Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto respondents, Selma Fruman and others, were the owners of a 14-unit apartment complex known as the Greenville Apartments located at 1701 North Treasure Drive North Bay Village Florida. Respondents hold license number 23-8285 issued by petitioner, Department of Business Regulations Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), and are subject to that agency's regulatory jurisdiction. On or about September 2D 1985, a Division environmental health specialist conducted a routine inspection of respondents' facility to determine if health and safety standards were being maintained. All such facilities must be inspected at least twice during each fiscal year. The inspection was made in the presence of respondents' representatives. The specialist found the following items to be in noncompliance with Division rules: fire extinguishers were not recharged as required by Rule 7C-1.04(1), Florida Adminis- trative Code, combustible and flammable materials were stored in the electric meter room in viola- tion of Rule 7C-1.03(2), Florida Administra- tive Code, the building had flaking and peeling paint in contravention of Rule 7C-1.03(1), Florida Administrative Code, and trash, debris and junk were lying in the rear of the property in violation of Rule 7C- 1.03(5) and (7), Florida Administrative Code. Through testimony at hearing it was established that the deviations from agency rules constituted a threat to the tenants' healthy safety and welfare. A copy of the report listing the above violations was sent to respondents by certified mail. The report warned that all violations must be corrected within ten days of receipt of the notice. The notice included the name and telephone number of the specialist who conducted the inspection. On October 23, 1985, the Division specialist returned to respondents' facility to ascertain if the deficiencies had been corrected. The specialist found none of the four items had been corrected. A notice to show cause was then issued by the Division on November 1, 1985. However, respondents apparently requested an informal conference to discuss the violations and one was scheduled on a later date. After missing the conference, the manager of respondents' facility (and brother of one of the owners) wrote a letter on December 20, 1985 requesting a second conference and advising that "the four items mentioned to be corrected Items a, b and c, have been done and the building has been scheduled for painting the second week of January, 1986." On January 24, 1986, the specialist made a return visit to the facility and found items a and b had been corrected while the violations in items b and c were unrepaired. At an informal conference held on January 29, 1986, respondents disputed the findings of the Division and requested a formal hearing. That prompted the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty as charged in the notice to show cause, and that a $2,000 civil penalty be imposed to be paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered in this proceeding. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne A. Guimby, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 Mr. Morris Liebman 1701 N. Treasure Drive North Bay Village, Florida 33141 Mr. R. Hugh Snow, Director Division of Hotels & Restaurants Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Bray is the owner of and lives on property located at 5550 Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida. He operates a solid waste disposal site on this property. By application dated June 6, 1977, and revised June 13, 1977, Bray applied to DER for an Operation Permit for a Solid Waste Resource Recovery and Management Facility pursuant to Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code. At that time, Bray held a Temporary Operating Permit which had been issued on February 4, 1976. In Bray's application materials, which included the application dated June 6, 1977 and revised June 13, 1977, and letters from Bray to DER dated June 8, 1977, and June 30, 1977, Bray proposed an alternate procedure pursuant to Rule 17-7.05(3) (q) for operation of his landfill which procedure would permit Bray to cover, spread and compact the fill material in a manner different from that specifically set forth in Rule 17-7.05, Florida Administrative Code. DER did not consider Bray's request for an alternate procedure, but responded by letter stating that Bray must apply for a variance pursuant to Rule 17-1.25, Florida Administrative Code, and recommended denial of Bray's application for a permit for the following reasons: No provisions were made for daily cover. Refuse was not spread in two (2) foot layers. No intermediate cover was applied within one week of cell completion. No cover materials were stockpiled. During the testimony presented, DER acknowledged that the fourth reason given for denial of the permits-no cover materials were stockpiled-is not a requirement of the Rules and is not a valid reason for denial of a Permit Application. This Hearing Examiner agrees and finds that Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code only requires that the site have an adequate quantity of acceptable earth cover available. See Rule 17-7.05(1) (c)3, Florida Administrative Code. Bray presented adequate testimony demonstrating that sufficient acceptable cover material was available at his site. Bray conceded at the hearing that it was still his intention to operate the landfill site without daily cover, intermediate cover and compaction as required by DER. Bray's principal contention is that compaction and daily cover are not necessary for a landfill which accepts only non-putrescible waste. Bray urges that the attenuation of leachate, prevention of fires, prevention of settling and ponding of water which provide breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other vectors and reducing the area of land needed to dispose of solid waste are justifications for the requirements of compaction and daily cover of solid waste which may not be present at non-putrescible landfills. Bray concludes that the absence of these problems at his landfill obviates the necessity for the application of the provisions of the rule requiring daily and intermediate cover and compaction. However, Bray has not met his burden of establishing that non- putrescible waste does not require compaction and daily cover. There are multiple reasons for the requirement of compaction and daily cover of solid waste. When solid-waste is spread to approximately a 2-foot thickness and then compacted to a 1-foot thickness, followed by the daily application of a cover of 6 inches of compacted earth, a layering effect is created which helps attenuate, if not prevent, the formation of leachate from both putrescibles and non-putrescibles which may be contained in the waste. Leachate is a liquid that has percolated through solid waste, usually originating as rain, which contains dissolved or suspended material that may contaminate ground water supply. Leachate occurs in landfills that accept putrescible material as well as landfills that accept only non-putrescibles. Compaction and daily cover consequently slow, if not prevent, the contamination of ground water supplies. The formation of leachate containing various chemicals which would have adverse affects on the human body is expected when water percolates through strictly non-putrescible waste Commonly discarded non-putrescibles such as metals, plastics, ashes, rocks and dirt from an industrial site, miscellaneous organics, heavy metal solutions and sludges, organic solvents and oils, caustic and acid solutions, inorganic chemical solutions and sludges, pesticides and fungicide wastes, paint and ink wastes, asphalt roofing and paving material, explosive waste and radioactive waste are probable sources of leachate contamination. The process of leachate formation from non-putrescibles involve the physical and chemical reaction of compounds in the non-putrescibles with the water percolating through them. The contamination of ground water supplies by leachate from either a putrescible or non-putrescible site constitutes a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public as many of the contaminates are toxic and have adverse affects on the human body. In particular, leachate from non-putrescibles may contain toxic metal solutions, carcinogenic pesticides and other organic compounds as well as toxic inorganic compounds. Another reason for compacting and daily cover is the prevention of fires. Exposed, non-putrescible wastes can ignite and result in serious dump fires. Daily cover, if applied, serves as a fire break and eliminates the fire hazard created by exposed combustible non-putrescible wastes. Furthermore, compaction and daily cover prevent settling and ponding which would contribute to both downward flow' of water through the solid waste and the creation of breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other vectors. Compaction and daily cover contribute to the general aesthetics of the site and reduce the area of land needed to dispose of solid waste Bray has attempted to show that his method of operation effectively screens putrescible wastes from the site and otherwise adequately protects the public health, safety and welfare. However, the evidence which belies the assertion, shows that putrescibles have, in fact, been dumped at Bray Landfill. Coliform readings obtained in samples from monitoring wells at the Bray property can reasonably be attributed to putrescible matter on site. Birds have been observed feeding on site and these would not be feeding on non-putrescible wastes. The policing techniques are largely ineffectual. The site contains unopened trash bags with undisclosed contents as well as observed putrescible garbage. Trucks enter the site and dump their loads without inspection. Two major dump fires have occurred at the Bray Landfill during the past four years.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Reimbursement Program established under the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 for the petroleum terminal owned by Gulf Products Division of BP Oil Company at Port Everglades, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 provides for the expeditious cleanup of sites contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum products. The Reimbursement Program, found in Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, provides for reimbursement of the allowable costs of site rehabilitation contaminated as a result of a discharge related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products from a storage tank, or its integral piping or dispensing system. The Reimbursement Program does not provide for reimbursement of cleanup costs for discharges related to the transportation or disposal of petroleum or petroleum products. The site at issue in this proceeding is a terminal facility used for the storage of petroleum and petroleum product located at 1500 Southeast 26th Street, Port Everglades, Florida. This facility is referred to as Gulf Facility No. 46888 and DER Facility No. 068732278 (Gulf Terminal). The subject terminal facility is one of fourteen petroleum storage terminals located at Port Everglades, Florida. Petroleum and petroleum products come to the terminal by ship and are pumped from the ship through permanent pipelines to the large aboveground storage tanks located at the facility. The petroleum and petroleum products are stored in these large tanks until it is time for the product to be distributed to the end user. The Gulf Terminal contains eighteen storage tanks whose total capacity is 650,000 barrels of petroleum or petroleum products. These tanks vary in size, with the smallest having a capacity of 10,000 barrels and the largest having a capacity of 80,000 barrels. One barrel equals 42 gallons. The primary activity of the terminals at Port Everglades is to store petroleum or petroleum products. None of the terminals at Port Everglades, including the Gulf Terminal, refines or produces petroleum or petroleum products. Operation of this facility began in 1946. Petitioner, as the successor to the Gulf Oil Corporation, owned and operated the facility until February 1, 1985, when it sold the facility to BP Oil, Inc. As the previous owner of the facility, Petitioner performed an environmental audit which revealed petroleum hydrocarbon contamination at the site. Petitioner is responsible for the cleanup and is entitled to reimbursement of the allowable costs of the cleanup if the site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program. Any contamination of the soil and groundwater at the site was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products, water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum product or sludges which consist predominately of petroleum or petroleum product constituents. Based on hydrogeological assessment information, Petitioner determined that response action, including ground water cleanup activities, was required at the site. Petitioner hired independent contractors to conduct the response action. In 1986, Petitioner designed a recovery system for petroleum and petroleum product and a ground water treatment system at the site. Through February, 1989, the recovery system had recovered over 12,000 gallons of petroleum or petroleum products, which constitutes the recovery of between 60%- 70% of the total amount in the ground. Through November 1989, Petitioner had expended in excess of $560,000 on its response action at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner advised Respondent of its response action at the site by letter dated January 6, 1988. Petitioner submitted documentation to Respondent concerning hydrogeological assessment at the site which included field and laboratory work and investigation performed for the site from 1984 to the present. Pursuant to the requirements of SUPER Act, Petitioner notified Respondent of its intention to seek reimbursement for money spent conducting response action in accordance with Chapter 17-70, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to petroleum and petroleum product contamination at the site. Petitioner's notice to Respondent was timely and was procedurally correct. On July 13, 1989, Respondent issued its Order of Determination of Ineligibility concerning Petitioner's request for reimbursement. As stated in this order the initial basis for Respondent's denial of eligibility was: The determination is based on the fact that the contamination was not related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products. Sources of contamination at this site include tanker trucks, an oil/water separator, a holding pond, and crude oil and tank-bottom sludge disposal pit. These items are not petroleum storage systems as defined in Section 376.301 F.S. therefore (sic), this site is not eligible for reimbursement under the SUPER Act. ... Respondent clarified its Order of Ineligibility by a Notice to Amend and Clarify dated November 14, 1989, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The notice of denial provides that the site is being denied due to the fact that the disclosed sources of contamination are not petroleum storage systems. One of the criteria for being a petroleum storage system is that it be used or intended to be used for storage of petroleum or petroleum product. It is the criteria that the Department contends is not met in this case; i.e., that the discharges were not intended for storage. Section 376.3071(4), Florida Statutes, specifically limits the use of the Environmental Protection Trust Fund to incidents of inland contamination related to storage of petroleum or petroleum product. * * * The Department recently became aware that prior to 1983, contaminated water was disposed of directly from tanks at the site with no pretreatment by an oil/water separator. As with the disposal of oil and sludge to a pit, the act of intentionally disposing of contaminants to the ground is not "related to storage" as required by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. * * * Wherefore, The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation hereby requests that the Hearing Officer allow for the amendment of the notice of denial of eligibility to include the following basis for denial: Contamination at the site is related to the disposal of petroleum or petroleum product, or water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. Disposal activities including the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water and/or fuel from tanks, oil water separators and sump areas, the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water to a percolation pond, the intentional discharge and disposal of oil and sludge to a disposal pit, and the intentional discharge and disposal of fuel to the ground at the loading rack. Among the causes of contamination of the Gulf Terminal are accidental overfills of tanks and leaks from an integral pipeline. Absent any other source of contamination, the discharges that occurred at the Gulf Terminal due to these causes would be eligible for the reimbursement. Respondent has determined, however, that the following additional sources of contamination render the entire response action ineligible for reimbursement: Discharges of dissolved hydrocarbon molecules contained in water which accumulated in storage tanks; Discharges of petroleum or petroleum products at the loading rack at the terminal; and The discharge of crude oil and of crude oil tank bottoms. TANK OVERFILL During the operation of the Gulf Terminal, petroleum and petroleum products have been accidentally discharged onto the ground. In 1955, an unknown quantity of petroleum or petroleum products was accidentally discharged onto the ground in the areas of tanks 104 and 105 as a result of these tanks being over- filled. Following this massive spill, between 5,000 - 10,000 barrels of product was recovered, while an unknown quantity could not be recovered. PIPELINE LEAK Since 1955, approximately 15,000 additional barrels of petroleum or petroleum products were leaked from an underground pipeline that is integral to the storage system in an area between the loading rack and tank 101, extending toward the west to between tanks 110 and 102. This is the vicinity where the heaviest free floating petroleum contamination exists. DISCHARGE OF CONTAMINATED WATER Florida has adopted the standard code for the design of aboveground storage tanks prepared by the American Petroleum Institute (API-650). The tanks at the Gulf Terminal are in compliance with API-650. The accumulation of water in storage tanks is a problem associated with the storage of petroleum or petroleum products in the storage tanks at the Gulf Terminal and at the other terminals at Port Everglades. Water accumulates in the storage tanks from rainfall and from condensation. The records of the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Station 08063163 (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) accurately depict the rainfall levels at the terminal facility. The total annual rainfall levels are as follows: 1980, 69.67 inches; 1981, 57.9 inches; 1982, 82.92 inches; 1983 75.16 inches; 1984, 59.4 inches; 1985, 63.74 inches; 1986, 64.14 inches, 1987, 58.50 inches; 1988 40.66 inches. Because water is heavier than petroleum and petroleum products, the water accumulates at the bottom of the tanks. It is essential to the proper storage of the petroleum or petroleum products that the water be removed for at least three reasons. First, if the water is not removed, the tanks would eventually become filled with water instead of product. Second, the product contaminated by water, particularly fuel for motor vehicles and aircraft, would not meet specifications. Third, water in the tanks speeds the corrosion of the tank. In order to remove this water that accumulates at the bottom of the storage tanks, a water draw-off mechanism located at the bottom of the tank is a design feature of API-650. When water accumulates in the bottom of the tank, the water is drained out through the water draw-off mechanism. The storage tanks located at the Gulf Terminal are equipped with such a water draw-off mechanism. Throughout the existence of the facility, accumulated water in the tanks has been controlled by discharging the water through the water draw-off mechanism. From 1948 to 1980, water was drained out of the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and on to the ground. Beginning in 1980, the water was taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and piped to a catch basin where an effort was made to recover petroleum product by skimming the water before the water was discharged into the ground. Since 1985, the water taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism has been treated by an oil/water separator which effectively removes all petroleum product before the water is discharged. The purpose of the oil/water separator is to separate petroleum product from water so that the petroleum product can be returned to the storage tank and the water can be discharged. This process serves to prevent the discharge of petroleum product. Up to 1988, the discharges to the ground from the oil/water separator at the Gulf Terminal accumulated in a holding pond. In 1988, the holding pond was eliminated and the water discharges from the oil/water separator were routed to a holding tank prior to treatment by an air stripper and subsequent discharge into the canal adjacent to the property. At all times since 1983, the water drawn out of the tanks has been the subject of permits issued by Respondent which approve the use of the oil/water separator. While it is necessary for the operation of the storage tanks that water be drawn from the tanks, it is not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks for the contaminated water to be discharged onto the ground. The purpose of discharging the water was to dispose of it. There was no intent to recover the contaminated water after it was discharged. Any water coming out of a storage tank is contaminated with dissolved petroleum. It may have solids in it and floating residue or product on it. Between 1946 and 1980, when this water from the storage tanks was discharged to the ground, any contaminates in the water would be discharged along with it. Water has been drained from tanks numbered 101, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112 113, and 114 on a daily basis. The other tanks are drained after a rainfall. An average of one or two inches of water was drained off each time it rained. Following a rainfall, in excess of 30 barrels of water would be drained from the smaller tanks, while approximately 300 barrels of water would be drained from the larger tanks. The discharge of the water drawn from the storage tanks contributed to the contamination of the groundwater at the Gulf Terminal. This type contamination exists in almost all areas of the site. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the contamination to the groundwater caused by the discharge of contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks from contamination to the groundwater which resulted from other causes. Petitioner failed to establish that the contribution to this contamination to the groundwater by the discharge of the contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks was insignificant. THE LOADING RACK The loading rack at the Gulf Terminal is the apparatus by which the petroleum in the storage tanks is dispensed to tanker truck for distribution to consumers. The loading rack is a series of dispensers which operate much like at a service station except that it fuels tanker trucks rather than automobiles. The loading rack is connected by permanent integral piping to the storage tanks. The purpose of the loading rack is to load the transport trucks. Without the storage tanks at the terminal, there would be no need for a loading rack. Over the years, discharges have occurred in the loading rack, usually as the result of human error. Occasional overfills in the 10-15 gallon range have occurred while a truck was being filled. This type discharge is analogous to a spill which occurs at a service station when an automobile is being fueled and the fuel splashes back or overfills the automobile's fuel tank. The supervisor of Respondent's Reimbursement Section testified that this type discharge, absent other causes, would probably be eligible for reimbursement. This testimony conflicts with the official position taken by Respondent in this proceeding that the cleanup caused by the operation of the loading rack is ineligible for reimbursement. In other incidents, small amounts of product ranging from a teacup to less than a gallon, were occasionally discharged while a truck was being drained of one type of product so that the truck could transport another type of product. The loading rack is an integral part of the storage system because without a means of moving the product out of storage and into the distribution system, the storage tanks could not provide a meaningful function. The discharges which occurred at the loading rack during the course of both loading and unloading trucks are insignificant when compared with the other sources of contamination at the site. TANK BOTTOMS In 1956, a storage tank was emptied for the purpose of switching product from crude oil to diesel fuel. At the time the change in product was made, approximately 1000 barrels of sludge and crude oil were disposed of in a pit adjacent to tank 101. Also disposed of was the tank bottom, a hard tar residue which formed at the bottom of the tank. Oil occasionally oozes to the surface in the vicinity of the pit adjacent to tank 101, but the area around the sludge pit has not been found to be contaminated, and the tank bottom has remained a hardened mass. Each tank on the site also had a pit alongside the tank where a tank bottom was disposed. Although it was necessary to remove the sludge and the tank bottoms to be able to properly operate the storage tanks, it was not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks to dump the sludge and the tank bottoms onto the ground or into the pits. The purpose of discharging the crude oil sludge and the tank bottoms was to dispose of them. There was no intent to recover the crude oil sludge or the tank bottoms water after they were discharged. CONTAMINATION PHASES The contamination at the site exists in three phases, floating petroleum product contamination, dissolved petroleum groundwater contamination, and sludge contamination. The contamination in the form of floating petroleum was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products following the tank overfills, the pipeline leaks, and spills at the loading rack. The dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by two primary sources. First, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by floating petroleum product coming into contact with groundwater. Upon such contact, molecules from the floating petroleum would dissolve into the water, causing contamination. Second, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by the discharge of the contaminated water that had been drawn off from the storage tanks. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the dissolved groundwater contamination that was caused by accidental discharges of product from the contamination caused by the discharge of the contaminated water. Petitioner was also unable to establish that the dissolved groundwater contamination caused by the contaminated water was insignificant. The sludge contamination was caused by the discharge of crude oil and crude oil tank bottoms. CLEANUP The sludge contamination is capable of being cleaned up separately from the free floating petroleum contamination and the groundwater contamination at the site. The sludge contamination is separate and distinct from the other contamination at the site both as to the location of the contamination and as to the methods that would be employed to clean up that type of contamination. Free floating petroleum contamination is recovered by drawing down the water level in a well by use of a pump so that a cone of depression is created. The cone of depression is a funnel shaped depression that causes the surface of the underground water table to bend down towards the well in all directions. The free floating petroleum which flows on top of the underground water surface is then recovered by use of a second pump. The free floating petroleum is then pumped into a holding tank where the recovery of free floating petroleum is completed. The recovery of free floating petroleum contamination is usually more expensive to accomplish than groundwater cleanup because more equipment is required. Groundwater cleanup usually takes a longer period of time to accomplish than does free floating product cleanup. The same or a similar well used to recover the free floating petroleum can also be used for the cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The contaminated groundwater is pumped from the well into an oil/water separator where the water and dissolved petroleum is separated, water is taken off the bottom, put through an air stripper, and is returned to the ground through an infiltration unit. Respondent has previously found sites eligible for the reimbursement program even though those sites experienced discharges which alone would render a site ineligible for the reimbursement program. The basis for finding these sites eligible was that the ineligible discharges had become indistinguishable from the eligible discharges and were insignificant by comparison. Petitioner has complied with all procedural requirements for seeking eligibility contained in Section 376.3701, Florida Statutes. Respondent has not been denied access to the Gulf Terminal. Respondent has made no determination that there has been gross negligence in the maintenance of the petroleum storage system locate at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not willfully concealed the existence of a serious discharge at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not falsified any inventory records maintained with respect to the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not caused any intentional damage to the Gulf Terminal. The Gulf Terminal is not owned by the federal government. Petitioner's challenge to Respondent's order of ineligibility was filed in a timely manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that Respondent enter a final order which determines that the subject site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the free floating petroleum contamination, but that the subject site is ineligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the sludge contamination and for the cleanup of the groundwater contamination. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE 89-4521 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner in its Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 1-16, 18-25, 27-30, 33, 36-42, 44, 47-50, and 53-54 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 17, 31-32, 46, and 51-52 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being contrary to the findings made and to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 26 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 34 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as not being established by the greater weight of the evidence. The testimony cited by Petitioner in support of these proposed findings do not establish the proposed findings. The proposed findings conflict with the contents of the Report of Ground-Water Quality Assessment accepted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 35 , 43, and 45 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected to the extent the proposed findings conflict with the findings made and the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact contained in Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order and in Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5, 7-19, 23, 25-31, 33-34, 39- 52, 55-68, and 70-72 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6, 20-22, 24, 32, 35-38, and 69 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 53 and 54 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected because the testimony referred to by Respondent in support of the proposed findings relates to amounts discharged following rainfalls, not amounts discharged daily. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-14 of Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gray Early, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert W. Wells, Esquire Ignacio E. Sanchez, Esquire KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN 2400 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, having been issued license number 2330422. Respondent’s license authorizes Respondent to operate a public food service establishment known as Emily’s Restaurant No. 2 at 16 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida (the specified location). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was operating a public food establishment at the specified location (the subject restaurant).2 At all times material hereto, Leonardo Hernandez was an experienced and appropriately trained investigator employed by Petitioner as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. Mr. Hernandez’s job responsibilities included the inspection of public food service establishments for compliance with pertinent rules and statutes. Violations are classified as either critical or non-critical. A critical violation is one that represents an imminent threat to the general public. A non- critical violation is a violation that does not rise to the level of a critical violation. On April 18, 2006, Mr. Hernandez inspected the subject restaurant. Based on that inspection, Mr. Hernandez prepared a report that noted multiple violations of pertinent rules. Prior to leaving the premises on April 18, 2006, Mr. Hernandez discussed his findings with the owner of the restaurant. Mr. Hernandez found that critical and non-critical violations existed and ordered the owner to correct the violations. On May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez conducted a follow-up inspection of the subject restaurant for the purpose of determining whether the violations he had ordered corrected had been corrected. Petitioner proved that the following violations existed at the subject restaurant at the time of the initial inspection on April 18 and at the time of the follow-up inspection on May 22, 2006. PARAGRAPH 1 Section 3-302.11(1)(a) of the Food Code requires that raw meat be stored so that it will not contaminate ready-to-eat food. On both April 18, 2006, and May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez observed that Respondent had stored raw meat above ready-to-eat food in violation of the cited Section of the Food Code. Following the initial inspection, Mr. Hernandez warned Respondent’s owner as to this violation and ordered her to correct the violation. The violation had not been corrected as of the second inspection. This is a critical violation because of the manner in which Respondent stored the raw meat could have resulted in the contamination of the ready-to-eat food. PARAGRAPH 2 Section 5-202.12(A) and (B) of the Food Code requires that a hand-washing sink utilized by employees have hot water of at least 38°C (100°F). On both April 18, 2006, and May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez observed that Respondent had no hot water at the hand-washing sink utilized by Respondent’s employees. Following the initial inspection, Mr. Hernandez warned Respondent’s owner as to this violation and ordered her to correct the violation. The violation had not been corrected as of the second inspection. This is a critical violation because it pertains to basic sanitation. PARAGRAPH 3 Section 11.4.2 of the National Fire Protection Association requires restaurants to keep oven hoods clean so as to prevent the build-up of greasy or oily sludge. On both April 18, 2006, and May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez observed that Respondent had failed to clean the oven hood and that greasy or oily sludge had built-up on the oven hood. Following the initial inspection, Mr. Hernandez warned Respondent’s owner as to this violation and ordered her to correct the violation. The violation had not been corrected as of the second inspection. Mr. Hernandez testified that this was a non-critical violation. PARAGRAPH 4 Section 4-204.112 of the Food Code requires that food storage units have a thermometer to measure ambient temperature and requires that the thermometer be located so that it is easily viewable. On both April 18, 2006, and May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez observed that Respondent did not have a thermometer in a refrigerated food storage unit. Following the initial inspection, Mr. Hernandez warned Respondent’s owner as to this violation and ordered her to correct the violation. The violation had not been corrected as of the second inspection. This is a critical violation because of the possible danger to the public that might result from the storage of food at the wrong temperature. PARAGRAPH 5 Section 4-903.11(b) of the Food Code requires that clean equipment and utensils be stored so that they are either inverted or covered. On both April 18, 2006, and May 22, 2006, Mr. Hernandez observed that Respondent had failed to store glasses, cups, utensils, pots, and pans in compliance with Section 4-903.11(b) of the Food Code. Following the initial inspection, Mr. Hernandez warned Respondent’s owner as to this violation and ordered her to correct the violation. The violation had not been corrected as of the second inspection. This is a critical violation because it pertains to basic sanitation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order that finds that Respondent committed the violations alleged in paragraphs 1 through 5 of the Administrative Complaint and imposes administrative fines against Respondent as follows: $1,000.00 for the paragraph 1 violation; $1000.00 for the paragraph 2 violation; $500.00 for the paragraph 3 violation; $1,000.00 for the paragraph 4 violation; and $500.00 for the paragraph 5 violation. In addition, the final order should require Respondent’s owner to attend, at Respondent’s expense, an educational program sponsored by Petitioner’s Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 8th day of November, 2006.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondents, Enos Kerr and Custom Care Dry Cleaning, Inc., are guilty of the violations alleged in, should take the corrective actions described in, and should pay the penalties assessed in the Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment, DEP OGC File No. 06-2382-37-HW (the NOV).
Findings Of Fact Enos Kerr is the President and manager and an owner of Custom Care Dry Cleaning, Inc., a dry-cleaning business located in Tallahassee, Florida. The Respondents have been in business for approximately twenty-five years. For approximately ten years, Custom Care has used Vista LPA-142 as a dry-cleaning solvent. Custom Care uses a spotting agent known as "Picrin" for removal of difficult stains. Vista LPA-142 is also known as paraffinic, napthenic solvent, and aliphatic solvent. It contains 100 percent paraffinic or napthenic solvent. It looks like water but is a white oily liquid that has the odor of hydrocarbon and is a kind of "mineral spirits." "Picrin" contains more than 98 percent chlorinated hydrocarbon. It is listed at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 372.65 and exceeds the de minimis concentration defined in 40 CFR § 372.38. On August 18, 2006, John Johnson, a DEP Environmental Specialist, inspected the premises of Custom Care. He found two partially full 55-gallon steel drums of Vista LPA-142 outside of secondary containment, which contained a 110-gallon storage tank and Custom Care's Midwest dry-cleaning machine (which has a base tank that stores used Vista LPA-142 which has passed through a Filter King purification system for reuse in the dry-cleaning machine). He testified that, not only did Mr. Kerr tell him the drums were full or partially full, they were heavy enough from being full or partially full that Mr. Johnson could not move them easily. On August 18, 2006, Mr. Johnson also observed, hanging on the outside of the wall of the secondary containment area, above the 55-gallon drums, some of the clear plastic tubing, a pump, and a PVC pipe extending from the end of the tubing, which were used to transfer Vista LPA-142 from the 55-gallon drums into the 110-gallon storage tanks. The floor beneath the transfer equipment and the 55-gallon drums was not sealed or otherwise treated to render it impervious. In another part of the premises on that date, also outside secondary containment, was a Forenta spotting board used for removal of difficult stains from fabric before placement in the dry-cleaning machine. Various chemicals, including a plastic bottle containing "Picrin," were in a box or tray attached to the spotting board. Beneath the spotting board was an open plastic waste basket used to collect and contain spotting agent suctioned from the item of clothing being cleaned and funneled to the basket. The floor under the spotting board was not sealed. Custom Care's Filter King purification system uses cloth filters. Periodically, Custom Care replaces the filters containing lint from the dry-cleaning process. The old filters are allowed to air-dry in the secondary containment area before disposal in the municipal solid waste dumpster outside the premises. At the end of Custom Care's dry-cleaning process, the dry-cleaned clothes are wrung out during a mechanical spinning cycle and then manually transferred while still damp or somewhat wet to a Huebsch dryer, which is outside secondary containment and on a floor that was not sealed on August 18, 2006. Air- drying is the last step in the process. DEP did not have the filters and lint analyzed to prove that they were contaminated with Picrin or any other hazardous substance. Instead, DEP assumed that there was some contamination, however small, and relied on the federal "mixture" rule that even the smallest amount of hazardous waste contamination turns previously unregulated solid waste into regulated hazardous waste. Count I - Secondary Containment Respondents' factual defenses to Count I, for not having the Vista LPA-142 in secondary containment on August 18, 2006, are: (1) secondary containment was not required because Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry-cleaning solvent"; and (2) if secondary containment was required, all of the Vista LPA-142 was in secondary containment because the 55-gallon drums and transfer equipment were empty. In support of their first defense to Count I, Respondents maintain that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous solvent because an analysis of a sample from the base tank that collects used Vista LPA-142 after use and filtration for reuse in the dry- cleaning machine indicates the presence of 0.34 percent water. However, the presence of that small amount of water in the sample did not prove that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous solvent. Custom Care also contends that Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry-cleaning solvent" because Custom Care buys it from Phenix Supply Company, which not only sells product to dry-cleaners but also sells to other businesses for other uses, making Phenix Supply something other than a "wholesale supply facility." This contention is rejected. See Conclusion 33, infra. Also in support of their first defense to Count I, Respondents pointed to information received from the producer of Vista LPA-142 that it was biodegradable to carbon dioxide and water. However, biodegradation would occur only in the presence of water and naturally-occurring microorganisms and aerobic conditions. Such biodegradation does not mean that Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous-based solvent and not a naphthenic, petroleum- based, dry-cleaning solvent. Respondents also believed Vista LPA-142 was not a petroleum-based dry-cleaning solvent because it has a flashpoint above 140 degrees Fahrenheit. But there was no evidence to prove that having a flashpoint above 140 degrees Fahrenheit means that the Vista LPA-142 is an aqueous-based solvent and not a naphthenic, petroleum-based, dry-cleaning solvent. In support of their second defense to Count I, Mr. Kerr denies telling Mr. Johnson the 55-gallon drums were full or partially full and maintains that the presence of a bung wrench on one of the drums was a fail-safe sign that both were empty (and, essentially, proved that Mr. Johnson was lying). Supposedly, according to Respondents, the Vista LPA-142 always is transferred immediately upon delivery from the 55-gallon drums into the 110-gallon tank and, sometimes, also into the base tank, and that the bung wrench is placed on one of the empty drums as a signal to the supplier that the drums are empty and ready to be removed when the supplier returns in two weeks to check on the drums to see if they are empty and ready to be picked up. This explanation is not logical. To the contrary, the use of the bung-wrench signal tends to prove the opposite--i.e., that the drums were not empty. If the Vista LPA-142 always is immediately transferred in its entirety, there would be need for a bung- wrench signal. Indeed, the Vista LPA-142 could be immediately transferred by the supplier (or by the Respondents while the supplier was still on the premises). In addition, Mr. Kerr conceded that there have been many other occasions when the 55- gallon drums were not completely transferred into the 110-gallon storage tank immediately upon delivery. There also have been occasions when three 55-gallon drums have been delivered by the supplier, all of which would not fit into the 110-gallon reserve tank and the base tank. In addition, during an enforcement meeting on September 13, 2006, to discuss a draft Hazardous Waste Inspection Report, while noting other issues with findings in the report, Mr. Kerr did not take issue with findings concerning the 55- gallon drums. Also in support of their second defense to Count I, Respondents maintain that the transfer equipment is emptied of all Vista LPA-142 before it is re-hung on the wall. This can indeed be accomplished by quickly extracting the PVC extension from the drum, reversing its orientation by 180 degrees so that it point toward the ceiling, and continuing to run the pump until the tubing is empty. In any event, while stains on the concrete floor under where the PVC pipe is hung on the wall may be from Vista LPA-142, which would suggest that the procedure is not always followed to perfection, the NOV did not cite Respondents having the transfer equipment outside of secondary containment. Count II - Unsealed Flooring Respondents' factual defense to Count II, for not having the flooring sealed between the secondary containment area where the dry-cleaning machine was and where the Huebsch dryer was, or where the 55-gallon drums were, is that secondary containment was not required because Vista LPA-142 is not a "dry- cleaning solvent." Factually, that defense already has been addressed in Findings 11-14, supra. Count III - Disposal of Solid Waste Respondents' factual defenses to Count III, for unpermitted and unauthorized disposal of solid waste (i.e., the filters and lint) on August 18, 2006, are: (1) that disposal of the filters and lint in the municipal solid waste dumpster is permitted and authorized because they are not hazardous waste; and (2) that, if they were hazardous waste, they were hazardous due to contamination with Picrin, not with tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene or "perc," as alleged in the NOV. In support of their first defense to Count III, Respondents contend that all Picrin used in spot removal would be suctioned out of the item of clothing and collected in the container below the spotting board, or would be evaporated by the steam used in the spot removal process. Indeed, Picrin's boiling point is 165 degrees Fahrenheit, which is lower than the temperature of steam. Respondents contend, as proof of their first defense, that if any trace of Picrin remained on clothing after spot removal, it would be diluted in the Vista LPA-142 used in the dry-cleaning process and then returned to the base tank for reuse after the clothes are wrung out, but that a laboratory analysis of a sample of from the base tank did not indicate the presence of anything but water. However, actually the analysis was only performed to detect the presence of water; the sample was not analyzed for the presence of Picrin, or any of its breakdown products, or anything other than water. There may be traces of Picrin in the contents of the dry-cleaning machine's reservoir. Besides, even if there is no Picrin in the dry-cleaning machine's base tank, that evidence would not preclude the possibility that Picrin is filtered out by the Filter King purification process and is present in the filters and lint. Regardless, while the first defense to Count III was not proven, DEP presented no evidence on the question whether it is likely the filters and lint would be contaminated with Picrin. Rather, DEP's evidence assumed contamination without any further proof. As to Respondents' second defense to Count III, the NOV does in fact reference tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene or "perc." However, it also calls the chemical "Picrin ® which contains 100% Tetrachloroethylene ('Perc')." The confusion arose because, during his inspection, Mr. Johnson obtained from Custom Care's files a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Picrin. When he consulted with the manufacturer, he was told that the MSDS was out-of-date, and the manufacturer provided him with the current MSDS for Picrin. Then, the draft Hazardous Waste Inspection Report discussed during the enforcement meeting on September 13, 2006, referred to "today's Picrin [which] contains 100% Trichloroethylene ('Perc')." Mr. Kerr pointed out that "perc" was tetrachloroethylene, not trichloroethylene. From this, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Byer understood Mr. Kerr to be admitting to the use of "perc," which he was not. In an attempt to correct the report in accordance with Mr. Kerr's comment, DEP modified the report so that the final draft referred to: "today's Picrin [which] contains 100% Tetrachloroethylene ('Perc')." Even if the NOV is not defective in referring to "Perc" instead of clearly stating that Picrin was the alleged hazardous waste involved, DEP failed to prove that Picrin was mixed with the filters and lint. For that reason, DEP did not prove the allegations in Count III. Count IV - Investigative Costs The Department's proof of investigative expenses incurred consisted of the salary compensation paid to its investigators. Mr. Johnson’s salary is $17.53 per hour. He spent approximately 55 hours conducting inspections and investigating this case, which totals $964.15. Mr. Byer’s salary is $22.87 per hour. He spent approximately 96 hours investigating this case, which totals $2,195.52. Corrective Actions Upon re-inspection of the premises on November 8, 2006, Respondents were in compliance with all requirements. Deliveries of Vista LPA-142 were being transferred into the 110-gallon storage tank and base tank by the supplier upon delivery, and Respondents had sealed the flooring appropriately. It is not clear from the evidence what was being done with the filters and lint, but apparently they were being appropriately disposed of as hazardous waste at the time of the follow-up inspection. Other Mitigating Circumstances The evidence reflects a misunderstanding on the part of Respondents that, because Custom Care uses Vista LPA-142 and is considered a "mineral spirits" dry-cleaner, as opposed to a "perc" dry-cleaner that uses "perc" or some other form of chlorinated hydrocarbon that is a hazardous material in its dry- cleaning machine, it is not governed by dry-cleaning statutes and regulations.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated provisions of the Food Code and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all places of public food service and preparation in the state. It is the Division's duty to ensure that all public eating establishments comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Steagles, LLC, operates a food establishment located at 1395 Cypress Avenue, No. C, Melbourne, Florida. For purposes of this Recommended Order, the establishment will be referred to as “Steagles.” On January 30, 2012, at 11:10 a.m., the Division conducted an unannounced health and safety inspection of Steagles. A number of violations, both critical and non- critical, were found. Critical violations are those which are likely to lead to food-borne illnesses; non-critical violations are those which are not as likely to lead to such illnesses. At the conclusion of inspection, the Division notified Respondent that a “callback” inspection would be performed on March 29, 2012, at 8:00 a.m., and that all the violations were to be corrected by that time. On the specified date, but at 1:26 p.m., the callback inspection was conducted at Steagles. The callback inspection resulted in a finding of three critical violations and four non-critical violations which had not been corrected since the initial inspection. The critical violations found during the callback inspection were as follows: 31-09-1 The sink used by employees to wash their hands was blocked by a bucket of towels. 22-81-1 The interior of a microwave was heavily soiled; the interior of a reach-in cooler was heavily soiled; and, there was heavy encrusted material on a can opener. 32-04-1 The restroom doors did not have self-closing devices attached to them, nor did the trash receptacles have lids. The non-critical violations found during the callback inspection included the following: 14-35-1 Cardboard was being used as a shelf liner; a cutting board was badly scored. 15-35-1 A wooden shelf did not have sealant on it. 37-06-1 Walls were heavily soiled with grease. 38-07-1 There were no shields or caps on some of the lighting fixtures. The storage of towels or other items in the sink used for washing hands could lead to cross-contamination which could lead to food-borne illness. The soiled microwave, can opener, and reach-in cooler could lead to bacterial growth and could cause physical contamination of food. The absence of self-closing doors and lids on restroom trash cans could result in the attraction and harborage of insects and rodents. The non-critical violations, though less serious, could result in bacterial growth, the attraction of rodents, or other problems. The conditions found during the inspection were attested to at final hearing by the inspector who made the observations. Respondent did not rebut or disprove any of the alleged violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, imposing a fine in the amount of $1,350.00, to be paid by Respondent, Steagles, LLC, within 30 days of the entry of a Final Order in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michael J. Patrick Steagles, LLC No. 6 1395 Cypress Avenue Melbourne, Florida 32935 William L. Leach, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
