The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to continue participating in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sunset Square General Partnership, is the owner of Sunset Square Shopping Center located in Clearwater, Florida, and in which Tux Cleaners, Department of Environmental Protection Identification No. 529501419, was a tenant conducting a drycleaning business. At all times relevant hereto, the Sunset Square Shopping Center was managed by the Stuart S. Golding Company on behalf of Sunset Square General Partnership. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Tux Cleaners was owned and operated by Angelo Guarnieri. In June 1996, Petitioner submitted an application to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program (Program/ Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program). The application was signed by a representative of Petitioner and by Guarnieri. David Scher, an employee of the Stuart S. Golding Company, was listed on the application as the contact person for Petitioner. All applications to the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program are joint applications that include the real property owner, the operator of the drycleaning facility, and the owner of the drycleaning facility. Thus, in this instance, the applicant was Petitioner, the owner of the real property on which the drycleaning facility was located, and Guarnieri, the owner and operator of the facility. Petitioner was listed as the "designated applicant" on the aforementioned application filed with the Department. The "designated applicant" served to advise and provide the Department with a single point of contact. Upon review of Petitioner's application, the Department determined that Petitioner met the prescribed eligibility requirements for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. Thereafter, by letter dated September 27, 1996, the Department notified Petitioner that its site, Tux Cleaners, was eligible for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. The letter advised Petitioner that its "participation in the Program is contingent upon continual compliance with the conditions of eligibility set forth in Section 376.3078(3), F.S." At the time Petitioner's letter of eligibility was issued, Section 376.3078(7), Florida Statutes (1995), required that owners and operators of drycleaning facilities install secondary containment by January 1, 1997. This statute was enacted in 1995, the year before Petitioner was determined eligible for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. To maintain its eligibility in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, Petitioner was required to install secondary containment at Tux Cleaners by January 1, 1997. As of January 1, 1997, secondary containment had not been installed at Tux Cleaners. Consequently, on January 2, 1997, Petitioner and Tux Cleaners were no longer in compliance with the eligibility requirements for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. On January 21, 1998, Margaret Hennis, a Pinellas County environmental inspector, conducted an inspection of Tux Cleaners as part of a Title V compliance inspection. During the inspection, Hennis discovered that Tux Cleaners did not have the required secondary containment and advised Guarnieri that secondary containment needed to be installed. Guarnieri then informed Hennis that the equipment had been ordered in late 1997. Guarnieri initially ordered secondary containment for Tux Cleaners in June 1997 but cancelled the order because he thought the business had been sold. When the business was not sold, Guarnieri reordered the secondary containment in late 1997, almost one year after it should have been installed. There is no evidence that the secondary containment was ever delivered to Tux Cleaners; and it clearly was never installed at Tux Cleaners. Prior to becoming eligible for the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, Petitioner hired an environmental consultant, who subsequently advised Petitioner to apply for participation in the Program. After the application of Petitioner and Tux Cleaners was approved, Petitioner believed that the environmental consultant would monitor the drycleaning facility to ensure that the site was in continual compliance with Program eligibility requirements. Although Petitioner and Guarnieri submitted a joint application to the Department, they never discussed the need to install secondary containment at Tux Cleaners. It was only after receiving the February 26, 1998, letter described below that Petitioner had actual knowledge of the secondary containment requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner never asked Guarnieri whether the secondary containment had been installed or directed Guarnieri to install the required secondary containment. Furthermore, Guarnieri never discussed with Petitioner the January 1997 inspection of Tux Cleaners, Hennis' notification that secondary containment needed to be installed, or any matters relative to Guarnieri's ordering and reordering of the secondary containment. By letter dated February 26, 1998 (notice of cancellation), the Department notified Petitioner of its intent to cancel Petitioner's eligibility for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program and of the reason for the cancellation. According to the notice of cancellation, the reason for the cancellation was that Tux Cleaners had "fail[ed] to continuously comply with the conditions of eligibility set forth in s. 376.3078(3), F.S." The February 26, 1998, letter stated, in pertinent part, the following: The Department has determined that the referenced site is no longer eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program for the following reason: Pursuant to s. 376.3078(7)(a), Florida Statutes (F.S.), owners or operators of drycleaning facilities shall by January 1, 1997, install dikes or other containment structures around each machine or item of equipment in which drycleaning solvents are used and around any area in which solvents or waste- containing solvents are stored. As of January 21, 1998, secondary containment had not been installed at the referenced facility. Failure to meet this requirement constitutes gross negligence (s. 376.3078(7)(d), F.S.). Also, failure to meet this requirement constitutes a failure to continuously comply with the conditions of eligibility set forth in s. 376.3078(3). Pursuant to s. 376.3078(3)(n)1., F.S., the Department shall have the authority to cancel the eligibility of any drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility that fails to continuously comply with the conditions of eligibility set forth in s. 376.3078(3), F.S. Persons whose substantial interests are affected by this Order of Eligibility Cancellation have a right, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., to petition for an administrative determination (hearing). The Petition must conform to the requirements of Chapters 62-103 and 28-5, F.A.C., and must be filed (received) with the Department's Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of this Notice. Failure to file a petition within the forty-five (45) calendar days constitutes a waiver or any right such persons have to an administrative determination (hearing) pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. * * * If a petition is filed, the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate agency action. Accordingly, the Department's final action may be different from the position taken by it in this Notice. * * * This Order of Eligibility Cancellation is final and effective forty-five (45) calendar days after the date of receipt of this Order unless the attached site access form is signed and returned to the Department or unless a petition is filed in accordance with the preceding paragraph. Upon the timely filing of such petition, this Order will not be effective until further order of the Department. Please be advised that mediation of administrative disputes arising from or relating to this Order of Eligibility Cancellation is not available [s.] 120.573, F.S.; when requested the Department will continue to meet and discuss disputed issues with parties adversely affected by this order. The February 26, 1998, notice of cancellation contained a typographical error in that it referenced an "attached site access form." That reference was as follows: "This Order of eligibility cancellation is final and effective forty-five (45) calendar days after the date of receipt of this Order unless the site access form is signed and returned to the Department or unless a petition is filed in accordance with the preceding paragraph." The reference in the notice of cancellation to the site access form was irrelevant to the notice and improperly and inadvertently included in the notice. That reference should have been omitted from the notice of cancellation and the sentence which mistakenly referred to the site access form should have stated: This Order of Eligibility Cancellation is final and effective forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt of this Order unless a petition is filed in accordance with the preceding paragraph. The February 26, 1998, notice of cancellation complies with the requirements of Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, notwithstanding the aforementioned typographical error contained therein. Consistent with the statutory requirements, the letter gives written notice to the applicant of the Department's intent to cancel Petitioner's program eligibility and also states the reason for the cancellation. Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, provides that the "applicant shall have 45 days to resolve the reason for the cancellation to the satisfaction of the Department." Typically, the Department's cancellation notices do not state that applicants or participants have 45 days to resolve the reason or reasons for cancellation of their eligibility. Nevertheless, the Department affords this opportunity to adversely affected parties. To facilitate this process, the Department's cancellation notices advise these parties that, when requested, the Department will "continue to meet and discuss disputed issues with parties adversely affected by this Order." Petitioner availed itself of the opportunity to discuss the disputed issues with the Department. In fact, shortly after receiving the notice of cancellation, Petitioner contacted the Department officials to determine what steps it could take to remain eligible for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleaning Program. Thereafter, Petitioner took immediate steps in an attempt to resolve the reasons for cancellation of its eligibility. After extensive discussions between Petitioner and Department officials, the Department concluded that the notice of cancellation had been properly issued. The Department reached this conclusion after Petitioner acknowledged that Tux Cleaners did not have secondary containment installed by the January 1, 1997, the statutorily prescribed deadline for such installation. Having determined that the secondary containment had not been installed by the January 1997 deadline, the Department concluded that the reason for the cancellation of Petitioner's eligibility could not be resolved or corrected. The Department has interpreted the 45-day language in Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, to allow Program applicants or participants the opportunity to resolve items that do not constitute gross negligence within the meaning of the statute. In an attempt to bring the facility into compliance, Petitioner insisted that Guarnieri shut down all drycleaning operations at Tux Cleaners and remove all machines and solvents from the property. By mid-March 1998, Tux Cleaners had shut down all drycleaning operations and by the end of March 1998, all drycleaning machines were removed from the facility. Moreover, in mid-March 1998, after the drycleaning operations ceased, Tux Cleaners continued only as a dry drop-off facility. Any store operating solely as a dry drop-off facility is not required to have secondary containment. Secondary containment was not installed at Tux Cleaners by January 1, 1997, the statutorily prescribed deadline, even though it operated as a drycleaning facility from January 1, 1997, until mid-March 1998. Consequently, beginning in January 1, 1997, and through March 1998, Petitioner and Tux Cleaners were not in compliance with the eligibility requirements of the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding that Petitioner's facility is not eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha L. Nebelsiek, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Richard M. Hanchett, Esquire Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A. 2700 Barnett Plaza 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Post Office Box 1102 Tampa, Florida 33601-1102 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent's license to operate an adult congregate living facility, (ACLF), should be disciplined because of the alleged discrepancies outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein by Petitioner on September 21, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Gloria M. Guevara, was either an applicant for or had received a certificate to operate an adult congregate living facility, (ACLF), in Tampa, Florida. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, (Department), was and is the state agency responsible for licensing ACLF's in Florida. On July 11, 1988, Respondent, Guevara, submitted an adult congregate living facility application for a renewal license, due to change of ownership, for a facility, Gloria's ACLF, located and in business, operating with residents at 3213 W. Cass Street in Tampa, Florida. Ms. Guevara was identified as the sole owner and administrator of the facility, and her qualifications as an administrator, as listed on page 2 of the application form, reflected she was a graduate of Central High School in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and the Ryder Memorial Hospital Nursing School in Humacao, Puerto Rico in April, 1968. Her additional experience as a licensed practical nurse at the Veteran's Administration Nursing Care Center in Tampa, from April, 1987 to October, 1987, was also listed. In accordance with Department procedures, the application was processed by the ACLF program office in Tallahassee, and on August 30, 1988, Jere Latimer of the Tallahassee program office advised Ms. Guevara by letter that her application had been cleared for an initial survey, and Ms. Guevara was requested to contact the Tampa office to arrange for the visit. Department practice is that on an initial survey, an appointment is made with the applicant to conduct the survey. On change of ownership surveys, such as here, an advance notice appointment is not necessarily given. However, it would appear that arrangements were made since on September 28, 1988, Ms. Carol D. King, the Tampa ACLF program director notified Ms. Guevara by letter that her initial inspection world be held on October 17, 1988. In this letter, the procedure to be followed in the event deficiencies were found was fully explained. At the hearing, Ms. Adler, the inspector, indicated that it was presumed that since Respondent had submitted her application, she had been given a complete application package including current statutes and Department rules pertinent to the operation of an ACLF. Mr. DeMey, testifying for the Respondent, claims, however, that no rules or statutes were furnished with the application package, and that in preparation for the initial change of ownership survey, the statutes and rules on hand at the facility were used. These, according to Mr. DeMey, were found later on to be outdated. It was at this later interview, between Mr. DeMey and Ms. Adler, sometime after the deficiencies were noted, that new, current rules and statutes were provided. It is so found. A survey was conducted on October 17, 1988, by Ms. Adler and a nutritionist, Ms. Perry. Several defects were identified. These included ACLF requirement 27, which indicated Respondent had failed to insure that all staff members providing assistance with personal hygiene had received the appropriate personal hygiene training from a qualified instructor, and had documentation that they were free from apparent signs and symptoms of communicable disease; ACLF requirement 42, which prohibited the use of full or three-quarter bedside rails in the facility; and ACLF requirement 59, which required documentation of portion sizes for regular diets. With regard to the documentation of personal hygiene training, Ms. Adler determined that Respondent, Ms. Guevara, who accomplished the personal hygiene assistance to the residents, though a licensed practical nurse in Puerto Rico, and though widely experienced over a twenty year period, nonetheless, did not meet the training standards required by the Department's rule which requires that the training be administered by representatives of the American Red Cross or by a registered or licensed practical nurse licensed in Florida. Ms. Guevara did not have the training administered by someone in either permitted category. In addition, Ms. Guevara also employed another individual, Carmen Rodriguez, on whom documentation of the required training did not exist in the employee's file. With regard to the bed rails, Ms. Adler observed that throughout the facility, which had eight residents at the time, there were several full and three-quarter bed rails attached to the beds. Department rules provide only one-half bed rails are approved and those only if utilized upon a doctor's order which is maintained in the file. Full and three-quarter length bed rails are considered to be forms of restraint and are not allowed or approved by the Department for use at an ACLF. With regard to the documentation of portion size, no issue was made as to the appropriateness of the menus. However, no indication of portion size, as required by the pertinent rule, was present either on the menu or on separate documentation available for inspection by the surveyors. The purpose for this requirement is to insure that residents receive adequate nutrition and a sound diet. Upon completion of the survey, Ms. Adler went over the identified deficiencies with both Ms. Guevara and Mr. DeMey, and attempted to arrive at agreement upon a time for their correction. At the same time, the surveyor provided the operator with a letter of explanation as to procedures to be followed, which included the advice of right to request an extension of time for correction, and Ms. Guevara sign an acknowledgment for receipt of this letter on October 17, 1988. The exit interview with Mr. DeMey and Ms. Guevara was conducted in both English and Spanish, a language in which Ms. Adler is fluent. Therefore, there can be little doubt that the explanation of deficiencies was clearly communicated and understood. Sometime thereafter, the surveyor sent out to Respondent a listing of the deficiencies, their classification as to type of deficiency, and their agreed upon date for correction. The three deficiencies under consideration here were all to be corrected by November 17, 1988, 30 days from the date of the initial survey. This notice of deficiencies was furnished by letter dated October 21, 1988, and Ms. Guevara acknowledged receipt of them on October 29, 1988. Notwithstanding that the deficiencies existed, on November 7, 1988, the Department issued to Ms. Guevara a provisional license to operate an ACLF for eight residents, effective October 18, 1988, and to expire on April 17, 1989. This was to authorize operation of the facility for a period long enough to correct the deficiencies identified. It was understood that these deficiencies would be corrected. A follow-up inspection was conducted by Ms. Adler on March 10, 1989. As to the previously identified deficiency involving the employee who did not have a statement regarding freedom from communicable disease, though no request for an extension had been received, there was still no required statement on file. The same situation existed with regard to the personal hygiene training of Ms. Guevara. She had not taken the appropriate training even though it had been offered at least three times in the interim. In that regard, however, it was determined that the personal hygiene training was scheduled to be given on April 28, 1989, and in the interim since the initial survey, Ms. Guevara had taken required training in CPR, first aid, nutrition, and the core training required of all administrators. Nevertheless, the rule requirement still was not met. As to the bed rail deficiency, Ms. Adler again found one full bed rail and one bed with a one-half bed rail being utilized without a doctor's order. Two others had half rails utilized appropriately under a doctor's order. Again, no request for extension had been received. Concerning the deficiency involving the lack of documentation of portion size, though no request for extension had been received, this deficiency still existed. At the March 10, 1989 follow-up survey, Ms. Adler also found a patient tied to a wheel chair, an unauthorized use of restraint. At that time, Ms. Adler again went over with the management the Department rule prohibiting restraints in ACLFs and requested that the wheelchair-bound patient be immediately released. She was. By letter dated March 15, 1989 from Carol King, Ms. Guevara was notified of the results of the March 10, 1989 follow-up visit and advised that an additional follow-up visit would be conducted to insure correction of any deficiencies still existing. On March 22, 1989, Mr. DeMey, on behalf of the facility, wrote to Ms. King outlining the facility's position as to each of the three identified deficiencies. In response, on April 21, 1989, Ms. Ann Sarantos, Area Supervisor for the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification, wrote to Ms. Guevara and again outlined the rule provisions upon which the cited deficiencies were based, and denying Mr. DeMey's request that the deficiencies be set aside. A second follow-up survey was conducted by the Department on June 7 and 12, 1989. This survey was accomplished as not only a follow-up but as the annual facility survey. At this survey, among several deficiencies identified, the requirement for portion size documentation was still found not to be complied with, and a half-rail was observed being utilized on one patient without a doctor's order. It would appear that by that time, Ms. Guevara had taken the appropriate training to satisfy the hygiene training requirement. At the hearing, Mr. DeMey raised the question as to why Respondent was not asked to put its application on hold when discrepancies were discovered at the initial survey as is provided for in the Department rules regarding issuance of licenses. In response, Ms. Adler indicated that the application process was not stopped here because the facility was already in operation and had residents. It was not a new facility, and it is only in the case of a new facility, not yet in operation, that the application is normally stopped pending correction. This is an appropriate and justifiable response. Respondent claimed to believe she had one year from application in which to acquire the personal hygiene training called for under the rule. Her understanding in this regard is incorrect. One year is authorized for an administrator to receive "core" training, which deals with those items relevant to the overall management of an ACLF, such as paperwork, forms, and the like. However, the specific area training, such as person hygiene, inter alia, must be accomplished within 90 days of the time the individual starts work at the facility, and in this case, it had not been accomplished. The fact that Ms. Guevara was a licensed practical nurse in Puerto Rico, had many years experience in patient care including patient hygiene in Puerto Rico, and several months experience in the Tampa area with the Veterans' Administration hospital, does not, nonetheless, meet the rule requirements regarding operation of ACLFs which requires the personal hygiene training be administered by either the Red Cross or a nurse licensed in Florida. This is not to say that Ms. Guevara in any way did not know or practice appropriate personal hygiene. It is merely to state that the rule requirement that she be trained in a certain way, and that that training be documented, was not fulfilled in the appropriate time, notwithstanding the initial and follow-up surveys. With regard to the bed rails, evidence submitted by Respondent indicates that the bed rails in question were collapsible and could be extended from one-half length through three-quarters to full length. They were used, it is claimed, only at night, when the residents were in bed, to keep the elderly residents from falling out. During the day, the residents were free to get up and move around and did so. Notwithstanding these assertions, however, the evidence presented by the Department indicates, and there is no evidence to doubt it, that on the days described in the survey reports, bed rails, which may at one point have been collapsed to one-half length, were extended to either three-quarters length or full length and, on the last occasion, one-half length rails were, in two cases, being used without a doctor's authorization as is required by the rule. There can be no doubt, and the evidence clearly establishes, that the rails were being used as described by Ms. Adler. Turning to the issue of the portion size documentation, Respondent urged that the menus in question were inherited from the previous owners of the facility and had been approved by the Department in a previous survey conducted during the previous ownership. Respondent cannot understand why the same menus are now held to be inadequate. Respondent could not comprehend that the objection by the Department, and the deficiency cited, related not to the menu itself, but to the failure of this Respondent to document and furnish for inspection, portion size criteria, so that the nutritionist on the team could evaluate not only the substance of the menu but the portions size as well. It matters not that the menu was previously approved. What is important is that the portion size was not provided in an appropriate fashion to the surveyors on the instant surveys. Therefore, the deficiency was cited. Mr. DeMey, who was the primary witness for the Respondent, is Ms. Guevara's husband, and they jointly operate the facility even though she is the full owner and administrator. When they took over the business, it was, as described by him, a disaster. They understood and still understand that they had to and have to meet the Department's requirements and' appear to have been trying to do so. In fact, according to Mr. DeMey, their operation was complemented by Ms. Adler at the time of the first survey, and no evidence was presented to dispute that claim. Though he contends Ms. Adler advised Respondent had one year to complete all training, it is found that this was a misunderstanding on his part. No such comment was made, and if Respondent got that impression, it was due to a misunderstanding of what training was involved. The fact that Respondent can see no benefit to the residents, or purpose to be served, by requiring Ms. Guevara, a highly trained and experienced care giver, to take training from a specific source is irrelevant. Though Mr. DeMey feels the Department could have been more flexible, it is not obliged to be. Nonetheless, as was pointed out appropriate training was scheduled and accomplished. He urges that it be considered that at the time the facility was full, and only Mr. DeMey and Ms. Guevara were available to operate it. He overlooks Ms. Rodriguez. In addition to direct resident care, they had many prior owner deficiencies to contend with and since the required training was ultimately completed as scheduled in April, 1989, he urges it is unreasonable that the Department cite this as a discrepancy. He is in error. With regard to the menus, subsequent to the last survey, Respondent hired a licensed nutritionist to reaccomplish them with appropriate documentation of portion sizes. Nonetheless, Respondent urges that the rules requiring portion size do not relate to facilities of less than sixteen residents. The resolution of that issue is appropriate in the Conclusions of Law section of this Order. As a Finding of Fact, however, at the time of the initial and follow-up surveys, the portion size documentation was not available. Respondent claims she was willing to accommodate the Department's desires and comply with its requirements. In some areas they needed help and should have been given help rather than censure. Respondent's claim that since the initial survey's deficiencies were corrected, there have been no further deficiencies is patently incorrect. The June, 1989 survey report contains numerous minor deficiencies which, admittedly, have been corrected. Respondent claims she was not fighting the program and should not now be penalized for what she felt was a reasonable interpretation of the Department rules inconsistent with that of the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact `and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order herein imposing an Administrative Fine of $250.00 for each of the three violations established for a total fine of $750.00. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of February, 1990 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 6th day of February,1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Haman Senior Attorney Office of Licensure and Certification 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Gloria M. Guevara Eddie J. DeMey Gloria's ACLF 3213 West Cass Street Tampa, Florida 33609 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Petitioner is charged pursuant to a Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance with a violation of Section 386.04(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1997), which describes conditions that are prima facie evidence of a sanitary nuisance injurious to health.
Findings Of Fact It was stipulated that Petitioner, Ann B. Harvey, through her company Harvey Enterprises and Company, Inc., owns the home at 102 Williams Street, Palatka, Florida. At all times relevant to the alleged violation, the home was occupied by tenants. The tenants vacated the house on or about October 13, 1998. Kenneth F. Burnett, Environmental Specialist I, with the Putnam County Health Department, first investigated a complaint regarding the property at 102 Williams Street, Palatka, Florida, on August 5, 1998. He witnessed faulty plumbing in the home and ponded wastewater at the back of the home. On August 11, 1998, Mr. Burnett drafted and mailed a Notice to Abate. The notice was mailed by certified mail return receipt requested and received by Ann B. Harvey on August 25, 1998. Ann B. Harvey signed the return receipt for the Notice to Abate on August 25, 1998. Mr. Burnett again inspected the property on September 2, 1998, and found no change in the status of the faulty plumbing and ponded wastewater. On September 9, 1998, Mr. Burnett again inspected the property and determined there had been no changes. David Flowers, Environmental Specialist II, became involved in the case on September 18, 1998, when he inspected the property. Mr. Flowers observed that wastewater ponded on the ground at the back of the home, and that the plumbing inside the home was in disrepair. Ms. Laurey Gauch, Environmental Health Director for Putnam County Health Department testified. She inspected the property in question on September 18, 25, and 28, 1998. Ms. Gauch observed ponded wastewater in the backyard and plumbing in disrepair inside the home on each visit. Ms. Gauch opined that the condition of the property was a sanitary nuisance in violation of Section 386.041(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1997), because the ponded wastewater would breed disease (bacteria, viruses, etc.) and contamination. A Citation for Violation was received and signed for by Ronald Harvey on September 25, 1998, pursuant to statutory authority at Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (1997). The citation cites the Petitioner for violation of Section 386.041(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1997). On September 25, 1998, Mr. Flowers again inspected the property, and observed that the sewage remained on the ground at the rear of the home. Mr. Flowers flushed dye in the toilet to determine if the standing water was coming from the toilet inside the home. The dye would run out onto the ground if the ponded water was from the toilet. Mr. Flowers inspected the problem on September 28, 1998. Sewage remained ponded on the ground at the rear of the home and the water bubbled when the toilet was flushed. Mr. Flowers re-inspected the property on September 29, 1998, and flushed dye in the toilet. He documented that the dye came to the ground surface. During the visit, Mr. Flowers was accompanied by a County Codes Enforcement Officer who condemned the home. On October 6, 1998, Mr. Flowers returned to the property with his supervisor, Geoff Batteiger. The tenants were still living in the home, but were reported to be leaving. The plumbing in the home remained unrepaired. When the toilet was flushed, water bubbled onto the ground surface. The problem had neither been abated, nor were there any signs that the problem was being corrected. No repairs were made to the premises between August 25, 1998, and October 6, 1998, a period of one and one-half months during which tenants lived in the home. On November 17, 1998, the property was reinspected by Mr. Burnett and Mr. Batteiger. They observed that the sanitary nuisance had been remedied. Ms. Lucille Harvey, property manager and sister-in-law to the Petitioner, testified for Petitioner. She collects rents and arranges for repairs. She had contacted one handyman who came to the home, but refused to do the work because of foul odor in the yard and fleas. Ms. Lucille Harvey did not contact anyone else for repairs until after the tenants had vacated the premises. The tenants kept dogs in the backyard where the problem was, and were uncooperative with the landlord. Ms. Lucille Harvey testified that she notified the Petitioner of the sanitary nuisance at the end of August 1998, and the problems she was having making repairs. Petitioner, Ann Harvey, testified she commenced eviction proceedings for the tenant at 102 Williams Street on or about July 12, 1998. The proceedings were on-going due to various legal exigencies until the tenants vacated the premises on or about October 13, 1998. Ms. Harvey was out-of-town from approximately July 22, 1998, through August 15, 1998, during which time a judge dismissed the eviction action. The action was recommenced. The tenant made a partial payment of one month, which Petitioner accepted. The judge again dismissed the eviction action. The sanitary nuisance at the property in question was not remedied until the Petitioner evicted the tenants and gained access to the premises. Mr. Thomas Harvey, handyman and brother Ron Harvey, testified that he began working on the repairs at the home at 102 Williams Street, on November 2, 1998. He testified that he replaced broken lines, cleaned a grease trap, and snaked the kitchen and bathroom. These repairs concluded on or about November 12, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health enter a final order waiving the fine and payment as stated in the Citation for Violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 9th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Harvey Route 2, Box 1650 Palatka, Florida 32177 Ann B. Harvey 102 Williams Street Palatka, Florida 32177 Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Department of Health 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Box 19 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nemi, Inc., should pay a $500.00 administrative fine for maintaining an unpermitted stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution (Count I); whether it should pay an administrative fine of $9,500.00 for failing to submit a completed Site Assessment Report (SAR) within 270 days of discovery of the discharge of chemical solvents (Count II); whether it should pay investigative costs and expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 incurred by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department) (Count III); and whether it should take corrective action, as described in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice of Violation) issued on January 23, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is a for-profit corporation registered to do business in the State. Respondent's president and registered agent is Neil Schuberg, who represented the corporation at hearing. Respondent is the owner of a 1.1-acre parcel of real property located at 6801 Northwest 17th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The property is situated in what is known as the Gateway Industrial Center just south of the City of Pompano Beach and midway between the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95. The parcel is rectangular shaped and is approximately 90 feet wide by 180 feet long. The property is further identified by the Broward County Property Appraiser as Parcel Identification Number 494209050040. A one-story warehouse and parking lot are located on the property, which is currently leased by Respondent to a testing laboratory. The evidence shows that for at least since 1981 David R. Ligh owned the property until his death. After he died, his widow, Elsie M. Ligh, sold the property in 1994 to Clayton John Pierce subject to a mortgage in the amount of $167,640.00. Mr. Pierce began operating a business on the premises known as Combined Roof Services, Inc. In 1995, Mr. Pierce decided to sell the property. A potential buyer, S & S Propeller Company, retained the services of Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an environmental site assessment for the purpose of "determining the suitability of property for ownership by [S & S Propeller Company]." When it first inspected the site in July 1995, Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., discovered three thirty-five gallon drums and a twenty-gallon black plastic tub, all labeled "hazardous waste" and reflecting that they had contained tetrachloroethene (also known as perchloroethylene) waste. This is a chemical solvent that is typically used by dry cleaning establishments. The labels carried the name and "EPA ID number" of Family Dry Cleaners located at 6804 Stirling Road, Davie, Florida, an address which appears to be around ten to twelve miles south of the subject property. The three drums were lying on their sides on the northern end of an asphalt parking area beneath overgrown Brazilian pepper trees and were empty; the empty twenty-gallon tub was located inside the building on the property. Soil borings on the property performed by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., revealed concentrations of tetrachloroethene at 10,613 parts per billion, which exceed allowable standards. Tetrachloroethene and its breakdown products are a solid waste, as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113). A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) dated August 13, 1995, was prepared by the consulting firm and sets forth in detail the results of its inspection. See Department Exhibit 2. The sale was never consummated. Later that year, Mr. Pierce engaged the same consulting firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the property. That assessment revealed concentrations in groundwater ranging from 8,840 parts per billion to 173,000 parts per billion of tetrachloroethene, which exceed the State Clean Soil Criteria and State Maximum Contaminant Levels. The report, issued on October 13, 1995, was received in evidence as Department Exhibit 3. On October 30, 1995, a Mr. Pivnick, an attorney with the firm of Dombroff & Gilmore, P.A., which represented Mr. Pierce, notified the Department by letter that the empty drums and tub had been discovered on the property. The letter also attached a copy of the Phase I ESA. Mr. Pivnick was instructed by the Department to contact the local police department to report the incident as well as the state warning system for reporting discharges to the environment. Also, the Department contacted other local agencies and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In October 1995, Mr. Pierce vacated the premises and ceased operating Combined Roof Services, Inc. In January 1996, he began leasing the property to Sun Valley Industries, also a roofing repair business, until that firm vacated the premises in December 1997. With the use of grant monies, the Department engaged the services of International Technology Corporation to prepare a Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) for the property. That report was issued on February 13, 1997. See Department Exhibit The PIR recommended that additional monitoring of the site (through shallow monitoring wells, soil samples, groundwater samples, and groundwater flow direction) be made to quantify the presence of chlorinated solvents. Again with the use of grant monies, in 1997 the Department engaged the services of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., to prepare a Site Inspection Report (Report) for the subject property. The Report was issued in March 1998. See Department Exhibit 5. Excessive tetrachloroethene, Cis-1, 2- dichloroethene, and trichloroethylene were detected in ground water samples, while tetrachloroethene was detected in all seven soil samples. On April 2, 1998, Ms. Ligh assigned the mortgage on the property to Nemi, Inc., for around $100,000.00. Mr. Schuberg explained that he was able to purchase it at a discount because Mr. Pierce had ceased making payments on the mortgage and had warned Ms. Ligh that if she foreclosed on the mortgage, she would be responsible for cleanup costs on the property exceeding a million dollars. While Mr. Schuberg acknowledged that he was aware of a contamination problem on the property, he says the mortgage was purchased as an investment, and he never thought he would actually acquire the property because he believed Mr. Pierce would continue to make the mortgage payments. After failing to make payments on the mortgage, on September 21, 1999, Mr. Pierce executed a Warranty Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure in favor of Nemi, Inc. Based on conversations with Mr. Pierce at that time, Mr. Schuberg says he was under the impression that the spill was much smaller than it actually was, and that it would be cleaned up by the Department. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg characterized Mr. Pierce as "a hustler and a liar." After Mr. Pivnick's report of contamination was received, the Department, along with the Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection, initiated an investigation (probably in late 1995 or early 1996) in an attempt to verify the source of the contamination. Because Family Dry Cleaners "was on the top of [its] list," the Department first sought to determine whether that firm had actually deposited the drums and tub on the subject property. It learned that in 1994, or a year before the contamination was reported to the Department, Family Dry Cleaners had been evicted by its landlord, Lincoln Park. According to the Department, this "led to a dead- end" as far as Family Dry Cleaners was concerned. However, that business had been replaced by another tenant, Liberty Dry Cleaners. The Department then attempted to ascertain whether Lincoln Park or the new tenant might have been responsible for transporting the drums and tub to the subject property and dumping the waste. However, the Department was unable to confirm that either of the two had done so. Photographs of the drums and tub were made by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., when it conducted an assessment in July 1995. Because the empty drums and tub were later removed from the site by unknown persons, the Department was only able to review the photographs when it conducted its investigation. Photographs of the drums indicated that they were larger than the twenty-gallon drums normally used by a dry cleaning establishment, and the labels on the drums were not perforated or dot matrix, which are more typical of those used by dry cleaners. For this reason, and because the empty tub was found inside the building on the property, the Department attempted to determine if Mr. Pierce had purchased the contaminants for use in his operations; it was not able to confirm this fact. The Department also contacted local law enforcement officials to see whether a criminal investigation could be launched. As noted above, however, the drums and tub had been removed by unknown persons while Mr. Pierce still had possession of the property and there was no forensic evidence for law enforcement officials to examine. The result of the investigation was that the Department was unable to determine who deposited the drums on the site or the exact location where the contents were first dumped. Although Respondent contended that the Department could have easily determined who removed the empty drums and tub from the subject property by examining the manifests of the carriers who engage in that type of business, the Department investigator did not attempt to do this since the yellow pages in the telephone directory reflected at least six pages of transporters in this type of business. Further, there is no evidence that a commercial transporter was even involved. For all of these reasons, the Department looked to the current owner of the property, Respondent, as the entity responsible for site rehabilitation since there were, and still are, contaminants leaching into the groundwater and aquifer system. Specifically, as of 2007, or twelve years after the discharge occurred, the groundwater on Respondent's property was still contaminated with tetrachloroethene, trichloroethylene, and cis-1, 2-dichloroethene exceeding the Department's groundwater standards. Also, the same contaminants exceeded the Department's soil cleanup target levels based on ground water criteria. Because rainfall and surface water continue to come into contact with the contaminated soil, and there is no liner or impervious cap in place, the installation is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution. On September 12, 2001, the Department sent a letter by certified mail to Respondent advising that contamination was present on the property, that there were "possible violations of law for which you may be responsible," and that a Preliminary Contamination Assessment (PCA) must be filed within sixty days from the date of the letter. See Department Exhibit 6. Although a meeting of the parties was held on October 4, 2001, a PCA was never filed. 16. On April 27, 2006, March 12, 2007, and July 3, 2007, the Department issued Warning Letters to Respondent advising that an enforcement action would be initiated unless Respondent provided a SAR within a time certain. See Department Exhibits 7, 8, and 9. (The record is silent as to why no formal activity occurred between October 2001 and April 2006.) Exhibit 8 reflects that on November 21, 2006, "analysis results of sampling of one monitoring well were received by the Department." A meeting was later conducted by the parties on January 16, 2007, at which time Respondent agreed to "draft a suitable letter of [its] intentions with regard to conducting the required assessment and send it to the Department on or before January 31, 2007." There is no record of such a letter being sent. In August 2007, Respondent contracted with Florida Environmental Engineering, Inc., to perform a "limited site assessment report." In March 2008, that firm submitted to the Department a Preliminary Site Assessment Report (PSAR) See Department Exhibit 10. For this service, Respondent paid around $16,000.00. On March 21, 2008, the Department advised Respondent by letter that the PSAR was incomplete and that further information should be provided by April 30, 2008. See Department Exhibit 11. An Addendum to the PSAR was provided on May 5, 2008. See Department Exhibit 12. This report cost Respondent an additional $3,000.00. The PSAR indicated that contaminants (dichloroethene and trichloroethylene) in the water and soil on the property exceeded Department groundwater and soil cleanup target standards and levels. The report concluded, however, that "the discharge to the site is from an offsite source" (west of the property) and that "the property owner is no longer a responsible party." On August 27 and then again on October 22, 2008, the Department issued letters to Respondent advising that "there is not enough data to support the assumption that the discharge is offsite and the contamination is from an offsite source located west of the property." The Department reached this conclusion because, among other reasons, "[t]he contamination does not seem to be delineated towards the northern and southern portions of the site," "[t]here are no horizontal delineation wells to [the] north," the "iso contour maps provided appear to show the vertical delineation of the contamination but not horizontal delineation [of the plume]," "additional monitoring points need to be [added]," and "the onsite monitoring well, MW-2, shows a very high concentration of Perchloroethylene (PCE) at 81,000 ug/L [microgram per liter] and other contaminants, while the MW-1 does not exhibit groundwater contamination to that extent." See Department Exhibits 14 and 15. In plainer language, Respondent's report was deficient in that all contamination sources were not identified; it failed to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and groundwater contamination; and it failed to recommend a remedial action to clean up the contamination. The two letters advised that the site assessment was incomplete and that additional information described in the letters must be submitted by November 14, 2008. To date, Respondent has failed to submit the required information. According to Mr. Schuberg, to perform a study that would supply the additional information requested by the Department would cost him around $100,000.00, an amount he is unwilling to pay. More than 270 days has expired since a discharge was discovered on Respondent's property, and it has failed to submit a complete SAR, as described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-780.600(8). See also Table A, Fla. Admin. Code R. Ch. 62-780, which prescribes the specific time frame (within 270 days after the discharge is discovered) for submitting this report. The Department has incurred expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 while investigating this matter. See Department Exhibit 17. This amount is not disputed. As corrective action, the Department requests that within ninety days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent submit a complete SAR which addresses the deficiencies specified in the Department's August 27, 2008, letter. See Department Exhibit 14. To complete the SAR, additional soil and groundwater samples need to be collected to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination, all source areas must be identified, and a remedial action must be developed to abate the contamination. Finally, the contaminated soil must be removed from the property so that it will no longer discharge into the groundwater. The Notice of Violation requests that upon approval of the SAR, Respondent "shall commence and complete in a timely fashion all further tasks" required by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-780. These corrective actions are reasonable and are hereby approved. In calculating the penalty, Respondent has assessed a $500.00 administrative penalty for Respondent maintaining a stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution without a permit. This is based upon a violation of Section 403.121(5), Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful to not comply with a regulatory statute's requirement. Under Section 403.121(6), Florida Statutes, the Department has also assessed a $500.00 per day penalty against Respondent for failing to file a SAR for nineteen days, for a total of $9,500.00. When added to the $500.00 previously assessed, the total administrative penalty is $10,000.00, which is the maximum allowed in this type of proceeding. See § 403.121(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Throughout this process, Mr. Schuberg has contended that the responsibility for cleanup lies with the person or entity actually responsible for placing the drums and tub on the property in 1995. He says that the evidence clearly shows that Family Dry Cleaners is the responsible party. However, the Department and local authorities were never able to confirm who actually dumped the waste on the subject property. Although Mr. Schuberg says it will take "[i]n the hundreds of thousands of dollars" to clean up the site, the evidence shows that when he purchased the mortgage in 1998 and assumed ownership in 1999, he knew the property was contaminated. Mr. Schuberg further stated that because his consultant could never get "answers" from the Department, the consultant was instructed to stop work. However, Mr. Schuberg never contacted the Department to get clarification about what was required. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg also offered a lay opinion that his consultant's report filed in March 2008 proves that in 1995 the contents of the drums and tub were dumped on an offsite asphalt road adjacent to the property, surface water runoff then carried the chemical solvents onto his property, and the empty drums and tub were left in the parking lot. The Department's expert did not agree with this supposition, and there is no expert testimony to confirm the accuracy of this theory. Respondent has also contended that the property should be cleaned up with state funds. As pointed out by a Department witness, however, one problem is that the property does not meet the definition of a dry cleaner and thus cannot qualify for funds under that program. Then, too, a state-funded cleanup is a last resort which is used only after the Department has exhausted all enforcement remedies. Also, in this era of tight budgets, the Department has a finite amount of funds to use for this purpose, and is limited to cleaning up only a few sites per year. Finally, the responsible party must first acknowledge by affidavit that it lacks the necessary resources to clean up the property before the Department "may" seek cleanup funds. Respondent has not yet filed such an affidavit or admitted liability. In terms of mitigating evidence, Mr. Schuberg conceded that he has not done "a whole lot" to address the contamination problem since acquiring the property in 1999. In 2008, he did expend around $20,000.00 in having a PSAR and Addendum prepared for the Department. In all other respects, he steadfastly refuses to spend any more money on assessments or take responsibility for the cleanup since he believes that Family Dry Cleaners is the entity responsible for site rehabilitation.
The Issue Whether existing Rule 21F-20.009, Florida Administrative Code, is, as a matter of law, an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact There were no findings of fact to be made.
