Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Arthur L. Jones, Trustee of the Arthur L. Jones Revocable Trust, also known as Eastlake Woodlands Shopping Center ("Eastlake"). Petitioner is not and never has been responsible for the discharge of pollutants at Eastlake within the meaning of Section 376.302. On November 9, 1993, Petitioner requested a determination of eligibility under the "Good Samaritan" program authorized in Section 376.305(6). Petitioner seeks reimbursement of $644,712 in costs associated with the assessment and remediation of perchloroethylene ("PCE") contamination at Eastlake. From May, 1982, through May, 1986, Eastlake included a dry cleaning establishment among its tenants. The dry cleaning establishment utilized PCE. PCE contamination was discovered in June, 1992, when a Publix Supermarket adjacent to the former dry cleaning business ("Publix") requested an environmental assessment as part of its expansion at Eastlake. The environmental assessment was performed by Chastain-Skillman, Inc. ("Skillman"). Skillman first discovered PCE contamination at the site as a result of tests of groundwater obtained from behind the former dry cleaning establishment. From July, 1992, through August, 1992, Skillman confirmed the PCE contamination through tests of additional groundwater samples from 10 other locations. In October, 1992, Petitioner orally notified Respondent of PCE contamination at the site. The PCE contamination was not reported to Respondent's Emergency Response Coordinator. The PCE contamination was not an emergency. Emergencies typically include incidents such as a petroleum spill related to a vehicular accident, a chemical spill, or a fire related release. The PCE contamination did not constitute an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. It did not constitute a threat to potable water wells at the site. PCE is a solvent commonly used in the dry cleaning business. Release of PCE is a relatively common occurrence in the dry cleaning business. On September 27, 1993, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a consent order with regard to PCE contamination at the site. In relevant part, the consent order requires Petitioner to submit a Contamination Assessment Report and Remedial Action Plan. Petitioner submitted a Contamination Assessment Report in November, 1992. Petitioner did not submit a Remedial Action Plan because Respondent placed a moratorium on enforcement actions undertaken with regard to PCE contamination at dry cleaning establishments. Respondent is in the process of implementing a program for state funded cleanup of contaminated dry cleaning sites throughout the state. Respondent is developing a priority system for cleanup of contaminated dry cleaning sites based upon relative threat to the public health and environment. There are approximately 2,800 contaminated dry cleaning sites around the state that will be affected by Respondent's dry cleaning program. Petitioner is entitled to apply for reimbursement of future costs once Respondent implements its dry cleaning program. Respondent has issued a policy memorandum concerning the review of Good Samaritan applications. Respondent's policy differentiates between petroleum contamination and non-petroleum contamination, such as PCE contaminated sites. Reimbursement of petroleum contamination is funded through the Inland Protection Trust Fund ("IPTF"). Reimbursement of non-petroleum contamination is funded through the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund ("WQATF"). IPTF funds are statutorily limited to reimbursement of costs associated with petroleum contamination. Respondent's policy is to exhaust the enforcement process before WQATF trust funds are utilized for the assessment and remediation of non- petroleum contamination. Respondent's policy requires a Good Samaritan to obtain prior approval from Respondent's Emergency Response Section or On-Scene Coordinator before initiating cleanup of a non-petroleum site such as the PCE contaminated site at Eastlake. The requirement for prior approval is designed to allow Respondent to preserve the amount of personnel, equipment, and resources available for statutorily prescribed priorities, including emergency responses. 2/ The requirement also allows Respondent to determine the endpoint of the emergency phase of a cleanup and the beginning of the remedial phase of the cleanup. The requirement for prior approval may be waived in the event of an imminent hazard. Respondent adequately explicated its non-rule policy for a moratorium on dry cleaning sites and for prior approval of remediation of non-petroleum sites including dry cleaning sites contaminated with PCE. Respondent's explication was adequate even if its policy constitutes an unwritten rule within the meaning of Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes. Petitioner failed to show good cause for waiver of the requirement for prior approval. The PCE contamination at the site was neither an emergency nor an imminent hazard. The public was restricted from the contaminated area by a fence surrounding the site. The public was not exposed to or threatened with contamination by inhalation. No potable water wells are near the site. Therefore, there was no threat of public access to contaminated drinking water. Petitioner did not obtain prior approval for its remediation of the site. Remediation was undertaken to complete the Publix expansion in a timely manner. Petitioner's efforts in assessing and remediating the site have been exemplary. Petitioner has fully cooperated with Respondent in assessing and remediating the site. In July, 1993, Petitioner retained American Compliance Technologies ("ACT") as a consultant to assist Petitioner in the remediation of the contaminated site. ACT prepared a health and safety plan for workers on the site. The plan addressed the risk to workers of exposure to PCE during construction and demolition activities necessary for the Publix expansion. Construction and demolition activities included removal of the concrete slab at the location of the former dry cleaning business. Disturbance of the soils contaminated with PCE created a potential for exposure of workers to PCE. The health and safety plan developed by ACT required workers to wear standard protective gear utilized by the industry. The plan satisfied the requirements of OSHA. ACT did not prepare a risk assessment addressing the potential for exposure of the general public to PCE. Nor did ACT prepare a risk assessment for the potential impact of PCE on groundwater or potable wells. The PCE contamination did not constitute an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The Issue The issue is whether 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 Whether the Petitioner's request for variance should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns an undeveloped parcel of land in Palm Beach, County which is zoned industrial and on which he intends to construct a storage building to house and repair farm equipment. To provide sewage treatment at the site, Petitioner had designed an on site sewage disposal system and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was his variance request. The closest public sewage treatment plant to the property is over five miles from the site, and the closest private treatment is approximately three miles from the subject site. Petitioner has no easement to either site if capacity were available and if he chose to connect. However, the proof did not show capacity at either site. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of farm equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Alternative methods of waste disposal are available which would properly dispose of the waste and, yet, protect the groundwater from contamination by hazardous waste. Such systems include certain aerobic treatment units and package plants. The monetary costs of these systems is greater than the septic tank proposal; however, the proof did not demonstrate that the cost was prohibitive or a hardship. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner, the proof failed to demonstrate lack of reasonable alternatives of waste disposal and the absence of adverse effect of the operation to the groundwater. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions although a survey of the property dated September 3, 1985, indicates that the subject parcel was not platted. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee B. Sayler, Esquire 50 South U.S. Highway One Suite 303 Jupiter, Florida 33477 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Vigna and his corporation, AVA Hazardous Waste Removal and Disposal, Inc., should be disciplined for the improper disposal of hazardous waste.
Findings Of Fact Lyn-Rand, Inc., was a corporation in the metal fabrication and painting business in Dade County, Florida, during April and May of 1989. The industrial processes used by Lyn-Rand required the use of solvents, cutting oils, and other chemicals. Lyn-Rand employed Courtney Warrenfeltz as its quality control director. Mr. Warrenfeltz had met Dr. Anthony Vigna, who held himself out as a transporter of hazardous waste. Dr. Vigna offered to dispose of 55-gallon drums of waste which had accumulated at the Lyn-Rand facility. Dr. Vigna took samples of the waste, offered to use his federal EPA identification number in connection with the disposal, and do all the paper work involved with the disposal. Mr. Warrenfeltz believed, based upon his conversations with Dr. Vigna, that Dr. Vigna was knowledgable about hazardous waste disposal. Mr. Warrenfeltz made arrangements for Dr. Vigna to pick up nine drums of cutting oils and cleaning solvents on Saturday, April 29, 1989. Dr. Vigna was paid $500 per drum. Those drums had been marked with "x's" on the tops and sides. An employee of Lyn- Rand, Carlos Alayon, had been left instructions to expect Dr. Vigna, and had been given a check to give Dr. Vigna when the drums were picked up. While Dr. Vigna was at the Lyn-Rand site to pick the drums up, he asked Alayon for some black paint which Dr. Vigna used to paint over the labels on the drums. Alayon then helped Dr. Vigna load the drums into a rental truck. Dr. Vigna gave Mr. Alayon no paperwork, such as a manifest, receipt, or shipping papers. Mr. Warrenfeltz never received any paperwork from Mr. Alayon or from Dr. Vigna. The drums Dr. Vigna took from Lyn-Rand were discovered later, Saturday, April 29, 1989, at the business premises of Compliance Technology, Inc., a corporation located in Broward County, which is licensed to act as a broker for hazardous waste. Compliance Technology, Inc., does not, however, act as a transporter of hazardous waste. The employee of Compliance Technology who found the drums near the back loading dock, Mike Webb, was concerned, because their labels had been obliterated with black paint and the only marks on the drums were the "x's." The obliteration of the labels was a cause for concern and the bungs appeared to be leaking around the tops of two of the drums. The drums had been abandoned near a storm drain. The drums were not fenced or secured; if someone had driven into them due to their placement on the ground near the loading dock, the drums could have ruptured and the contents flowed into the storm drain and eventually into the Biscayne Aquifer. Mr. Webb notified the founder of Compliance Technology, Dr. Solon Cole, of the discovery of the drums, and the matter was reported on or about May 1, 1989, to the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board and the City of Hollywood Police Department. Compliance Technology moved the drums away from the storm drain, barricaded them, and replaced bungs in two of the drums. On or about May 5, 1989, Dr. Cole notified Jeff Tobergte, of the Department of Environmental Regulation office in West Palm Beach, about the drums. Mr. Tobergte went to Compliance Technology the next day, and photographed the drums and sampled their contents. He found that the drums contained various solvents, including methylene chloride, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene and phenol. The samples had a pH of less than 2 and a flash point of less than 60 degrees centigrade, and therefore were hazardous wastes. Dr. Cole and Mr. Tobergte were able to determine that one of the drums had a label which stated "Spray Iron Phosphatizer and Cleaner" "SC-283" from Novamax Tech in Atlanta, Georgia. After contacting Novamax Tech, Mr. Tobergte learned that SC-283 is an unusual product with only four buyers in Florida, three of them in Dade County, including Lyn-Rand. Mr. Tobergte then drove to all three locations in Dade County which were customers of Novamax Tech, and determined that the most likely source of the drums at Compliance Technology was Lyn-Rand. Mr. Tobergte visited Lyn-Rand on May 8, 1989, and verified that the drums he had photographed were drums which originated at Lyn-Rand. The verification was made by comparing the photographs of the drums left at Compliance Technology with drums at Lyn-Rand which still had labels. Mr. Warrenfeltz recognized the markings on the photos of the drums left at Compliance Technology. The pine needles found on the drums were also significant, since drums were stored in a manner at Lyn-Rand which lead to pine needles falling upon them. Mr. Warrenfeltz told Mr. Tobergte that Lyn-Rand had recently shipped nine drums and recognized the drums from the photographs as those delivered to Dr. Vigna. Lyn-Rand removed the drums from Compliance Technology's property and arranged for their proper disposal. Neither Dr. Anthony Vigna nor AVA Hazardous Waste Removal and Disposal, Inc., has any EPA identification number. After the discovery of the abandoned drums, Mr. Vigna mailed a letter to Compliance Technology on May 10, 1989. The letter was backdated to April 28, 1989, and states in part that it was sent to Dr. Solon Cole, the President of Compliance Technology, "to make you aware of a delivery of nine drums that my driver will be leaving off at your plant." The letter was an after-the-fact attempt by Dr. Vigna to cover himself, which is foiled by the postmark date the letter bears. The content of the letter itself, however, leaves the impression that Dr. Cole and Compliance Technology had no prior awareness of the delivery, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Cole, that he had not agreed to any delivery of hazardous waste by Dr. Vigna, because Compliance Technology is not a hazardous waste storage facility, or a transporter of hazardous waste. It had acted as a broker for entities needing to dispose of hazardous waste. Dr. Vigna had visited Compliance Technology, and should have known that it did not store hazardous waste. This after-the-fact letter is also inadequate to constitute a shipping manifest for the hazardous waste delivered by Dr. Vigna, for there is no designation of the source of the material, or explanation of the contents of the drums. It does not approximate the kinds of documents used by legitimate hazardous waste transporters. Perhaps most significantly, Dr. Vigna and his company never contacted Dr. Cole after the drums were dropped at the Compliance Technology site to make arrangements to pay Compliance Technology for handling the drums, as the letter of May 10, 1989, suggests. Dr. Vigna maintains that his delivery of the drums to Compliance Technology was the result of a misunderstanding he had with Dr. Solon Cole. Dr. Vigna maintained that he and Dr. Cole had discussions concerning possible business ventures and he told Dr. Cole that he would be delivering nine drums of cutting oils and cleaning solvents to Compliance Technology, Inc. This testimony is rejected as much less credible than that of Dr. Cole, and because of the rather significant problems with the letter Dr. Vigna mailed on May 10, 1989, which was designed to cover himself, not to notify Compliance Technology of a delivery before the delivery was to be made. There is some slight corroboration of Dr. Vigna's version of the facts which arises from the decision of Compliance Technology not to press criminal charges against Dr. Vigna. The lawyer for Compliance Technology, Arthur Luongo, wrote to the Assistant State Attorney on June 7, 1989, and said: I have a great concern that Compliance Technology may be liable for a malicious prosecution action should they [the employees of Compliance Technology] testify in a criminal proceeding against Mr. Vigna. I see the case as one of simple civil negligence arising out of an honest, though admittedly stupid, mistake. It is the intention of Compliance Technology to become a public corporation within a year, and being the defendant in such a suit could seriously effect the value of their stock. They do, however, intend to recover civil restitution for their time, efforts and energy in locating Mr. Vigna. At best, this letter demonstrates that Compliance Technology had its own reasons for not wanting to press any criminal proceedings, but does not show that Dr. Vigna's actions were proper. Dr. Vigna's position would have been much more persuasive if the letter sent to Compliance Technology had actually been sent near the time it was dated (April 28), or if he had made contact with Dr. Cole to discuss pricing for what Dr. Vigna contends would have been Compliance Technology's efforts in arranging for final disposal of the Lyn-Rand material. It is strange that Dr. Vigna arrived at a price to charge Lyn-Rand without knowing what his price for disposal would be from Compliance Technology. That cost to Dr. Vigna was not relevant if Dr. Vigna intended merely to dump the material. The Department's characterization of the material as abandoned by Dr. Vigna is sustained by the evidence. Dr. Vigna acted as a transporter of hazardous waste. Because the drums were rusted, two bungs had to be replaced, and were leaking, Dr. Vigna is properly regarded as having caused pollution in transporting and leaving them at Compliance Technology. The Department incurred $2,936.58 as costs and expenses in tracing the pollution back to Dr. Vigna and arranging for its proper disposal.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Vigna and AVA Hazardous Waste Removal and Disposal, Inc., be found guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, that a final order be entered directing them to refrain from the transportation of hazardous waste unless they first notify the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, obtain an EPA identification number, demonstrate their financial security, and comply with all standards and procedures required by rules of the Department and applicable federal regulations; it is also RECOMMENDED that they be required, jointly and severally, to reimburse the Department $2,936.58. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of April 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 1st day of April 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Adopted in Finding 1. Generally adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 1 and 2. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 12. Rejected as redundant of Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 16. The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 10. Rejected, see Finding 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 15. Adopted in Finding 4. Rejected for the reasons stated in Findings 10-15. Rejected, see Finding 11. It is in the nature of a manifest that it needs to be delivered with the material it is designed to accompany. A "manifest" which Dr. Vigna maintained as his own record is no manifest. Rejected because the material was left unsecured near a loading dock. Its location near the storm drain, and the obliteration of the labels lead to the conclusion that the way was it was left did constitute an imminent hazard. Rejected, see Finding 3. Rejected because the leakage from the bungs, while not severe, did present the risk of pollution through contamination of the Biscayne Aquifer if any of the contents of the nine drums had been introduced into the storm drain. Rejected, see Finding 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Agusta P. Posner, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Steven N. Rosenthal, Esquire Suite 1040 City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Carol Browner, 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 The issue for determination is whether Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 is eligible for state- administered cleanup under the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program pursuant to Section 376.3078, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Metropolitan Dade County (Petitioner) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 24, Metropolitan Dade County Code, Petitioner regulates, among other things, the use, storage, and disposal of industrial wastes and hazardous substances in Dade County. Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 (Respondent Industrial) is a Florida corporation and the owner of commercial real property located at 2035-2055 Northwest 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida. At this facility site, Respondent Industrial conducts business as a wholesale supplier of drycleaning supplies. The Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) is an agency of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapters 20, 376, and 403, Florida Statutes, Respondent DEP, among other things, regulates and is charged with the protection of the State's surface waters, groundwater, and other natural resources. On June 29, 1993, Petitioner's Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) issued Respondent Industrial a Notice of Violation and Order of Corrective Action (NOV). The NOV provided that evidence of "industrial waste discharges to the ground and groundwater" and that samples collected from Respondent Industrial's monitoring well revealed levels of tetrachloroethylene, also referred to as perchloroethylene (PERC), in violation of Chapter 24, Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Protection Ordinance.2 On or about September 20, 1993, in response to the NOV, Respondent Industrial's environmental consultant, Wingerter Environmental, prepared and submitted to DERM a Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP). On November 30, 1993, the CAP was approved by DERM, and subsequently modified on January 29, 1994. The CAP provided for the installation and sampling of five monitoring wells and four soil borings, and the surveying of relevant groundwater elevations. Analytical results from the soil and groundwater sampling identified elevated levels of PERC. Based on the analytical results, in May 1994, DERM and Respondent's new environmental consultant, AB2MT, discussed the need for expanding contamination assessment activities, including the installation and sampling of additional soil borings, shallow wells and a deep well. AB2MT completed the additional installation and sampling. Analytical results from the expanded assessment identified elevated levels of PERC, vinyl chloride and trichlorethylene. In May 1994, House Bill No. 2817, the Drycleaning Solvent Contamination Cleanup Act (Drycleaning Act), passed the Florida Legislature and was submitted to the Governor for signature. The Drycleaning Act became law, Chapter 94-355, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1994.3 On May 8, 1994, after passage of but prior to the Drycleaning Act becoming law, Respondent DEP announced that it was suspending all enforcement actions against drycleaning and wholesale supply facilities based on the Florida Legislature's passage of the Drycleaning Act. On May 16, 1994, Respondent Industrial's expanded contamination assessment report prepared by AB2MT was verbally approved by DERM. On January 24, 1995, DERM forwarded a Final Notice Prior to Court Action (Final Notice) to Respondent Industrial. The Final Notice stated that Respondent Industrial was not in compliance with the NOV, requested that Respondent Industrial enter into an administrative consent agreement within thirty days, and indicated that the case would be turned over to the County Attorney's Office if the referenced violations were not corrected.4 On August 30, 1995, a guidance document, regarding applications under the Drycleaning Act, was issued by Respondent DEP. The guidance document stated that Respondent DEP would begin accepting applications to the state-administered program created by the Drycleaning Act upon adoption by Respondent DEP of a rule to implement the program. In a meeting on January 25, 1996, DERM informed Respondent Industrial that it had a continuing obligation to cleanup and that it possibly could be found grossly negligent for failing to conduct a cleanup. On March 13, 1996, Respondent DEP adopted the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program Rules (Rules), Chapter 62- 781, Florida Administrative Code. The Rules specified eligibility requirements for applications submitted under the Drycleaning Act. On April 21, 1996, Respondent Industrial made application to Respondent DEP for acceptance into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. On September 16, 1996, Respondent Industrial was accepted by Respondent DEP into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, pursuant to Chapter 62-781, Florida Administrative Code. By Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing served October 4, 1996, Petitioner appealed Respondent DEP's acceptance of Respondent Industrial into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. According to Petitioner, Respondent Industrial's willful failure to assess and remediate contamination at the site of the wholesale supply facility constitutes gross negligence, thereby precluding its eligibility in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order finding Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Dayton Andrews is the President and owner of half of the stock of Marathon Trailerama, Inc. d/b/a Marathon Trailerama, Respondent, located at 1571 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. Mr. Andrews acquired his interest in Marathon Trailerama in 1972, and has maintained the sewage disposal system in place at the time he acquired Respondent. He states that he has received no complaints about the system from the residents of the trailer park, and the two residents who testified stated they had no complaints about the system. Respondent has a 99 year lease for the property on which the trailer park is located, and the term of the lease began in 1962. The property owner, Juanita Matheny, testified that under the terms of the lease she has no responsibility, in her opinion, for the operation or maintenance of a sewage disposal system in the trailer park. Respondent holds trailer park permit number 44-067-85 which was most recently issued by Petitioner on January 1, 1985. This permit authorizes 125 independent trailer spaces, and grants Respondent the authority to operate as long as health laws and rules are observed. The permit is revokable at any time for failure to properly operate the trailer park. The original permit to operate a trailer park where Respondent is now located was issued in 1985 to Seven Mile Bridge Trailer Park and was for 45 trailers. On the application for this original permit, the method of sewage disposal to be used was shown as "cesspools 15 ft. below sea level (vented)." State Board of Health records from 1956 show the sanitarian for the Monroe County Health Department described and complained to the State Board of Health about the method of sewage disposal being used at Seven Mile Bridge Trailer Park, and that in response to said complaint the Chief of the Environmental Sanitation Section of the State Board of Health advised that " . . . we have not been able to locate any reference in our records in regard to the approval by the State Board of Health for a connection of this type . . . It is our opinion that this sewage collection device is undesirable because it permits the possible harborage of vermin and result in the creation of a sanitary nuisance." Despite this expression of concern in 1956, no enforcement action has ever been taken against Respondent, or its predecessor Seven Mile Bridge Trailer Park, prior to this action. In connection with the issuance of an operational permit for Marathon Trailerama in 1971, Petitioner notified the Monroe County Health Department that sewage flows in excess of 1200 gallons per day (more than 5 trailers) are required to be centrally collected for approved disposal, and flows in excess of 2000 gallons per day (more than 13 trailers) require a licensed engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the treatment process and disposal works in compliance with state health rules. The former owner of Marathon Trailerama, B. S. Ford, from whom Mr. Dayton Andrews acquired his interest, was copied on this notice. Currently Respondent has 125 trailer spaces in the park. Many of the trailer owners reside at Marathon Trailerama for only part of the year although there are some permanent residents. Petitioner inspected Marathon Trailerama on May 3 and 7, 1984 and also February 26, 1985. During the course of those inspections, thirty-two cesspools were identified in the trailer park, and the evidence presented supports Petitioner's contention that these cesspools were, and continue to be, in use. A cesspool is basically a hole in the ground into which raw sewage is deposited. The sides of a cesspool are usually porous, and the tidewater and ground water can pass directly into the cesspool and carry raw, untreated sewage away. Based on the evidence presented, the Respondent's cesspools fit this general description. Although there is no evidence of their presence in this case, dangerous diseases can result from the seepage of raw sewage from cesspools since the effluent is not properly treated before discharge. Petitioner did not take any water samples from nearby canals, nor were any tests done on the sewage in the cesspools to determine if diseases were present. Based upon standards for sewage produced per trailer, Petitioner estimates that 200 gallons of raw sewage are produced each day by each trailer, and therefore up to 25,000 gallons of raw sewage per day may be deposited in Respondent's cesspools when all trailer spaces are occupied. However, there is evidence of one septic tank and a community toilet facility in the park which is not on a cesspool, and these factors would reduce the total amount of sewage disposal using cesspools. On July 27, 1984 Petitioner notified Respondent that the operation of cesspools was a violation of the law and had to be corrected within ten days. Respondent regularly pumps out the cesspools and immediately corrects any leaks. However, there is minimal benefit to health from pumping out a cesspool since the raw sewage immediately passes through the porous walls and does not remain in the cesspool for treatment. Unlike a septic tank in which the resulting effluent is treated, and solid materials deposited in the bottom of the tank over a long time can be pumped out, there is an almost immediate discharge of raw sewage from a cesspool. Therefore pumping would have to be almost constant in order to avoid the discharge of raw sewage and, thus, be beneficial. One of Respondent's cesspools is located seven feet from an adjacent canal which is used for boating and fishing. There was evidence of occasional, but not frequent, cesspool failure with resulting spillage of raw sewage on the grounds of the trailer park. Respondent promptly corrected such failures when they occurred. Petitioner's representatives saw German cockroaches and palmetto bugs in the cesspools, and testified that these insects can carry dangerous diseases under these conditions. However, no tests were done to determine if, in fact, disease was present in this case. Residents at Marathon Trailerama have no concerns or complaints about their sewage disposal. There have been no noxious odors in the park and no adverse effects on the health of the residents. The parties have submitted posthearing proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative immaterial, or unnecessary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner issue a Final Order imposing a $1500 fine against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Morton Laitner, Esquire 1350 N.W. 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Alfred K. Frigola Esquire Post Office Box 177 Marathon, Florida 33050 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Huss Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents should have an administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly maintaining a solid waste management facility without a permit and disposing of solid waste in an area subject to periodic or frequent flooding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background DDD is a corporation registered to do business in the State of Florida. Its president and sole director is William H. Stanton, Jr. The corporation is engaged in the business of "mobil recycling activities" (reduction recycling services for customers). Mr. Stanton owns a two-acre tract of property located in Section 26, Township 28S, Range 24B, on the northwest corner of Mustang Road and Longhorn Drive, Lakeland, Florida. The property is zoned for heavy industrial uses and was formerly used in some form of phosphate mining operations. The Department is the agency charged with the duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. Based upon a complaint made by a Polk County Health Department employee, on October 8, 2001, a Department enforcement coordinator, Steven G. Morgan, inspected Mr. Stanton's property and observed that Respondents had filled and compacted an approximate 150 foot by 300 foot area of the site with 3 to 5 feet of "wallboard type material," which consisted of "both ground up and large pieces of wallboard." In the middle of the filled area was an additional pile of the same material around 20 to 25 feet high. Petitioner's Exhibits A, D, and E are photographs which provide an accurate representation of the site on the date of the inspection. Based on a visual inspection, but without having the benefit of his own laboratory analysis,2 Mr. Morgan concluded that the material was a solid waste made up of discarded industrial products. Under Department rules, the deposit of solid waste on such a site requires a waste facility management permit from the Department. A check of Department records indicated that Respondents do not hold a permit to operate a solid waste management facility. (DDD does hold a valid air pollution permit for grinding concrete.) During his inspection, Mr. Morgan also observed that the land adjacent to the filled area was wet, had a lower elevation than the compacted area, and contained small pockets of standing water. This was confirmed by photographs received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits D and E. A DDD employee who was present on the site during the inspection indicated that approximately 900 truck loads of the material had been transported to the site from Plant City after Mr. Stanton had "lost" a lease on the property on which the material had previously been placed. This was confirmed by Mr. Stanton who arrived at the site shortly after the inspection began, and who indicated that he intended to use the compacted wallboard as a sub-base (or foundation) for a wallboard recycling facility. A second site inspection by Mr. Morgan conducted on February 5, 2002, confirmed that the conditions (regarding the piles of fill material but not the standing water) at the site were unchanged from those found on October 8, 2001. On that visit, Mr. Morgan observed the site from his automobile but did not walk the property. Two other site visits were made, one on June 19, 2002, by other Department personnel. Except for a photograph (Petitioner's Exhibit C) dated June 19, 2002, which indicates the piles of material were still intact and had not been removed, the results of those inspections are not of record. Shortly after the initial inspection, the Department's Tampa District Office issued a warning letter to Mr. Stanton describing Mr. Morgan's observations and outlining the potential violations. The letter also invited Mr. Stanton to resolve the matter informally and to present a corrective action plan to mitigate the site. When the matter could not be resolved informally, the Department issued its Notice on October 10, 2002, alleging that Respondents had operated a solid waste facility without a permit and had deposited solid waste in an area prone to flooding. Even though the matter was not informally resolved, Mr. Stanton has cooperated with the Department in good faith throughout the regulatory process. The Material on the Site Invoices received in evidence reflect that the source of the deposited material was James Hardie Building Products in Plant City, Florida, and that the material was described on the invoices as "Dry Waste Material," Wet Waste Material," and "Foreign Material." James Hardie Building Products manufactures HardieBoard, which is a one-half to one-inch thick concrete formulated product used in the construction of homes and other buildings, and HardiePipe, which is used in road and bridge construction, culverts, storm sewers, and concrete pipes. The material being deposited was material used in the manufacture of HardieBoard. Mr. Stanton's long-range plans are to grind up, or recycle, the material (after all necessary permits, if any, are obtained) and then sell it to other persons, including cement manufacturing plants in the area, who will then use it for a variety of purposes, including subbase and base material, cement and concrete re-additive, and cement production. HardieBoard (as well as HardiePipe) is a variable mixture of Portland cement, water, fine silica sand, less than 10 percent cellulose (a non-toxic organic material commonly added to such products as ice cream, shampoo, baby diapers, and rayon clothing), and less than 10 percent of inert materials. The cellulose fibers are added to the concrete to avoid cracking and shrinkage and to reduce the weight of the product. Unlike concrete used for driveways and the like, HardiBoard does not have any large aggregate. Disposal of Solid Waste and Clean Debris Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300(1)(a) prohibits the storing, processing, or disposing of solid waste except at a permitted solid waste management facility. In addition, no solid waste may be stored or disposed of "[i]n an area subject to frequent and periodic flooding unless flood protection measures are in place[,]" or "[i]n any natural or artificial body of water including ground water." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.300(2)(d) and (e). These requirements form the basis for the charges in the Notice. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113) defines solid waste in relevant part as "discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from domestic, industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or governmental operations." Section 403.707(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2003), provides, however, that a permit is not required for "[t]he use of clean debris as fill material in any area." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.220(2)(f). "Clean debris" is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(15) as: any solid waste which is virtually inert, which is not a pollution threat to ground water or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. The term includes brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete including embedded pipe or steel. The term "virtually inert" is not defined by statute or rule. However, the parties agree that in order for a material to be "virtually inert," it must have no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater. In addition, if a deposited material releases contaminants into the groundwater thereby posing a threat to human health, it is considered a "threat to [groundwater]" within the meaning of the rule. The rule also provides that the material must not be a fire hazard. Finally, if a material decomposes over time after being used as fill, and releases contaminants into the groundwater, it is not "likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use." Therefore, if a material has no potential for leaking contaminants into the groundwater, is not a threat to groundwater, is not a fire hazard, and is not likely to decompose over time, it constitutes clean debris and is exempt from the waste management facility permitting requirements. As noted above, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.200(15) identifies four materials that are considered to be clean debris: brick, glass, ceramics, and uncontaminated concrete. If a waste product is classified as uncontaminated concrete, it constitutes clean debris and may be used as fill without a permit from the Department. Further, clean debris may be deposited in an area subject to frequent or periodic flooding so long as flood protection measures are taken, or in a natural or artificial body of water so long as other appropriate permits (such as an Environmental Resource Permit) are obtained. Here, the central issue is whether the material deposited on Mr. Stanton's property is solid waste or clean debris. This issue turns on whether the material is virtually inert, is not a pollution threat to groundwater or surface waters, is not a fire hazard, and is likely to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal or use. Assuming these criteria are satisfied, the material is exempt from Department permitting requirements for solid wastes. On this issue, the Department contends that the material is not virtually inert and is unlikely to retain its physical and chemical structure. Conversely, Respondents assert that the material is clean debris and falls within the category of uncontaminated concrete. Is the Deposited Material Clean Debris? In determining whether a material is virtually inert, or is a pollution threat to ground or surface waters, two extraction procedures have been sanctioned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to assist in the measurement of the amount of contaminants that will leak from a material: the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP). Under both procedures, the material being tested is ground up into small sand-size particles, mixed with an extraction fluid, and tumbled for 18 hours in a rotary agitator while the liquid solution extracts various metals that are found in the solids. The extracted liquid solution is then filtered and analyzed to determine the concentration of metals actually leached from the solids. Under state water drinking standards found in Table 1 of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-550, the maximum contaminant levels for chromium and barium (stated in milligrams per liter (mg/L)) are 0.1 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively. In reaching its conclusion that the fill material is a solid waste, the Department relied principally on certain tests of the material run by various laboratories between 1998 and 2000, which showed that the amount of chromium and barium leaking out of the product exceeded the State drinking water standards. See Petitioner's Exhibits K, L, M, and O. However, in every one of those tests, the laboratories used the TCLP, rather than the SPLC, which produced a worst case scenario. For the reasons stated below, the TCLP is not the appropriate procedure to be used for this purpose. The TCLP is the more aggressive of the two procedures, uses a much harsher solution than the SPLC, and generally leaches higher concentrations of metals. However, its principal purpose is to determine whether a material should be classified as a hazardous waste based on its leaching properties or characteristics. Using it to predict whether a material will leach into ground water is inappropriate because it will "leach things out in the laboratory that will never leach in the field." This is because it does not mimic conditions in the field and is "just not supposed to be used for this purpose." Therefore, TCLP leachate values should not be applied to drinking water standards. Conversely, the SPLC uses a less harsh solution during the preparation process, evaluates the potential for leaching metals into ground and surface waters, and is designed to provide a more realistic assessment of metal mobility under actual field conditions. In other words, the SPLC simulates what would happen if the sample were exposed to groundwater and rain to determine if under those conditions metals might leach into the water system below. Therefore, the SPLC is the more appropriate procedure to use here to determine whether the HardieBoard material will leach certain metals into the groundwater at levels that exceed State drinking water standards. Even various Department guidance documents provide that the SPLC (rather than the TCLP) should be used to determine if a material will leach metals into the ground water. See Respondents' Exhibits M, N, and O. Respondents' witness Foster collected three samples of HardieBoard deposited by Respondents at another site and submitted them to PPB Environmental Laboratories, Inc., in Gainesville, Florida, for a clinical analysis using the SPLC test. Those results, which have been accepted as being reliable,3 indicate that none of the leachate concentrations for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver exceed (or even approach) the drinking water standards. Therefore, the material is virtually inert, and the groundwater quality will not be adversely impacted by use of this material as fill. The parties agree that the material is not a fire hazard. Prior to depositing the material, Mr. Stanton used a commercial waste reduction machine (a Smorcazy Bandit Beast 3680 Horizontal Trough Grinder) to grind or pulverize some of the material into fine particles. As noted earlier, a small amount of cellulose fibers are added to the product during the manufacturing process. The Department contends that after the grinding process occurs, these fibers will separate from the remaining fine particles and dissolve into the ground water. Because of this separation, the Department asserts that the material does not retain its physical or chemical structure after being deposited onto the property. Although cellulose fibers are added to the product during its preparation to strengthen the material (and have been added by cement manufacturers since the 1920s), they are distributed throughout the matrix in the material. This means that the fibers become "part and parcel of the mixture" and will not deteriorate, fall out, or leach out of the material even after routine grinding processes, such as that done by Respondents. As such, the cellulose is not biodegradable, and there is no concern that the cellulose will dissolve into the groundwater. Indeed, HardiePipe, which is used in the construction of culverts, storm sewers, and drainage pipes and has essentially the same constituents as HardieBoard, was approved by the Florida Department of Transportation in 2001 for use on State road and bridge projects. Therefore, it is found that the fill material will retain its physical and chemical structure after being deposited onto the ground. Expert testimony by Dr. McClellan established that the material meets the general definition of concrete, and because it is uncontaminated, it should properly be classified as uncontaminated concrete. As such, the material is clean debris and is not subject to the Department's solid waste management permitting requirements. Finally, the Department points out that the compressive strength (measured in pounds per square inch (PSI)) is much greater for concrete used in driveways than for HardiBoard (2500 PSI versus 20 to 30 PSI), and therefore Hardiboard is not a true concrete product. While the PSI values are indeed substantially different, the load bearing ratio or compressive strength of the material does not determine whether a material falls within the generic category of concrete. Water Issues As noted above, if a material is classified as clean debris, it may be deposited into an area prone to flooding or in a natural or artificial body of water, including groundwater (subject, of course, to other unrelated requirements or safeguards). There is no evidence that the filling occurred in a "natural or artificial water body," or directly into the groundwater. In addition, the evidence demonstrates that in October 2001, the ground next to the filled area had small pockets of standing water measuring no more than a few inches deep. However, when the inspection was made, and the photographs taken, Polk County was experiencing rather heavy rainfall, presumably due to the El Nino phenomenon. Whether these conditions (pockets of standing water) exist on the property only during the rainy season is not of record. Further, prior to the filling, Mr. Stanton contacted both the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the United States Geodetic Survey and he asserted, without contradiction, that neither agency indicated that his property was prone to flooding. In any event, even assuming that the area is subject to "frequent and periodic flooding," the permit requirements or other necessary safeguards, if any, associated with filling clean debris in such an area are not the subject of this proceeding. Investigative Costs A Department representative spent 66 hours investigating this matter for the Department. At a then-hourly rate of $18.54, this totals $1,223.64 in investigative costs. The reasonableness of this amount was not disputed by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Kearney is engaged in the development of real property in and around Hillsborough County, Florida, and is located in Tampa, Florida. Corrugated is a Louisiana Corporation which maintains a local headquarters in Tampa, Florida, and is presently seeking a business outlet in Hillsborough County for the assembly and distribution of metal buildings. At all times material hereto, Kearney and Corrugated have been parties to a real estate transaction concerning certain real property located at 1920 U.S. Highway 301 in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. The subject property consists of .82 acres of undeveloped land which is located in an area of rapid commercial and industrial growth. Under the Hillsborough County Zoning Code, the subject property is designated M-1, which authorizes commercial and industrial uses. Corrugated is the purchaser of the subject property, and proposes to establish an assembly and distribution center for pre-painted sheet metal buildings. Corrugated does not propose to engage in any activity which will generate industrial wastewaters of any kind, and in particular, will not generate wastes or wastewaters of a "hazardous" or "toxic" nature. No centralized public wastewater service has been available to this property, and septic tanks with drainfields are utilized by both adjacent properties for their domestic and other wastewater needs. Kearney and Corrugated have determined that the property in question is suitable for the intended uses in all other respects, including water, electricity, and transportation. In September, 1988, Kearney and corrugated sought approval from Respondent of a permit to install an onsite sewage disposal system (septic tank and drainfield) for the sole purpcse of providing toilet services to employees of the company. The site plan and preliminary construction drawings for the on- site system were reviewed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to determine whether the project posed unusual wastewater problems or relied upon inadequately designed facilities. The DER had no objection to the installation of the septic tank and drainfield to serve the proposed system because of the non-hazardous character of the business, and the absence of floor drains in the proposed work areas. The Hillsborough County Health Department, however, gave immediate verbal denial of a septic tank permit based solely upon the industrial zoning of the property, and set forth its denial, in writing, on October 14, 1988. Following the County Health Departnent's denial, Kearney and Corrugated, based upon consultation with Respondent's officials in Tallahassee, assembled additional information to provide further assurance that the site would not generate industrial or hazardous wastes which could be disposed of via the septic tank. They provided detailed descriptions of each process to be performed by Corrugated, in substantiation of its claim that no wastewaters would be generated at the site. They also obtained the agreement of the Hillsborough County Building Department to subject any future building permit applications at the site to particular wastewater scrutiny, in addition to formal deed restrictions which they proposed for the subject property. Notwithstanding these additional representations, the Environmental Health Director of the Hillsborough County Health Department continued to reject the application on the sole ground that the property was zoned for industrial uses. On October 14, 1988, Petitioners submitted an application for a variance to the Hillsborough County Health Department and the Respondent, accompanied by supporting material setting forth the regulatory history referred to above, as well as the written representations and assurances, including proposed deed restrictions, which they had previously tendered to the County Environmental Health Director. They appeared before the Variance Advisory Review Board on November 3, 1988, to substantiate the specific measures which they proposed in order to ensure that no toxic or hazardous substances would be introduced into the septic tank system. These proposals were received by the Advisory Board without objection, and members observed that Petitioners had done everything they could do to provide the comfort margin which the agency sought. However, denial of the variance was recommended based upon the failure of Hi1sborough County to adopt a local ordinance providing for future inspections or controls by local officials to prevent future toxic or hazardous wastes from being disposed into the on- site sewage disposal system. Without such a local ordinance, the Advisory Board members expressed the view that it did not matter what the applicant presented to the Board. On December 2, 1988, the Respondent formally informed the Petitioners, in writing, that their application for a variance had been disapproved. This denial had the effect of formally denying Petitioners' permit application. Thereupon, Petitioners timely sought review of this decision by filing a petition for formal administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent issue a permit for an onsite sewage disposal system to the Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Bayport Plaza - Suite 460 6200 Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607 Raymond Deckert, Esguire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 W. Buffalo 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Beker Phosphate Corporation should be granted a hermit to construct an industrial waste water facility pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes. By application, dated April 8, 1975, Beker Phosphate Corporation (hereinafter Beker) , sought a permit to construct an industrial waste water facility in Manatee County, Florida, from the Department of Pollution Control (now and hereinafter DER) . The application was received on April 11 and, after advising Beker that the application was incomplete a meeting was held on May 9th between DER and Beker representatives with the result that Beker filed a new application dated June 11, that was received by the DER in July. Further meetings were held in the fall of 1975 and additional in formation was received as to the application. On December 16, 1975, DER secretary. Jay W. Landers, Jr., issued a Notice Of Intent To Grant A Permit With Conditions. The conditions were unspecified in the letter of intent (Exhibit 1.) Subsequently, on December 23 and December 24, 1975, Sarasota County (hereinafter Sarasota) and the Town of Longboat Key (hereinafter Longboat Key), respectively, filed petitions with the DER alleging that their substantial interests would be adversely affected by approval of the permit application and setting forth in their petitions certain disputed questions of fact for determination. After a prehearing conference, Amended Petitions were filed by those parties to clarify and expand on such questions of fact and to resolve procedural matters. Additionally, during this period, George Browning, III, of Sarasota, Florida was granted status as an intervenor.
Findings Of Fact Beker proposes to construct a phosphate rock mine and beneficiation plant on a tract of approximately 11,000 acres in a predominately agricultural and ranching area of Manatee County about 10 miles from Myakka City, Florida. The mining will be performed by two dredges. One will mine overburden and return it to the mined-out area and the other will mine phosphate rock matrix which will be pumped to the beneficiation plant. The plant will consist essentially of two circuits. The first is a washer where the matrix pumped from the dredging operation is partially cleaned of clay and fine sand, and the coarser phosphate particles "pebbles" are separated as a product. The "fines" from the washing operation consist of small phosphate rock particles, sand, and clay. This mixture will be treated in the second section of the plant by "flotation" methods to recover the small phosphate rock particles as a product. During initial operation, the sand and clay will be stored in a temporary waste material storage area, but as the mining proceeds and the dredge pits open up, the sand and clay material will be pumped back to the dredge pits so that sand, and overburden will be mixed and redeposited to reclaim the land. Approximately 8 million gallons of fresh water per day will be drawn from the Floridian aquifer to be used in the flotation circuits. From the plant the water flows in two types of streams--one containing sand suspended in water and one containing clay suspended in water. Both streams flow into a settling pond surrounded by an earthen dam where sand and clay solids settle to the bottom. The clarified water is then decanted through six spillway structures into a hydraulic recirculation ditch outside the dam and flows back to the plant for re-use. The ponds and canals that make up the hydraulic circuit are planned to have sufficient capacity to contain rainwater falling on the site and pond system during the wet season when there are heavy rainfalls (approximately from May to September). Excess water will be decanted from the hydraulic recirculation ditch through a structure into a pipe and then discharged into Wingate Creek. The settling pond will occupy approximately 225 acres and its capacity will be about 8,458 acre- feet. The pond itself can be used to act as a reservoir and water can be built up in the pond during periods of high rainfall. It will not be necessary to release the water at any particular time. It can be released at will when the effluent contains a minimum of pollutant materials (Exhibit 1). Matrix is an unconsolidated mixture of phosphate pebbles and boulders of partly phosphatized limestone, quartz and clay. The washing operation removes unwanted oversized material and fine clays. The purpose of the flotation plant is to recover fine phosphate rock that might otherwise be lost. In the flotation process, flotation reagents, including sulfuric acid, number 2 fuel oil, tall oil, sodium hydroxide, and amines are used for treatment. The wastes are then moved to the settling pond where over a period of time the "slimes", (sands and clays) will settle to the bottom forming an impervious layer which will seal the pond. The settling process removes more than 90 percent of the contaminants from the influent. The coarser clay particles settle first and many of the fine particles settle in a process called "flocculation" by which electrical forces bring the particles together. However, some of the particles will not flocculate and remain suspended in the water. These extremely small particles constitute the total suspended solids that remain in the effluent when it is discharged from the settling area. They probably will not settle out entirely during their course from Wingate Creek into the Myaaka River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. However, even if it were assumed that such materials would settle somewhere between the point of discharge and Charlotte Harbor, over the entire 20 year proposed life of the mine they would form a deposit much less than 1/10th of an inch. Although it is technically possible to treat water to the degree that it would result in distilled water, realistic concepts of treatment establish that an additional settling or "polishing" pond for the proposed facility might not improve the quality of the wastewater finally discharged in state waters to any appreciable degree. Alternative proposals for the reduction of pollutants by additional processing, such as the intentional growth of water hyacinths in settling areas or use of chemical coagulants would result in creating other waste materials and thus be counterproductive (Testimony of Bromwell; Exhibit 1). The applicant's discharge of wastewater to Wingate Creek will average approximately 3.19 million gallons per day. However, since discharge will be effected primarily during periods of excessive rainfall, actual discharges can reach a maximum of about ten million gallons per day during this period. The effluent contained in such discharge will meet the test of at least 90 percent removal of organic and inorganic wastes specified by Rule 17-3.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, when measured by the influent into the settling pond and the effluent leaving that area. This treatment, however, will not produce an effluent equivalent to that produced by the "highest quality municipal waste treatment." The highest degree of treatment that has been reached by municipalities is "advanced waste treatment" as defined in Rule 17-3.04(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The water quality characteristics of the effluent will meet the standards of Rule 17-3.05 as to concentrations of those pollutants reasonably anticipated to be fond in the wastewater based on samples taken where the waters are discharged into Wingate Creek (Testimony of Gilgallon, Davis, Edwards, Heinzman, Bromwell, Bartow, Wellford, Exhibit 1). In preparing the application, no consideration was given to the need of meeting treatment standards for highest quality municipal waste treatment or advanced waste treatment. Neither did the recommending official of the DER, Mr. Edwards, then Regional Administrator for the Southwest Region, consider this standard because he had been advised by the DER legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) did not apply to Wingate Creek since it was not a tributary to one of the bodies of water listed in subparagraph (c) of the rule 17-3.04(2). This determination was based upon Resolution No. 74-83, September 17, 1974, of the Florida Pollution Control Board that was issued after legal challenges had been made to an interpretation by the Department of Pollution Control legal staff that Rule 17-3.04(2) required advanced wastewater treatment for industrial waste discharges. The Board, in its resolution, determined that since evidence had not been taken concerning treatment standards for industrial waste discharges at the time of adoption of the effluent standards for sanitary waste contained in Rule 17-3.04(2), the advanced wastewater treatment standards in the aforesaid rule would not be enforced against industrial dischargers pending full hearings on a new Rule to clearly express the Board's intent in this regard (Testimony of Gilgallon, Edwards; Exhibit 1). Special conditions that the Southwest Region, Department of Environmental Regulation, recommends should be attached to any issuance of a construction permit, other than standard conditions and those relating to other types of permits, are as follow: Approval by DER prior to the construction of any above grade phosphatic clay storage facility other than the initial settling pond. Removal efficiencies for oil and grease shall be a minimum of 90 percent and shall not exceed 14 milligrams per liter measured in the discharge effluent. Discharge effluent to Wingate Creek shall meet the water quality standards of Chapter 17-3.05(2) at the point of discharge prior to mixing with the receiving stream. Further treatment of the discharge will be required in the event compliance with proviso (c) above cannot be achieved or significant degradation of the receiving stream occurs as determined by the DER. In addition to required routine monitoring, a detailed analysis of the untreated and treated wastewater to be conducted once on representative samples during (1) month of July and (2) month of February. Such analyses shall, as a minimum, include all the parameters listed in 17-3:05(2). Applicants shall conduct an investigation into total retention possibilities of the effluent including, but not limited to, the following areas: recharge wells retention and storage of excess water during the "wet" season with subsequent reuse during the "dry" season for process and/or irrigation purposes. A report of these investigations shall be submitted prior to submission of operation permit application The location of monitoring wells shall be down gradient from the settling pond. Detailed proposal, subject to the DER approval, regarding exact location and number of wells to adequately ascertain the impact of seepage to be submitted no later than 90 days prior to commencement of operation. Bond to be posted for damages that may result from a clay settling area dam failure. Oral and written communications from the public were received at the hearing and included the following: Announcement by the County Attorney, Manatee County, that the county did not plan to appeal the DER Notice of Intent to Grant the permit (Statement of E.N. Fay, Jr.). The Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Natural Resources, fears that the construction of the phosphate mine up-stream from the Myaaka diver State Park poses a serious potential threat to its aquatic habitat due to the possibility of a dam failure. It also fears that pollutants from the project will tend to settle as the river waters flow through the two lakes in the park. It therefore, opposes the construction until assurance can be given that proper safeguards have been taken to prevent such problems (Testimony of Alverez). The Longboat Key Garden Club believes that the project would involve too much water consumption and also that phosphate mining should be halted until further government studies are made to assure that the safety and health of the populace and the environment will not be endangered through polluted runoff and phosphate spills (Testimony of Monroe). The Save Our Bays Association in Manatee County has collected petitions from citizens in Manatee County requesting a referendum on a ballot this November for or against phosphate mining. The Association believes that such a vote should be taken before final decision is made on the subject. Its spokesman fears that if the quality and quantity of the drinking water is disrupted, it will interfere with continued tourist trade (Testimony of Howard Greer). The Palma Sola Parks Association opposes the Beker Application until there is greater assurance of environmentally safe mining (Testimony of Blankenship) A former physical and health education director is concerned about the fact that there has not been sufficient data collected on the effect of radioactive materials in runoff and waste. She believes there should be more research in these areas and asked that the public be protected from such hazards (Testimony of Mary Kay Greer). The Manasota-88 project for environmental qualities of 1968 and 1988 believes that issuance of the permit should be withheld until health implications can be determined concerning potential hazards to the Myakka and Manatee Rivers' watersheds (Exhibit 7). A former member of the Manatee County Planning Commission that approved the Beker application prior to action by the County Commission of Manatee County is in favor of the proposed project because Beker's plan to impound water will augment the water facilities of the county (Testimony of Reasoner). The City of Bradenton believes that since it is being required to meet advanced water treatment standards of discharge for sanitary sewage, Beker Phosphate Corporation should be required to meet similar standards (Testimony of Mayor A.K. Leach). A member of the Myakka City Civic Association who is an adjacent land owner to Beker Phosphate Corporation feels that the project is necessary in order to produce jobs for individuals in that area of the county (Testimony of Mizell). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned that proposed construction of two dams by the applicant will destroy approximately (4) acres of mangrove areas, three acres of pasture land and about 185 acres of bottom land or hardwood habitat. It recommends an alternative method of backup levies constructed around the primary settling bases on the applicant's land to contain any spills and prevent destruction of the streams and associated wetlands (Testimony of Johnston) The Conservation Council of Manatee County believes that Beker's unique mining and reclamation plan will help the farming industry and also create necessary water reserviors and recreation areas, and therefore endorses its proposal to mine in Manatee County (Testimony of Kent, Exhibit 14). Petitions were submitted at the hearing from approximately 3,000 individuals living in Manatee and Sarasota Counties opposing the issuance of the permit because they believe that phosphate mining is dangerous to the quality and supply of the water and endangers the health of the people (Composite Exhibit 9, Testimony of Humphrey).
The Issue The issue is whether respondents should have a civil penalty imposed against them for failing to repair allegedly faulty on-site sewage disposal units.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondents, Carl L. and Deborah J. Forrester, have resided on Lem Turner Road in Callahan, Nassau County, Florida, since December 1988. Their home is serviced by two underground sewage disposal systems, both located in the back yard and installed prior to 1983. In the fall of 1991, Betty Bailey and her now deceased husband began construction of a new home on the lot adjacent to the Forresters. The home was completed in early 1992. As a result of a complaint filed by Bailey with the Nassau County Public Health Unit, which is an arm of respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), respondents were required to obtain a construction permit to repair their sewage disposal systems. Because HRS concluded that respondents did not repair their systems as required by the permit, it contends they should be assessed a civil penalty until the violations are corrected, but that such fine not exceed $1500. This preliminary decision is embodied in an administrative complaint issued against respondents in early 1993. The street on which respondents live, Lem Turner Road, runs in a north- south direction. Beginning at the northern end of the block and going south are the Lindemann, Forrester, Bailey, and Campbell home sites, respectively. The natural slope of the land runs north to south so that water runs from the Lindemann property, which is the high point on the block, south over the Forrester property, then over the Bailey property, and finally through the Campbell property and into a small pond on an adjacent lot. Directly behind the Forrester lot is a home owned by Susan Lewis and her husband while Ronald K. Earl's home is located on a 3-acre home site directly behind Bailey's lot. There is also a sod farm which lies to the south and east of the block and, at its closest point, is no more than seventeen hundred feet from the Earl property. Since there is no central wastewater treatment plant, each of the homes in this area must use an individual sewage disposal unit (septic tank and drainfield). It is noted that because of the low elevation in the area, and the seasonal high water table elevation, at least 95 percent of all new systems currently installed in Callahan must use a septic tank with a mound-type of drainfield. When the Baileys were constructing their home, Betty Bailey noticed that the elevation of her property was lower than the Forresters' lot, and the area in the back yard immediately adjacent to the Forresters' property line was always "wet" and "mushy". Indeed, it was so wet that on occasion construction trucks would get stuck. She also observed water bubbling up out of the Forresters' yard adjacent to her property line. In an effort to eliminate the wet area, Bailey added a considerable amount of fill dirt to her lot and sodded the area. She recalls adding some twenty loads or so while Carl Forrester says it was much more than that. In any event, the elevation on her lot increased to a height slightly greater than that of the Forrester lot, and this changed the natural flow of stormwater runoff from over her lot to a ditch which straddles her property line. Even so, she says the fill and sod did not correct the wet condition near the property line and it still remained wet as of the date of hearing. After moving into her home in February 1992, Bailey began noticing a sewage odor emanating from the soggy area of ground running from her back yard to the Forresters' back yard. The odor, which was worst in the evening and when it rained, was so bad that it prevented her from using her screened back porch and swimming pool in the evening or entertaining friends outside. The condition still existed as of the date of hearing. Bailey spoke to Carl Forrester about the odor and mushy ground on several occasions. Once he told her there was an underground spring causing the wet ground and suggested she install a french drain system to convey stormwater runoff from her back yard. He also suggested the odor was caused by the nearby sod farm which used manure to fertilize the sod. Bailey contacted the Nassau County Public Health Unit on March 2, 1992, and requested that it check out the source of the problem. Shortly thereafter, Stanley Stoudenmire, a Nassau County environmental health care specialist, inspected the area where respondents' property abuts the Bailey property and observed "mushy" ground, standing water, flies, and bright green algae growth. He also smelled hydrogen sulfide, which is indicative of a failing drainfield, and observed water coming out of the ground. Without the need to take water samples, Stoudenmire identified the pooling liquid as effluent flowing from respondents' drainfields. All of these conditions were indicative of a failed sewage system and constituted a sanitary nuisance. It is noted that an improperly operating system is a threat to human life and safety since it can cause a number of diseases. After advising Carl Forrester that there was a problem with his drainfield, Stoudenmire was told by Forrester that his systems had been checked out by two septic tank firms and nothing was wrong. Nonetheless, Stoudenmire advised Forrester to repair the systems. Stoudenmire continued to monitor the situation and even ran a red dye test on one visit. This produced no evidence of a faulty system, but the test is not a conclusive indicator of a failed system. After Bailey continued to make complaints and further inspections revealed that no repairs had been made, Stoudenmire advised Forrester by letter dated July 9, 1992, that he must obtain a permit to correct the systems. On July 13, 1992, Carl Forrester made application for a permit. The application required him to make a site and soil evaluation and prepare a drawing of the proposed corrections. The next day, Stoudenmire conducted a soil and site evaluation on the Forrester property as an aid to them in determining the type of repairs that they needed and the specifications for the drainfield. According to the soil borings, which were not contradicted, the bottom of the existing drainfields were not separated from the seasonal high water table elevation by at least twelve inches, as required by Rule 10D-6.0571(4), Florida Administrative Code. Further, the area had a clay subsurface, which means that water percolation is not good. On July 16, 1992, respondents made application for a construction permit. The permit contained specifications consistent with Stoudenmire's evaluation and required respondents to disconnect both existing systems and install a mound-type drainfield, like that in Betty Bailey's back yard, so that the required 12-inch separation could be achieved. The permit required the work to be completed within ninety days. On September 15, 1992, Stoudenmire advised respondents by letter that they "had not notified (his) office of any efforts to correct the problem". They were told that unless corrective action was taken within ten days, "legal action would be pursued". On October 26, 1992, a second letter was sent to the Forresters by Stoudenmire advising them that he continued to receive complaints, that the repairs may have been done in "an illegal manner", and that they had "5 days from receipt of this notice to contact (him) for an inspection." In November 1992, Carl Forrester made certain "repairs", but they were not of the type required under the permit. Instead, he installed a french drain system, consisting of a 55-gallon drum, an electric pump and a drain pipe, which simply conveyed stormwater runoff and effluent from his back yard to a percolation system in his front yard. Bailey says that, as a result of these "repairs", she can now smell the sewage odor emanating from the front yard. Forrester also placed lime on the soggy area and sprayed the same area with a chemical. On November 26, 1992, HRS issued another warning letter to the Forresters stating that it was "imperative" that they "cooperate and respond immediately" due to continued complaints by Bailey. Stoudenmire also returned to the site and once again observed insects and "mushy ground", caused by a combination of effluent and stormwater, and could smell a raw sewage odor in an area which straddled the Forrester-Bailey property line. These conditions were the same as those previously observed on prior inspections, were indicative of a failed sewage disposal system, and constituted a sanitary nuisance. There is no evidence that the conditions had been corrected as of the date of hearing. During this same period of time, Susan Lewis, who lives directly behind the Forresters, occasionally smelled a raw sewage odor, especially in the evening, coming from the Forresters' back yard. When she spoke with Carl Forrester about the odor, he told her that he was aware of the problem, had "no doubt" there was sewage "going to" the Bailey property, but denied it was from his systems. However, he also told her he intended to correct the problem. Testimony by two other neighbors established that they do not smell any foul odors coming from the Forrester property but that when climatic conditions are just right, they can smell an odor from the nearby sod farm. However, it is found that the odor smelled by Stoudenmire, Bailey and Lewis comes from the Forresters' faulty drainfields and is different from that occasionally caused by the sod farm. Respondents do not want to incur the cost of disconnecting their two existing systems and installing an unsightly mound system, which would cost almost $3,000.00. In addition, Carl Forrester says that the trucks and equipment used to install a mound system would cause another $2,000.00 in driveway and landscape damage. Because of this, Forrester contends he will sell his home before installing a mound system. Forrester also blamed the newly added fill on Bailey's lot, which disrupted the natural flow of water, for causing the standing water on his property. However, there was no evidence that this condition caused the drainfields to operate in a faulty manner. Forrester also said four septic tank firms found his systems to be in compliance with HRS rules. But this testimony is hearsay in nature and cannot be used to make a finding in his favor. Finally, he blamed part of the odor on a rotting gum tree stump in his back yard which eventually dissipated. However, this contention is not accepted as being credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing a $1,000 civil penalty upon respondents for violating Subsections 386.041(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.0571(4), Florida Administrative Code. Respondents should also be required to correct their failed system by installing a mound- type drainfield within thirty days from date of final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1300 Petitioner: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Covered in preliminary statement. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 9-10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Respondents: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. 6-7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 13-14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John S. Slye, Esquire Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083 J. Gary Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1177 Callahan, FL 32011
