in the application, there is a reference to the fact that the lowest encountered elevation for the Floridan Aquifer was 45 feet MSL and the highest was 55 feet MSL, making the average 50 feet MSL. This runs contrary to the remarks by Hill in which Hill said the elevation in the region was 46.9, the elevation detected was 45, and that the seasonal high would be 48. The only borings that were made in which the log reflects the MSL elevation and the boring depth are borings that were conducted in April 1994. On that date, the boring depth at which ground water was encountered varied from 37-43 feet and the MSL depth varied from 39-47 feet. If only the information for B-5 and B-6 on the site proper is used, those two data points associated with the borings on April 1994 reveal ground water at an excavation depth of 37 feet and between 45-47 feet MSL, respectively. Overall, without reference to MSL, the depths at which the ground water was encountered in the borings varied from 19-44 feet, if encountered. Although it is not shown in the boring log what the relationship is to MSL, at B-9, water was found at a drilling depth of 38 feet; at B-10, at a depth of 36 and one-half feet; at B-2, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of 50 feet; at B-14, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of 35 feet; at B-1, water was encountered at a level of 44 feet; at B-3, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-4, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-11, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 31 and one-half feet; at B-12, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 19 feet; at B-13, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 21 and one-half feet. Where elevations were measured for the water table in the bore holes, the holes were left open until the drillings had been concluded. Then the measurements were made. In this project, the consultant did not equilibrate the ground-water table by the traditional method of leaving a piezometer in the bore hole to maintain its integrity for a day before making the measurement. Watson has not provided sufficient information and explanation to determine a proper estimate of the average and maximum high ground-water table across the site. Returning to the ER investigation, it involved 39 soundings, which is roughly equivalent to drilling bore holes. The sounding profiles were determined through Wenner-Array Sounding and Lee-Directional Equipment. This technique involves the passing of an electrical current underground and measuring its resistance to flow. The expectation is that earth materials, for example, clay, sand, limestone, and cavities will resist the flow of electrical current differently. Substantially greater contrast in the degree of resistance, anomalies, is used to identify and locate earth materials, as well as the presence and shape of cavities. The sounding measurements reveal two- dimensional detail below the surface at progressively-greater depths. Lee- Directional measurements determine the direction of higher or lower resistivity along the survey line. While in the field, electrodes are placed in the ground at equal distances from one another. After a measurement, this distance is increased in an orderly fashion. The greater distance between the electrodes, the greater the depth of penetration. The ER equipment's electrical current has the capacity to penetrate through clay and into lower features in the subsurface. Subsurface from depths five to 100 feet were examined in this study. Within the 39 groundings surveyed, various soils were encountered. Generally, a thick cover of unconsolidated sand was found overlying clayey sand, with a clay layer varying in thickness and limestone found in some soundings, but not others. Where limestone was detected, it was at deeper levels in the southwestern part of the site. Because ER cannot distinguish between clayey sand and sandy clay, the area where those soils are found is referred to in the report as a thinner clayey sand layer. Also, in some places the upper surface of limestone has suffered weathering or deterioration and may appear as the lower part of the clay unit in terms of its electrical properties. The general portrayal in the ER study concerning the soil stratigraphy, wherein reference is made to dry sand up to 30 feet in thickness overlying a thinner clayey sand layer, approximately 10 feet in thickness, overlying a relatively thick clay layer from 10-60 feet and then limestone, does not coincide with the complexity in the stratigraphy found in the soil borings. In the ER study, at stations 8 and 10, voids were encountered. The nature of those voids is unexplained by this investigative process. At station 8, the void was found at approximately 100 feet deep. At station 10, the voids were at 50 feet and 100 feet deep. At station 14, anomalous findings were explained as the placement of fill and organic material during land-clearing operations. The suggestion in the written report, which summarizes the findings in the ER investigation, that a water table was encountered at approximately 40 feet deep, coinciding with the top of the clay layer, is contrary to the findings in the soil borings. To the extent that finding is intended to suggest that there is a perched water table or surficial aquifer above the clay layer, that view is contrary to other evidence adduced at hearing and is rejected. Like the soil borings, the ER soundings examined very discreet areas, but revealed less discreet information. This investigative process is not designed by itself to resolve disputes concerning the character of the subsurface, taking into account statutory and rule requirements for issuing a general permit. To portray the subsurface conditions, in June 1995, Petitioners undertook another basic study by employing ground-penetrating radar (GPR) to reveal the subsurface conditions. Again, GPR, like ER, affords limited insight into the conditions in the subsurface. More precise information than is revealed in the results from the GPR study would be needed to understand the subsurface conditions. GPR is comprised of several pieces of equipment that are connected with cables and a power source. This equipment is mobile. It uses a transmitter and receiver antenna that essentially glides along the ground surface. A signal is emitted through the transmitter. It perpetrates into the ground. It is reflected off materials of different electrical properties back to the receiving antenna and charted. The record that is made is continuous. Unlike ER, GPR is capable of detecting small anomalies in the subsurface. In employing the equipment in this investigation, Petitioners' consultant was looking for either stratigraphic or water-table reflectors and anomalous conditions. The experience at this site was comparable to the experience at other sites in gaining an understanding of how geologic materials are deposited. The GPR investigation covered approximately 10 percent of the site. Four lines were traversed east to west. Two lines were traversed north to south, and two other lines were traversed on a diagonal. GPR will not significantly penetrate clay. Its ability to penetrate is dependent in some measure upon the nature of the clay unit encountered. However, GPR reveals contrasts in the conductivity of clay, when compared to the overlying sand. The greater the contrast, the greater the reflection event. In this connection, the presence of moisture can slow or prohibit the electromagnetic energy generated by GPR. The GPR study revealed a substantial number of subsurface anomalies that might be indicative of possible access for leachate generated by the placement of fill to enter the Floridan Aquifer. These anomalies might represent sand columns and cover subsidence sinkholes. Any sinkholes on the site would be expected to be "cover subsidence"- type sinkholes. Those sinkholes occur through a process in which overlying strata slowly subsides into the sub-adjacent karst feature, rather than suddenly collapsing. Sinkholes develop rarely, but pose more risk of development in areas where sinkholes have occurred previously. Sinkholes are not always seen at the land surface. Sinkholes can present a risk to ground water in the aquifer in view of solution cavities found in the limestone which is part of the aquifer, thus allowing leachate to flow through the cavities into the ground water. Some anomalies found in the GPR study were more significant. One that was observed in the third traverse was 100 feet wide by 80-90 feet deep. There is an indication that this area might be filled with sands, creating a more ready access to the lower subsurface than would be expected with other soils. Another anomaly discovered was 200-300 feet long and 400-500 feet wide, approximately 50 feet below the surface. Overall subsurface conditions are not readily understood. Watson, through its consultant, suggests that the site is part of the Newberry Sand Hills region of the Brooksville Ridge system. As such, karst activity has proceeded in a slower manner than other places in Alachua County, with no presently active karst conditions. In opposition, Petitioners assert that the site is part of the Brooksville Ridge System, which is an internally-drained area of karst-dominated highly fractured terrain, according to its consultants. If Petitioners are correct, those circumstances lead to solutioning of the limestone and are not indicative of area of continuous impermeable clay layers found at the site as part of the Hawthorne formation that Watson's consultant surmises. The exact nature of the site concerning factors that must be considered in this permit application have not been adequately resolved in this record. While it is sufficiently evident that the Floridan Aquifer is not confined, it is unclear whether the circumstances at the site present unacceptable risks to the ground water, in view of existing subsurface conditions. From the record, the proper manner to resolve the issue would be to perform more soil borings on the site proper to identify the subsurface conditions concerning soil stratigraphy and ground-water location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which denies Watson the use of a general permit to operate the proposed C&D facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 7th day of August, 1996.
The Issue The issues presented in the case are whether Respondents P & L Salvage and Marlene Ballard are liable for violations of state statutes and rules, as alleged in the amended NOV, and, if so, whether the proposed corrective action is appropriate, and whether the proposed civil penalties and costs should be paid by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Respondent P & L Salvage, Inc., is a Florida corporation. P & L Salvage owned and operated an automobile salvage yard at 4535 and 4537 West 45th Street in West Palm Beach, Florida (the “property,” “facility,” or “site”). The property comprises less than two acres. Respondent Marlene Ballard is a Florida resident and the president, treasurer, secretary, and director of P & L Salvage, Inc. Historical Use of the Site Beginning in the 1960s, the site was used as an auto salvage yard, first under the name Johnny’s Junkyard and later as General Truck Parts. In 1981, the owner of the salvage yard, Marie Arant, sold the facility. The record is not clear about the exact identity of the purchaser. The Alliance report, referred to later, states that the property was purchased by “the Ballard family.” The record evidence is insufficient to prove that Marlene Ballard ever owned the salvage yard. The parties agree that the salvage yard was operated for a time as P & L Salvage, which was unincorporated. Then, in January 1990, the site was purchased by Respondent P & L Salvage, Inc., which owned the site continuously until January 2007. Marlene Ballard lived in a house on the site from the 1980s until the property was sold in 2007. A separate building at the site was used as P & L Salvage’s office. The general operation of the salvage yard was to bring junk cars and trucks to the site, remove fluids from the vehicles, remove parts for sale, and then crush the dismantled vehicles in a hydraulic crusher to prepare them for transport and sale as scrap metal. The automotive fluids removed from the junked cars were stored on the site in 55-gallon drums for later disposal. Respondents presented evidence to show that the person who had the most knowledge of and managed the day-to-day operations in the salvage yard was an employee named John Boyd. When John Boyd ceased employment at the salvage yard, Marlene Ballard’s son, Thomas Ballard, took over the management of the yard. Respondents contend that no evidence was presented that Marlene Ballard conducted or participated in any activities that resulted in contamination, or that she had authority to prevent any potential contamination that might have occurred. However, Ms. Ballard was familiar with the activities in the yard, having worked and lived on the site for many years. She did the bookkeeping and signed payroll checks. All employees answered to Ms. Ballard. She contracted for environmental assessment and remediation work, and signed the hazardous waste manifests. She was acquainted with the contamination that could and did occur at the salvage yard. Eagle Sanitation, Inc., which operated a roll-off container business, leased the site from September 2005 until January 2007. Eagle Sanitation also obtained an option to purchase the property. At first, Eagle Sanitation only leased about a quarter of the site because there were many junk autos, tires, and other salvage debris still on the site in September 2005. For several months, Thomas Ballard continued to sell auto parts and scrap from the site, and to clear the site. Eagle Sanitation did not have complete use of the site until early in 2006. Eagle Sanitation’s business consisted of delivering roll-off containers for a fee to contractors and others for the disposal of construction debris and other solid waste, and then picking up the containers and arranging for disposal at the county landfill or, in some cases, recycling of the materials. Roll-off containers at the site were usually empty, but sometimes trucks with full containers would be parked at the site overnight or over the weekend. During its lease of the site, Eagle Sanitation did not collect used oil or gasoline and did not provide roll-off containers to automotive businesses. No claim was made that Eagle Sanitation caused any contamination found at the site. Contamination at the Site In 1989, Marlene Ballard contracted with Goldcoast Engineering & Testing Company (Goldcoast) to perform a “Phase II” environmental audit. Goldcoast collected and analyzed groundwater and soil samples and produced a report. Cadmium, chromium, and lead were found in the soil samples collected by Goldcoast. Some petroleum contamination was also detected in soils. These pollutants are all associated with automotive fluids. The Goldcoast report states that groundwater samples did not indicate the presence of pollutants in concentrations above any state standard. The Goldcoast report did not address the timing of discharges of contaminating substances that occurred at the site, except that such discharges had to have occurred before the report was issued in 1989. That is before the property was purchased by P & L Salvage, Inc. During an unannounced inspection of the salvage yard by two Department employees on August 15, 1997, oil and other automotive fluids were observed on the ground at the site in the “disassembly area” and around the crusher. There were also stains on the ground that appeared to have been made by automotive fluids. No samples of the fluids were taken or analyzed at the time of the inspection. The Department inspectors told Marlene Ballard to cease discharging fluids onto the ground, but no enforcement action was initiated by the Department. Ms. Ballard was also told that she should consider removing the soil where the discharged fluids and staining were observed. In early 1998, RS Environmental was hired to excavate and remove soils from the site. This evidence was presumably presented by Respondents to indicate that they remediated the contaminated soils observed by the Department inspectors, but no details were offered about the area excavated to make this clear. In 2004, in conjunction with a proposed sale of the site, another Phase II investigation of the site was done by Professional Services Industries, Inc. (PSI), and a report was issued by PSI in May 2004. The PSI report is hearsay and, as such, cannot support a finding of fact regarding the matters stated in the report. Presumably as a result of its knowledge of the PSI report, the Department issued a certified letter to Ms. Ballard on June 24, 2005, informing her that the Department was aware of methyl tert-butyl ethylene (MTBE) contamination at the facility. MTBE is an octane enhancer added to gasoline. The Department’s June 2005 letter advised Ms. Ballard that Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-780 required “responsible parties” to file a site assessment report (SAR) within 270 days of becoming aware of such contamination. The letter also informed Ms. Ballard of the proximity of the City of Riviera Beach’s wellfield and the threat that represented to public drinking water. The June 2005 letter was returned to the Department unsigned. In October 2005, the Department arranged to have the letter to Marlene Ballard served by the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. The Department received a confirmation of service document that shows the letter was served by a deputy on October 14, 2005, but this document is hearsay and does not support a finding that Ms. Ballard had knowledge of the contents of the letter. The Department did not receive an SAR within 270 days, but no enforcement action was immediately initiated. On December 15, 2006, the Department issued a six- count NOV to P & L. Salvage, Inc. P & L Salvage requested a hearing and the matter was referred to DOAH. In January 2007, in conjunction with Eagle Sanitation’s proposed sale of its purchase option to Prime Realty Capital, LLC, Alliance Consulting & Environmental Services, Inc., (Alliance) conducted a site assessment at the site and produced an SAR in April 2007. At that time, as indicated above, P & L Salvage had ceased operations at the site and Eagle Sanitation was operating its roll-off container business there. The SAR states that in January 2007, “[a]pproximately 80 yards of black stained oily-solidified shallow sands were excavated [by Eagle Sanitation] from the central and northeastern portions of the site, where car crushing, fluid draining and battery removal were historically conducted.” The soil contained lead, iron, chromium, cadmium, and arsenic, but testing did not show the excavated soils constituted hazardous materials and, therefore, the soils were disposed at the county landfill. The area of soils where the Department inspectors in 1997 observed automotive fluids and staining appears to have been included in the soils that were excavated and removed in 2007. The Department presented no evidence to the contrary. Testing by Alliance of other soils at the site showed “no significant petroleum metals concentrations” and Alliance did not recommend the removal of other soils. The presence of an MTBE “plume” of approximately 30,000 square feet (horizontal dimension) was also described in the SAR. The plume is in the area where the crusher was located. Several groundwater samples from the site showed MTBE in concentrations above the target cleanup limit. The City of Riviera Beach operates a public water supply wellfield near the site. The closest water well is approximately 250 feet from the site. The SAR concludes that “the potential exists for the MTBE plume to be pulled downward” toward the well, and recommends that a risk assessment be performed. Alliance recommended in the SAR that the MTBE contamination be remediated with “in-situ bioremediation” with oxygen enhancement. No remediation has occurred on the site since the date of the Alliance report. The Alliance report did not address the timing of contaminating discharges that occurred at the site. To the extent that Alliance reported contamination in 2007 that was not reported in the 1989 Goldcoast report, that is not sufficient, standing alone, to meet the Department’s burden of proof to show that P & L Salvage, Inc., caused “new” contamination after 1989. Competent evidence was not presented that the Alliance report describes “new” contamination. The authors of the reports were not called as witnesses. No expert testimony was presented on whether the data in the reports can establish the timing of contaminating discharges. It is not the role of the Administrative Law Judge, nor does he have the requisite expertise, to compare the environmental assessments conducted by Goldcoast and Alliance and make judgments about whether some of the contamination reported by Alliance had to have occurred after 1989. Although the Department’s expert, Paul Wierzbicki, testified that it was his opinion that the contamination was attributable to the “operations of the P & L Salvage yard facility,” he was answering a question about “what caused the contamination” and, in context, his testimony only confirmed that the type of contamination shown in the photographs and reported in the site assessment reports was the type of contamination associated with auto salvage yards. Mr. Wiezbicki’s testimony is not evidence which can support a finding that the contamination at the site, other than the automotive fluids and stained soils observed by the Department inspectors in 1997, was caused by P & L Salvage, Inc.1 On June 12, 2007, after reviewing the Site Assessment Report, the Department issued a letter to Marlene Ballard, requesting additional data and analysis. At the hearing, the Department presented a responding letter from Alliance dated June 21, 2007. It was disputed whether the Alliance letter is evidence of Ms. Ballard’s receipt and knowledge of the Department’s June 12, letter. However, even if Ms. Ballard did not know about the Department’s letter in June 2007, she certainly became aware of the letter in the course of this proceeding. The amended NOV issued in January 2008 mentions the letter, and the letter was listed as an exhibit in the parties’ June 4, 2008 Pre-hearing Stipulation. On January 24, 2008, the Department issued an amended NOV which dropped three counts from the original NOV and added two new counts. Most significantly, the amended NOV added Marlene Ballard and Thomas Ballard as Respondents. P & L Salvage and Marlene Ballard responded to the amended NOV with petitions for hearing. Thomas Ballard did not respond. At the hearing, the Department presented testimony of employees that were involved in this enforcement action regarding the value of their time expended on various tasks associated with this case. Bridget Armstrong spent eight hours inspecting the site of the contamination, eight hours drafting the NOV and consent order, approximately 30 hours reviewing technical documents, and 15 hours corresponding with Respondents. Ms. Armstrong’s salary at the time was about $20.00 per hour. Paul Wierzbicki spent 16 hours investigating facilities in the area, reviewing the contamination assessment reports, and overseeing the enforcement activity of his subordinates. Mr. Wierzbicki was paid $33.00 per hour. Kathleen Winston spent 10 hours reviewing a site assessment report and drafting correspondence. Ms. Winston’s salary at the time was $23.56 per hour. Geetha Selvendren spent 4-to-5 hours reviewing the site assessment report. She was paid $19.00 per hour at the time. Finally, Joseph Lurix spent three hours reviewing documents. His salary at the time was $34.97 per hour.
