The Issue The issue presented for determination in this proceeding is whether the wasteload allocations set forth in respondent's interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constitute a rule subject to the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: The petitioner, a municipal corporation, applied to the respondent for renewal of its permit to operate a sewage treatment plant. The respondent gave notice of its intent to deny said application on the ground that petitioner had not met the wasteload allocations established for the upper part of the Peace River Basin. A petition for a hearing on this denial was filed by petitioner pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes, 120.57(1), and a hearing was originally scheduled for May 11, 1978. At the commencement of this hearing, it became apparent that petitioner was also alleging that the wasteload allocations set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, constituted a rule within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and therefore must be adopted pursuant to the provisions of said chapter. The respondent not being prepared to meet this allegation and the petitioner not having filed a petition pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.56, the scheduled hearing was continued and petitioner was granted leave to file a petition pursuant to Section 120.56 challenging the validity of the wasteload allocations as an invalid rule. Petitioner properly filed its petition for an administrative determination of the validity of a rule and the two petitions were consolidated for hearing purposes. The "rule" being challenged herein contains revised wasteload allocations for four municipalities in Polk and Hardee Counties. These four include Bartow, Ft. Meade, Bowling Green and Wauchula, each of which discharges effluent into the Upper Peace River Basin. As noted above, these allocations are set forth in an interoffice memorandum dated September 8, 1977, and were not adopted pursuant to the rulemaking provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Wasteload allocations are derived from mathematical calculations fed into a scientific model. They are based upon information pertaining to the treatment plant, the type of effluent, the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the receiving waters and the number and nature of other discharges to the receiving waters. In developing said allocations, the respondent relies upon information received from the applicant, as well as existing water quality data from the Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological data, local programs and university studies. The purpose of developing wasteload allocations is to determine the chemical effect of the discharge upon the receiving body of water and to determine whether a certain volume of effluent treated to a specified degree will depress water quality below the standard established for a particular class of water. Wasteload allocations are calculated by the respondent for each individual discharger to determine whether a reduction in water quality will occur. When an application for a discharge permit is made to respondent, allocations for several dischargers in close proximity affecting the same portion of a body of water may be calculated at the same time, as was done in the September 8th memorandum. However, the other individual allocations become effective and applicable only when those dischargers seek a permit from the respondent. At that time, the allocation is revisited and recalculated based upon the most recent, available information and data. The wasteload allocations have applicability only when a facility seeks a permit to discharge effluents into surfaced waters. In the State of Florida, there are approximately 1,300 domestic and municipal sewage treatment plants and 230 industrial dischargers. A uniform wasteload allocation for 1,530 dischargers would be impossible and meaningless because each has its own unique characteristics based upon the type and method of discharge and the nature of the receiving body of water. Accordingly, the wasteload allocations are established by respondent on a case by case basis in the permitting process. Approximately 1.6 million dollars in capital expenditures will be necessitated in order for petitioner to comply with the wasteload allocations established by the respondent. There would also be increases in operating and management costs for new capital improvements. Alternative methods of sewage treatment may be undertaken by the petitioner.
The Issue The issues for determination in this matter are: (1) whether Petitioner, MW Horticulture Recycling Facility, Inc. (MW), is entitled to renewal of its Yard Trash Transfer Station or Solid Waste Organics Recycling Facility registration; (2) whether Petitioner MW is an irresponsible applicant; and (3) whether Petitioner MW Horticulture Recycling of North Fort Myers, Inc. (MW-NFM), is entitled to renewal of its Yard Trash Transfer Station or Solid Waste Organics Recycling Facility registration.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties and the Registration Denials Petitioner MW is a Florida corporation that operates an SOPF located at 6290 Thomas Road, Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The site is commonly referred to as the "South Yard." Petitioner MW-NFM is a Florida corporation that operates an SOPF located at 17560 East Street, North Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The site is commonly referred to as the "North Yard." The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of part IV of chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-701 and 62-709. Pursuant to that authority, the Department determines whether to allow SOPFs to annually register in lieu of obtaining a solid waste management facility permit. On April 25, 2019, Petitioner MW submitted its application for registration renewal for the South Yard. On August 22, 2019, the Department issued a notice of denial. The listed reasons for denial focused on non-compliance with orders for corrective action in a Consent Order (Order) between Petitioner MW and the Department entered on February 22, 2019. The Order was entered to resolve outstanding violations in a Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action and Administrative Penalty Assessment (NOV), issued on November 20, 2018. The notice of denial stated that, as of August 9, 2019, Petitioner MW had not completed the following corrective actions of the Order by the specified timeframes: (a) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall remove all processed or unprocessed material (yard trash) from the Seminole Gulf Railway Right of Way and the swale along Old US 41 and establish a 20 foot wide all-weather access road, around the entire perimeter of the site; (b) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall reduce the height of the piles to a height that the facility’s equipment can reach without driving (mechanically compacting) onto the processed or unprocessed material; and (c) within 90 days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall have all the processed and unprocessed material be no more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. The notice of denial also stated that when Department staff conducted compliance visits on April 29, 2019, June 27, 2019, July 7, 2019, and July 18, 2019, the following outstanding violations were documented: (a) unauthorized open burning of yard waste; (b) unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material; (c) an all-weather access road, at least 20 feet wide, around the perimeter of the Facility has not been maintained and yard trash has been stored or deposited within the all-weather access road; and (d) yard trash is being stored more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. On April 25, 2019, Petitioner MW-NFM submitted its application for registration renewal for the North Yard. On August 22, 2019, the Department issued a notice of denial. The notice of denial stated that compliance and site observation visits were conducted on July 9, 2019, July 30, 2019, August 1 and 2, 2019, and the following non-compliance issues were documented: (a) unauthorized open burning; (b) unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material; (c) yard trash received has been stored or disposed of within 50 feet of a body of water; and (d) yard trash received is not being size-reduced or removed, and most of the unprocessed yard trash has been onsite for more than six months. The notice of denial also stated that on March 27, 2018, May 10, 2018, and October 3, 2018, Department staff conducted inspections of the North Yard. A Warning Letter was issued on November 2, 2018. The Warning Letter noted the following violations: (1) unauthorized burning of solid waste; (2) the absence of the required 20-foot-wide all-weather perimeter access road along the southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile; (3) inadequate access for motorized firefighting equipment around the southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile (lake pile); (4) the lake pile not size-reduced or removed within six months; (5) mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material by heavy equipment; and (6) yard trash storage setbacks from wetlands not maintained. Petitioners' SOPFs The North Yard is located in North Fort Myers and is bound by the southbound lanes of Interstate 75 to the east and a lake to the west. The South Yard is slightly larger than the North Yard and abuts Thomas Road to the west and a railroad owned and operated by the Seminole Gulf Railway Company to the east. Petitioners' facilities accept vegetative waste and yard trash (material) from the public in exchange for a disposal fee before processing and size-reducing the material into retail products such as organic compost, topsoil, and mulch. The unprocessed material is staged in various piles generally according to waste type until it can be processed by grinding or screening. As of the date of the final hearing, both the North Yard and the South Yard were completely full of large, tall, and long piles of processed and unprocessed material except for a perimeter roadway around each site and paths that meander between the piles themselves. As the material in the piles decomposes, heat is produced from the respiration and metabolization of organic matter. This heat ignites the dry material and can cause substantial fires. Both the North Yard and South Yard are susceptible to fires caused by spontaneous combustion as a result of their normal operations of collecting and stockpiling organic waste. Fires Although spontaneous combustion is an inherent risk with SOPFs, the evidence at the hearing established that the material at Petitioners' facilities catches fire at an abnormally high rate as a result of poor pile management. Piles need to be turned and wetted to keep down incidents of spontaneous combustion. Monitoring temperatures, rotating the piles, and removing the material at a faster rate would help reduce the incidence of fires. Large piles with no extra land space cannot be managed in a way "to aerate and keep the temperatures at a level where you're not going to have spontaneous combustion." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 32. Fire Marshal Steve Lennon of San Carlos Park Fire and Rescue regarded the South Yard as a fire hazard compared to other similar sites in his district. He testified that the pile heights, widths, and lengths at the South Yard are not in compliance with applicable fire-code size requirements. He also testified that if the pile sizes were in compliance, Petitioner MW would not have to put their motorized firefighting equipment on top of the piles "because [they] would be able to reach it from the ground." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 41. As of the date of the hearing, San Carlos Park Fire and Rescue had responded to 43 active fire calls at the South Yard in the last two years, and three times in 2020 alone. In 2018, the active fire calls at the South Yard were multi-day suppression operations. In 2019, the active fire calls were mostly hotspots and flare-ups. Captain Doug Underwood of the Bayshore Fire Rescue and Protection Service District (Bayshore Fire District) testified that his department had responded to approximately 75 fire calls at the North Yard in the last two years. The most common cause of the fires was spontaneous combustion. The piles were not in compliance from a size standpoint. Captain Underwood testified that the majority of the 75 calls were to the lake pile at the North Yard. See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 59. The lake pile was a temporary site on the southern end of the lake that borders the North Yard, and for most of 2018 and 2019, contained debris from Hurricane Irma.1 The lake pile temporary site was completely cleared by the time of the hearing. Captain Underwood testified that in 2018, he recommended to Petitioners that they engage the services of an expert fire engineer. Petitioners engaged Jeff Collins who met with Captain Underwood on multiple occasions. They discussed how to address fires and hotspots and that the facilities should have a written fire protection safety and mitigation plan. Such a plan was created and Captain Underwood was satisfied with its provisions. Although the lake pile temporary site was completely cleared by the time of the hearing, it was not an entirely voluntary effort on Petitioners' part. Captain Underwood testified that Petitioners' "initial plan of action was to leave it there for . . . eight months or greater, depending on the time frame needed to have the product decompose and cool down to a temperature that they could remove it." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 83. It took Lee County code enforcement efforts "to compel MW to remove this material off-site as quickly as possible." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 82. 1 Throughout this proceeding, the lake pile was referred to by various names in testimony and exhibits, such as, "southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile," "lake yard," "trac[t] D," and "temporary site." As recently as February 12, 2020, a large pile of hardwood, green waste, and compost at the North Yard caught fire as a result of spontaneous combustion. The size of the fire was so large and hot that the Bayshore Fire District could not safely extinguish the fire with water or equipment, and allowed it to free-burn openly for 24 hours in order to reduce some of the fuel. The fire produced smoke that drifted across the travel lanes of Interstate 75. The free-burn allowed the pile to reduce in size "down to the abilities of the district and the equipment on-site." See Tr. Vol. I, pgs. 51-52. Captain Underwood testified that "once we started putting water on it, then the MW crews with their heavy equipment covered the rest of the smoldering areas with dirt." See Tr. Vol. I, pg. 56. Rule Violations By Petitioners' own admission, the facilities have repeatedly violated applicable Department rules throughout the course of their operations over the last two and one-half years. The most pertinent of these violations center around the Department's standards for fire protection and control to deal with accidental burning of solid waste at SOPFs. Renee Kwiat, the Department's expert, testified that the Department cited the South Yard nine times for failing to maintain a 20-foot all-weather access road. The South Yard consistently violated the requirement to maintain processed and unprocessed material within 50 feet of access by motorized firefighting equipment, and the North Yard has violated this requirement twice. The North Yard consistently violated the requirement to size-reduce or remove the lake pile material within six months. Both the North Yard and South Yard were cited multiple times for mechanically compacting processed and unprocessed material. Following a period of noncompliance and nearly 11 months of compliance assistance at the South Yard, Petitioner MW told the Department it would resolve all outstanding violations by July 1, 2018. The July 1, 2018, deadline passed and on October 18, 2018, the Department proposed a consent order to resolve the violations at the South Yard. However, Petitioner MW did not respond. On November 20, 2018, the Department issued the NOV to Petitioner MW regarding the South Yard. The violations included failure to maintain a 20-foot all-weather access road around the perimeter of the site, failure to ensure access by motorized firefighting equipment, mechanical compaction, and the unauthorized open burning of solid waste. On February 22, 2019, the Department executed the Order with Petitioner MW to resolve outstanding violations in the NOV. By signing the Order, Petitioner MW agreed to undertake the listed corrective actions within the stated time frames. Compliance visits to the South Yard on April 29, 2019, June 7, 2019, June 27, 2019, July 18, 2019, and August 22, 2019, documented that many violations outlined above were still present at the site. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established that none of the time periods in the Order were met. The preponderance of the evidence established the violations listed in paragraphs 5 and 6 above. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established that Petitioner MW still had not reduced the height of the piles such that their equipment could reach the tops of the piles without driving (mechanically compacting) onto the processed or unprocessed material. Thus, all the processed and unprocessed material was not more than 50 feet from access by motorized firefighting equipment. At the time of the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence established more incidents of unauthorized open-burning of solid waste; and continuing unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material. The evidence also established that the South Yard does not encroach on Seminole's real property interest. The Department did not issue an NOV for the North Yard. The preponderance of the evidence established that there were repeated rule violations at the North Yard. These violations formed the basis for denying the North Yard's registration as outlined in paragraph 8 above. The Department deferred to Lee County's enforcement action for violations of County rules as resolution of the violations of Department rules. At the time of the final hearing, however, the preponderance of the evidence established more incidents of unauthorized open burning of solid waste, and continuing unauthorized mechanical compaction of processed and unprocessed material at the North Yard. Petitioners' Response and Explanation Approximately two and one-half years before the date of the hearing in this case, Hurricane Irma, a category four hurricane, made landfall in the state of Florida. It was September 10, 2017, and Hurricane Irma significantly impacted the southwest coast of Florida, where Petitioners' facilities are located. Hurricane Irma caused extensive damage, including the destruction of trees, vegetation, and other horticultural waste which required disposal. Massive amounts of such yard waste and horticultural debris were deposited on roadways and streets throughout Lee County, creating a significant issue that needed to be addressed by local governments, and state and federal agencies. Due to the threat posed by Hurricane Irma, the state of Florida declared a state of emergency on September 4, 2017, for every county in Florida. This state of emergency was subsequently extended to approximately March 31, 2019, for certain counties, including Lee County, due to the damage caused by Hurricane Irma. An overwhelming volume of material needed to be processed and disposed of following Hurricane Irma. The Petitioners' facilities were inundated with material brought there by Lee County, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and others. After Hurricane Irma, haulers took considerable time just to get the materials off the streets, and processors like the Petitioners, ran out of space because there was limited space permitted at the time. As a result, these materials stacked up and had to be managed over time at facilities, including Petitioners' facilities. To accommodate the material, Petitioner MW-NFM added the temporary site that was labeled the "lake pile" or "southern unprocessed yard trash debris pile" in Department inspection and compliance reports of the North Yard. In order to address the volume of material on the site after Hurricane Irma, Petitioner MW-NFM requested approval from the Department to move the material off-site to other locations in order to reduce the size of the piles at the North Yard's lake pile. For reasons that remain unclear, such authorization was not obtained, and Petitioner MW-NFM believes that this would have size-reduced the piles and prevented accumulation of material in violation of Department rules. In order to process the North Yard's lake pile and move it off-site more quickly, Petitioner MW-NFM requested permission from Lee County and the Department to grind unprocessed material on site, which would have size-reduced the lake pile and allowed it to be moved off-site more quickly. Because existing zoning did not authorize this grinding, the request was denied in spite of the fact that a state of emergency had been declared which Petitioner MW-NFM believes would have permitted such an activity. This further hampered Petitioner MW-NFM's ability to size-reduce the lake pile leading to more issues with hot spots and fires. Because the material was of such volume, and was decomposing, a major fire erupted in 2018 at the North Yard's lake pile. Petitioners' fire safety engineer, Jeff Collins, wrote reports to address this issue and recommended to the local fire department that the pile be smothered in dirt until the fire was extinguished. The request was denied by the Bayshore Fire District, which instead directed that Petitioners break into the pile in order to extinguish the fire. When Petitioners did so, the piles immediately erupted into flames as predicted by Petitioners' fire safety engineer. Moving the smoldering material to the South Yard also led to fires at the South Yard. In spite of the large volume of material at the North Yard's lake pile, Petitioners made steady progress in size reducing the material and moving it off-site. However, as of the date of the final hearing, both the North Yard and the South Yard were still completely full of large, tall, and long piles of processed and unprocessed material except for a perimeter roadway around each site and paths that meandered between the piles themselves. Mechanical Compaction Each party presented testimony regarding the question of whether Petitioners' facilities violated the prohibition that any processed or unprocessed material shall not be mechanically compacted. The parties disagreed over how the prohibition against mechanical compaction was applied to yard trash transfer facilities. In March of 2018, Petitioners' representative, Denise Houghtaling, wrote an email to the Department requesting clarification of the Department's definition of "mechanical compaction" because it is undefined in the rules. On April 3, 2018, Lauren O' Connor, a government operations consultant for the Department's Division of Solid Waste Management, responded to Petitioners' request. The response stated that the Department interprets "mechanical compaction" as the use of heavy equipment over processed or unprocessed material that increases the density of waste material stored. Mechanical compaction is authorized at permitted disposal sites and waste processing facilities, but is not permissible under a registration for a yard trash transfer facility.2 Mechanical compaction contributes to spontaneous combustion fires, which is the primary reason for its prohibition at yard trash transfer facilities. Petitioners' interpretation of mechanical compaction as running over material in "stages" or "lifts" was not supported by their expert witnesses. Both David Hill and Jeff Collins agreed with the Department's interpretation that operating heavy equipment on piles of material is mechanical compaction. The persuasive and credible evidence established that Petitioners mechanically compact material at their facilities. Mechanical compaction was apparent at both sites by either direct observation of equipment on the piles of material, or by observation of paths worn into the material by regular and repeated trips. Department personnel observed evidence of mechanical compaction on eight separate inspections between December 2017 and January 2019. Additional compaction was observed at the South Yard on June 7, 2019, and in aerial surveillance footage from August 28, 2019, September 5, 2019, January 30, 2020, and February 12, 2020. Petitioners' fire safety engineer, who assisted them at the North Yard lake pile, testified that the fire code required access ramps or pathways for equipment onto the piles in order to suppress or prevent fire. However, Captain Underwood and Fire Marshal Lennon testified they do not and have never required Petitioners to maintain such access ramps or paths on the piles. The fire code provision cited by Petitioners' expert does not apply to their piles. See Tr. Vol. II, pgs. 78-80. In addition, Fire Marshal Lennon testified that placing firefighting equipment on top of piles is not an acceptable and safe way to fight fires at the site by his fire department. 2 Rule 62-701.710 prohibits the operation of a waste processing facility without a permit issued by the Department. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.803(4). Rule 62- 701.320(16)(b) contemplates the availability of equipment for excavating, spreading, compacting, and covering waste at a permitted solid waste disposal facility. Despite receiving clarification from the Department in April of 2018, Petitioners choose to ignore the Department's prohibition against mechanically compacting unprocessed or processed material piles. In addition, the persuasive and credible evidence suggests that Petitioners blanket the piles with dirt to both suppress fires and accommodate the "access roads" or "paths" on the piles.3 Ultimate findings The persuasive and credible evidence established the violations cited in the Department's registration denial for the North Yard. The Department also established by a preponderance of the evidence the alleged subsequent violations through to the time of the final hearing. The persuasive and credible evidence established the violations cited in the Department's registration denial for the South Yard. The Department also established by a preponderance of the evidence the alleged subsequent violations through to the time of the final hearing. The persuasive and credible evidence established that Petitioners did not consistently comply with Department rules over the two and one-half years prior to the final hearing. However, Petitioners established through persuasive and credible evidence that because of the impacts of Hurricane Irma, and the subsequent circumstances, they could not have reasonably prevented the violations. The totality of the evidence does not justify labeling the Petitioners as irresponsible applicants under the relevant statute and Department rule. However, Petitioners did not provide reasonable assurances that they would comply with Department standards for annual registration of yard trash transfer facilities. 3 The evidence suggests that Petitioners may prefer to follow the advice of their hired experts with regard to the practice of mechanical compaction and blanketing the piles with dirt. See, e.g., Petitioners' Ex. 16. However, the evidence suggests that the experts' level of experience is with large commercial composting and recycling facilities that may be regulated by solid waste management facility permits and not simple annual registrations.
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 denying Petitioners' annual registration renewal applications for the North Yard and South Yard. DONE AND ENTERED this this 17th day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Clayton W. Crevasse, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Sarah E. Spector, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 2320 First Street, Suite 1000 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Carson Zimmer, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 49 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent is in violation of various provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated October 30, 1991.
Findings Of Fact BEI's composting facility is a potential source of water and air pollution and to operate the facility, BEI requires a permit issued by DER. The original permit issued to DER for this facility expired on June 1, 1991 and has not been renewed. Although its permit had expired, BEI was allowed to continue to operate while informal proceedings were ongoing between BEI and DER. When these informal proceedings were terminated by DER on May 20, 1992, further operation of this composting facility was in violation of Chapter 403.707(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-709.400(1), Florida Administrative Code. On at least two occasions while this composting facility was in operation, the air around the facility was polluted by foul odors. During the period following the expiration of BEI's license, BEI failed to submit monthly operating reports and did not conduct quarterly samplings and testing of the compost and submit the testing to DER as required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the DER enter a Final Order finding that BEI has violated Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, on each of five counts; and that BEI should immediately cease operation of its solid waste facility, volume reduction plant, until and unless it obtains an appropriate and valid permit from DER and in that regard, BEI shall: Immediately cease acceptance of all materials on the property. In the event that Respondent does not receive a permit from the Department to resume operations at the facility, within 90 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall remove all solid waste from the property to an approved solid waste management facility and provide the Department written documentation of its disposal within 30 days of removal. In the event that Respondent does receive a permit from the Department to resume operation at the facility, Respondent shall remain in strict compliance with all terms and conditions of such permit. Within 30 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall, if it has not already done so, provide the following to the Department: All records of testing and monitoring conducted on the compost material since January 1, 1990, including daily reports on the temperature and moisture content of compost material, and any testing of compost material conducted prior to distribution. All records documenting application rates of stillage, manure, and leachate to the compost withdrows since January 1, 1990. All records, documenting distribution of composted or mulch material, including amount of compost or mulch material delivered, date of delivery, specific destination of compost or mulch, and intended use of compost or mulch material delivered, since January 1, 1990. All records documenting amount of yard trash received at the facility since January 1, 1990. Within 30 days of execution of the Final Order, Respondent shall make payment to the Department for costs and expenses in the amount of $500.00. Payment shall be made by, cashier's check or money order to the "State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation". Payment, specifying Office of General Counsel Case No. 91-2006, shall be sent by certified mail to Administrator, Division of Waste Management, Department of Environmental Regulation, 3804 Coconut Palm Drive, Tampa, Florida 33619. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 16th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Howard C. Batt, Esquire 611 Druid Road East Suite 712 Clearwater, Florida 34616 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ken Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
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 The issue is whether Tir-na-n'og, Inc.'s application for renewal of an operating permit for the operation of a residuals management facility in Okeechobee County, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 2, 2000, Respondent, Tir-na-n’og, Inc. (applicant), through its owner and operator, John G. Abel (Abel), made application with Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), to renew its domestic wastewater facility operating permit FLA016637 for a Residuals Management Facility (RMF). Although the existing permit’s expiration date was November 8, 2000, the application was filed at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the existing permit, and therefore the permit remains effective pending the outcome of this proceeding. Petitioners, Mark Hair (Hair), James and Brenda Burnsed (the Burnseds), and Jerry R. Holland (Holland), who all own property adjacent to or near the applicant's property, have challenged the renewal of the permit on the ground that the applicant is violating various statutes and administrative rules. It is fair to infer that an acrimonious relationship exists between Abel and his neighbors, including Petitioners, who have filed numerous telephonic and written complaints against Abel with the Department over the years. A Department witness asserted, however, that all "public" complaints were "unfounded." The facility is privately owned by Abel and is located on a 247-acre tract of land north of State Road 724 and just west of U.S. Highway 441 near Fort Drum in the northeastern portion of unincorporated Okeechobee County. Besides operating a RMF, Abel also uses the land as pasture to raise 150 head of cattle and award-winning horses, and to grow Callie Grass to make hay. Abel currently operates a 59,000 gallon-per-day lime stabilization facility (the RMF) for sludge, septage, and domestic food service wastes. Treatment of residuals consists of alkaline stabilization for 2.0 hours at a pH of 12 or higher followed by maintenance of a pH of 11.5 or higher for 22 additional hours. Treatment of septage consists of alkaline stabilization for 2.0 hours at a pH of 12 or higher or a pH of 12.5 for a minimum of 30 minutes. The pH is maintained at or above 11 until the septage is land applied, but is less than 12.5 at the time of land application. The RMF is a Type III facility consisting of one 1,250 gallon receiving/screening tank; one 1,250 gallon lime slurry mixing tank; nine 5,000 gallon stabilization tanks; two 6,500 gallon stabilization tanks; two 5,000 gallon emergency storage tanks; two blowers; one lime slurry pump; one irrigation transfer pump; and one tank truck loading pump. Under the proposed permit, flow will be measured in equivalent dry tons/year with a maximum of 242 dry tons/year. All physical components of the facility are in good working condition, are not leaking, and operate as intended. The engineering review concluded that there are no corrective actions required, no outstanding compliance issues, and the facility has no noted problems or deficiencies. The Department’s review concluded that there are no outstanding compliance issues or enforcement actions involving the facility. After treatment, the stabilized residuals are land spread on-site on Abel's property (the ranch) and an adjoining property of unknown size to the southeast known as the Fox property under Department-approved Agricultural Use Plans. Although the Fox property was sold to a third party sometime in 2001, Abel has represented that he has an oral agreement with the new owner to continue to use the land. Any changes in new, modified, or expanded land application sites call for a new or revised Agricultural Use Plan for the site that will be incorporated into the proposed permit as a minor permit revision. Treated, stabilized residuals from other RMF facilities are also land-spread at the site as described in the Agricultural Use Plan and the cumulative loading annual reports submitted to the DEP. Specific Condition II.33 requires the applicant to maintain records of application zones and application rates and to make these records available for inspection. Specific Condition II.34 requires the permittee to submit an annual summary of residuals application activity, including if more than one facility applies residuals to the same application zones. The pending application is for renewal of a permit issued in 1995, prior to the effective date of extensive amendments to Chapter 62-640, Florida Administrative Code, which governs the regulation of domestic wastewater residuals. The proposed permit contains updated reporting requirements and forms more particularly suited to the day-to-day operations of an RMF. Specific Condition I.A.3. of the proposed permit requires that incoming loads to the RMF be reported on Residuals Stabilization Reports or Septage Stabilization Reports and that incoming load manifests be maintained on-site and be readily available for Department inspection. These reports are to be submitted to the Department on a monthly basis as specified in Specific Condition I.A.9. Under the 1995 permit, the applicant is required to submit monthly reports on Discharge Monitoring Report forms (DMRs) to which is attached the DEP Form 62-640.900(3). That form is a Standard Domestic Wastewater Residuals Record Keeping Form and shows incoming load manifests and daily processing reports for the residuals and septage accepted at the RMF for treatment. Specific Condition II.18 of the 1995 permit requires the applicant to maintain records and have them available for inspection. Among other things, the records must include the amount of residuals applied or delivered. The applicant currently maintains these records on-site, and the information is provided to the Department as part of the annual summaries required under Specific Condition II.18. Rule 62-640.700(6)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires that a minimum unsaturated soil depth of 2 feet above the water table level is required at the time the residuals are applied to the soil. The Agricultural Use Plan and the rule require that if the seasonal high ground water level will be within 2 feet of the surface or is undetermined, the permittee shall determine the groundwater level in one or more representative locations in each application zone prior to the application of residuals. When residuals cannot be applied due to the constraints of the rule, they must be stored in holding tanks at the plant. Under the 1995 permit the applicant must record water table levels at the time of application and cannot land- apply the residuals in a particular area if the unsaturated soil depth is less than 2 feet. To ensure compliance with the above rule, the applicant maintains 6 monitoring wells on-site in each application zone and near the RMF in order to check water table levels prior to spreading residuals in those areas. In addition, Abel has agreed to install 2 or more new monitoring wells "under lock and key" to be monitored exclusively by the Department. If the permit is renewed, such an agreement should be incorporated into the conditions. At the present time, the applicant operates on a rotation schedule based on ability to land-apply residuals, grow pasture grass, and allow the livestock to graze in a certain area after residuals have been applied in accordance with the applicable Department rules and the 1995 permit. To avoid runoff or erosion during rain events, which is proscribed by Rule 62-640.700(7), Florida Administrative Code, the land-spread residuals do not sit on top of the soil. Rather, they are disked into the soil after application using a mobile, self-retrieving, high-rate Rainbow irrigation system. The RMF facility uses lime stabilization to treat liquid residuals or septage for the purpose of meeting the pathogen (disease-causing organisms) and vector attraction (attraction of flies) reduction requirements of Rule 62- 640.600, Florida Administrative Code. These reduction requirements are met at the facility to the Class B level for use on restricted public access areas. The ranch is privately owned property and does not have unrestricted public access. Between 1997 and 1999, the Burnseds purchased 210 acres of land located immediately south of, and adjacent to, the ranch and the Fox property. Also to the south of the ranch and immediately adjacent to the west of the Burnsed property are 80 acres of land on which Roto-Rooter once spread residuals. After the Burnseds filed a complaint, Roto-Rooter ceased using the property for that purpose. The Burnseds desire to build a home on their land but are understandably reluctant to do so at this time given the nature of the activities on the ranch. To the north of the ranch is the Boggy Creek Branch and to the south of the Burnsed property is the Fort Drum Creek, both of which flow essentially northeast into the St. Johns River. The applicant's property varies in topography with the high point being in the northwest corner where the RMF is located and the low points being further south and southeast. Surface water generally flows south toward the Burnsed property. There is no ditch or other holding device to prevent runoff from the ranch or Fox property from going directly onto the Burnsed property during rain events. If the permit is renewed, such a device would be appropriate, given the topography of the land. The topographical map for the area shows a 65-foot contour on the ranch sloping down to a 60-foot contour on the Burnsed property to the south and the Fort Drum Creek and sloping down to a 60-foot contour to the north at Boggy Branch Creek. To the northwest of the ranch is a gated retirement community known as Indian Hammocks. Holland is a resident of that community and lives across the street from the ranch. Hair does not live directly adjacent to the ranch, but the trucks which haul residuals to the RMF use the road in front of his house. The Burnseds contend that the permit should not be renewed under the applicable renewal criteria in Rule 62- 620.335, Florida Administrative Code. More specifically, they contend that the applicant has operated the facility in violation of permit conditions and rule-reporting requirements, in violation of the 2-foot rule, and in violation of minimum setback requirements from surface waters. In addition, Holland contends that the site is not suitable for land-application of residuals, which endangers human health and the environment, and that Abel has violated the setback requirement for adjoining properties. Finally, Hair has contended that spillage or leaks from the trucks occur on the road where his children meet their school bus. The Burnseds first contend that the applicant has consistently and systematically underreported the amount of residuals applied and delivered to the property. To this end, they introduced evidence (Exhibit B1) consisting of a compilation and comparison of information gleaned from surveillance videotapes over the period from April 6, 2000, to May 9, 2001, compared with the information reported to the Department by the applicant in its monthly DMR reports. The tapes established that between April and December 2000, at least 285 trucks entered the facility that were not reported on the DMRs. In addition, for the first 5 months of 2001, at least 185 trucks were not reported on the DMRs. When annualized, the latter number is approximately 370 trucks per year. In response to this allegation, Abel pointed out that each year he receives around 280 truckloads of treated residuals under a contract with the Hutchinson Utility Authority (Authority) which are not carried to the RMF but go directly to land application areas. None of these shipments are required to be reported on the DMRs but rather are reported in the summary reports submitted to the Department on an annual basis. This explanation would account for virtually all of the unrecorded shipments in the year 2000, assuming that all of the Authority shipments occurred during the 9- month surveillance period. More than likely, however, these shipments were staggered throughout the year. In any event, there was no evidence (such as summary annual reports for the year 2000, or a copy of the contract with the Authority) to show the dates on which the Authority made deliveries, to demonstrate that the unreported trucks were actually carrying treated residuals, as opposed to untreated residuals, or to show that the claimed number of Authority shipments was accurate. Therefore, it is found that the applicant failed to report on his DMRs around 25 percent of the incoming loads of untreated septage or residuals during the year 2000. Likewise, even after giving credit for the Authority shipments, a significant underreporting would be occurring during the year 2001. These shipments collectively involved several million gallons of septage. Besides the Authority, there are 11 other facilities in the area which "might" transport treated residuals to Abel's property for land application only. There is no evidence of record, however, to show if any trucks hauling treated residuals were received from the other sources, and if so, the number. Moreover, as noted above, the annual summary reports were not made a part of this record so that those figures could be compared to the number of trucks identified in the surveillance tapes. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that the applicant has violated a condition of his 1995 permit, namely, that he failed to accurately report all incoming loads on his monthly DMRs. The Burnseds further contend that the applicant is in violation of the 2-foot rule regarding the unsaturated soil depth, and therefore the property is no longer suitable for land application of residuals. To support this contention, the Burnseds sited 6 monitoring wells around the western and southern perimeters of the ranch and Fox properties and introduced into evidence the results of samplings taken in September 2001. These samplings showed unsaturated soil depths in each well of less than 2 feet, and that 4 of the 6 wells had depths of less than 1 foot. As discussed in findings of fact 14-16, however, the 2-foot rule is required at the time residuals are applied to the soil. Nothing in the permit documents or Department rule requires an unsaturated soil depth at all locations at all times before a site can be used for residuals application. Petitioners Holland and Burnseds further contend that the low areas on the ranch and Fox properties where surface water exists are subject to the minimum setback requirements in the Department’s rules. In general, a 200- foot setback is required in a residuals application zone from surface waters that are classified as waters of the state. Through recent aerial photographs, Petitioners established that standing water is now found in multiple areas of the Abel and Fox properties for much of the year due to an alleviation of drought conditions that previously existed. However, these surface waters are located completely within the Abel and Fox property boundaries and have not been classified as waters of the state by the Department. Therefore, the setback requirement does not apply. The Agricultural Use Plan for the ranch establishes buffer areas where residuals are not applied. The buffer areas include any required setbacks from property boundaries and occupied buildings. While the Department witness was unable to give a precise distance for the required setbacks from property boundaries (except whatever the "rules" called for), it can be inferred that at least some minimal separation is required. As recently as 6 months before the hearing, Holland personally observed a truck spreading residuals no more than 8 feet from the property line. Other testimony supports a finding that spreading of this nature has occurred on other isolated occasions. These acts constitute a violation of the existing permit. Holland also contends that the land application of residuals at the ranch and Fox properties, over time, endangers human health and the environment. In support of this contention, he presented testimony from a physician who resides in Indian Hammocks and opined that the ranch is a public health problem and should be "eradicated" since the residuals contain numerous bacteria and viruses which can be spread to neighboring properties. He had no concrete evidence, however, to show that several illnesses in the general neighborhood were a direct result of the applicant's operation. That is to say, the evidence presented was speculative, and no direct causal connection was established between the illnesses and the existing operation. The Burnseds have further contended that Abel's RMF and land-application sites are a source of objectionable odors, in violation of Rule 62-296.320(2), Florida Administrative Code. That rule prohibits the "discharge of air pollutants which cause or contribute to an objectionable odor." Both Burnseds have smelled such an odor "several times each year" since purchasing their property a few years ago, especially if the winds are coming out of the west. In addition, a worker on their property became ill in July or August 2000 after smelling odors just after sludge was applied by a truck onto the nearby Fox property. The RMF facility is located near the northwest corner of the property away from the Burnsed property that is located to the south. While the Department points out that immediately adjacent to the Burnsed property is the former land-spreading site once used by Roto-Rooter, and that site was more than likely the source of any objectionable odors, Roto Rooter has ceased operations. Even so, given the fact that odors have been detected only "several times" over the past few years by the Burnseds, and appropriate chemicals are being applied in the tanks to control the odor, reasonable assurance has been given that the RMF is not in violation of the odor rule. Petitioner Hair, who lives near the Abel property, introduced photographs into evidence to demonstrate that trucks carrying residuals to the RMF either spilled or leaked materials at the intersection of U.S. Highway 441 and 325th Trail, which is the site of a school bus stop. Because his children must walk through that area to catch the school bus, Hair is concerned that his children may become ill from walking on the contaminated road. While this is a legitimate and valid health concern, and the leakage may constitute a violation of some regulation by the trucking company, it is not a ground to deny the renewal of the permit or a matter within the Department's jurisdiction.
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 denying the application of Tir- na-n'og, Inc. for renewal of its domestic wastewater facility operating permit FLA0166637. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Jonathan Jay Kirschner, Esquire Kirschner & Garland, P.A. 101 North Second Street Fort Pierce, Florida 34960-4403 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mark Hair 885 Northeast 336th Street Okeechobee, Florida 34792-3603 Jerry R. Holland 32801 U.S. Highway 441 North, Lot 101 Okeechobee, Florida 34792-0271 John G. Abel 24 Northeast 325th Trail Okeechobee, Florida 34792-0253
Findings Of Fact On November 29, 1988, Respondent, Trans Pac, Inc., (Trans Pac), a development company, filed its initial application for a construction permit to build a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility in Escambia County, Florida. Trans Pac's stock is owned by James Dahl of Los Angeles, California. Trans Pac's president is Steven Andrews. Steven Andrews is also president of The Andrews Group, d/b/a Chemical Development Company. Chemical Development Company is in the business of developing hazardous waste facilities. Sometime after filing its application, Trans Pac advertised for interested persons to contact it about the possible sale of the facility. At the time of the hearing, Trans Pac had not had any serious offers for the property and had not finally decided whether it will sell the facility. Trans Pac is seriously considering a joint venture arrangement, although no specifics as to such an arrangement have been formalized or finalized. When consideration is given to the unripe nature of this "proposed sale", it cannot be concluded that the above facts constitute competent and reliable evidence which would support the conclusion that Trans Pac had failed to give such reasonable assurances that the facility would be operated in accordance with Florida law. Too much speculation is required before such a conclusion can be reached. However, Trans Pac has stipulated that it will publish a notice of any sale prior to the closing of that sale if that event should occur. The notice would be published in accordance with the provisions and time periods established in Rule 17-103.15, Florida Administrative Code, and should afford an affected person a reasonable time to challenge the sale before the sale closes. Any contract of sale would incorporate the notice requirements and the sale would be made contingent upon compliance with the above conditions. Such a notice would afford any affected person the opportunity to challenge the ability of the transferee to operate the facility. With the above stipulation made a part of any permit, there is no failure by Trans Pac to provide reasonable assurances that the facility will be operated in accordance with Florida law. Escambia County is within the West Florida Planning Region. The West Florida Planning Region consists of Bay County, Escambia County, Holmes County, Okaloosa County, Santa Rosa County, Walton County and Washington County. The proposed site for the facility is just outside the community of Beulah, on County Road 99, northeast of and adjacent to the Perdido Landfill. The site is not within, but adjacent to the area designated by the West Florida Regional Planning Council as an area on which a hazardous waste temporary storage and transfer facility could be located. 2/ The proposed site is approximately one mile away from the Perdido River, an outstanding Florida water. The area is primarily a rural area. When the proposed location of this facility was announced in the local news, the value of property around the proposed site decreased. One person, who was within a few miles of the proposed site, lost the contract of sale on his property and was advised by the purchasers that no reduction in price would renew their interest. Another individual's property in the same area decreased in value by approximately $10,000. Many people in the Beaulah area had their dreams and the quiet enjoyment of their property threatened by the location of this facility. Some cannot afford to sell their property and relocate. At present there is no mechanism by which any of the property owners in proximity to the proposed site can recoup their losses. Some property owners believe that such a mechanism should include the establishment of some type of independent trust fund funded with enough money to cover an estimate of such losses, and an independent review of any disputed claims of loss. However, there is no provision under Florida law to impose a permit condition which establishes a procedure to cover the pecuniary losses of property owners close to the facility. The proposed facility will be a permanent storage and treatment facility and will have a maximum waste storage capacity of 106,000 gallons and a maximum treatment capacity of 2,000 gallons per day for neutralization, 5,000 gallons per day for organic separation, 2,000 gallons per day for ozonation, and 4,000 gallons per day for solidification. Hazardous waste is a solid waste which exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: a) ignitability, b) corrosivity, c) reactivity, d) EP toxicity. Such waste can be further classified as a toxic waste or as an acute hazardous waste. 3/ An acute hazardous waste is a solid waste which has been found to be fatal to humans in low doses or, has been shown in studies to have an oral, inhalation or dermal toxicity to rats or rabbits at a certain level, or has been shown to significantly contribute to an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness. A toxic waste is any waste containing any one of a number of specified constituents. A "characteristic" of hazardous waste is identified and defined only when a solid waste with a certain type of characteristic may: a) cause or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness, or b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed, and the characteristic can be: a) measured by an available standardized test, or b) can be reasonably detected by generators of solid waste through their knowledge of their waste. Put simply, hazardous waste is very dangerous to both humans and the environment and will kill or permanently incapacitate living beings and/or make the environment unlivable. Such waste has the potential to create a hazardous waste desert. A solid waste has the characteristic of ignitability if: a) it is a liquid, other than an aqueous solution containing 24 percent alcohol, which has a flashpoint of 60.C (140.F), b) it is not a liquid and is capable, under standard temperature and pressure, of causing fire through friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous chemical changes and, when ignited burns so vigorously and persistently that it creates a hazard, c) it is an ignitable compressed gas, or d) it is an oxidizer. A solid waste has the characteristic of corrosivity if: a) it is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5 (strong acids or bases), or b) it is a liquid and corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35 millimeters (0.250 inch) per year at a test temperature of 55.C (130.F). A solid waste has the characteristic of reactivity if: a) it is normally unstable and readily undergoes violent change without detonating, b) it reacts violently with water, c) it forms potentially explosive mixtures with water, d) when mixed with water, it generates toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment, e) it is a cyanide or sulfide bearing waste which, when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5, can generate toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment, f) it is capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it is subjected to a strong initiating source or if heated under confinement, g) it is readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition or reaction at standard temperature and pressure, or h) it is a forbidden or Class B explosive as defined in another federal rule. A solid waste has the characteristic of EP toxicity, if, using certain test methods, the extract from a representative sample of the waste contains certain contaminants (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, endrin, lindane, etc.) at a concentration greater than or equal to specified levels for that contaminant. Although the above definitions sound exotic, the wastes which are defined are more often than not the waste generated by routine, normal living. Such waste is the result of almost any type of motor vehicle or machinery maintenance, such as oil and battery changes, metals manufacturing and finishing services, including auto body repair services, transportation services, construction and building repair services, medical and laboratory services, boat building and repair services, dry cleaning, printing of newspapers and 4/ magazines or agriculture, such as gardening. Further, such waste is generated by almost every commercial business category. Almost every person is either directly responsible through use or manufacture, or indirectly responsible through demand for a product or life-style, for the generation of hazardous waste in small quantities. These small individual quantities of hazardous waste add up to a significant portion of all the hazardous waste generated in this state and a significant portion of this waste is not disposed of properly. Improper disposal includes sending the waste to a local landfill or pouring such waste down the drain. Trans Pac's proposed facility will not be permitted for radioactive waste. The types of waste which will be treated and/or stored at the proposed facility are: Singularly or in any combination: D002 Waste --- A solid waste that exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity, but is not listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261. D003 Waste --- A solid waste that exhibits the characteristic of reactivity, but is not listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261. D004 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant arsenic D005 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant barium D006 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant cadmium D007 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant chromium D008 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant lead D010 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant mercury D011 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant silver Singularly or in any combination: F001 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent halogenated solvents used in degreasing: tetrachloroethylene trichloroethylene, 1,1, 1-trichloroethane, methylene chloride, carbon tetrachloride, and chlorinated fluorocarbons, all spent solvent mixtures/blends used in degreasing containing, before use, 10 percent or more of one or more of the above halogenated solvents or those listed in F002, F004, or F005; still bottoms from the recovery of these solvents and mixtures F002 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent halogenated solvents: tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1- trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1, 1, 2-trichlor-1, 2, 2-trifluoroethane, ortho-dichlorobenzene trichlorofluoromethane, 1, 1, 2 - trichloroethane, spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of one of the solvents listed in F001, F004, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F003 Waste --- IGNITABLE -- Spent non-halogenated solvents: xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, methanol, all spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, one or more of the above non-halogenated solvents and a total of 10 percent or more of the solvents listed in F001, F002, F004, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F004 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent non-halogenated solvents: creosols and cresylic acid, nitrobenzene, spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of the above non-halogenated solvents or the solvents listed in F001, F002, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F005 Waste --- IGNITABLE, TOXIC -- Spent non- halogenated solvents: toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, 2- nitropropane, spent solvent Mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of the above non-halogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F001, F002, F004; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F006 Waste ---TOXIC -- Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating from certain specified processes Singularly or in any combination: F007 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating operations F008 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Plating bath residues from the bottom of plating baths from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process F009 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cleaning and stripping bath solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process F010 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC --Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used in the process F011 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning from metal heat treating operations F012 Waste --- TOXIC --Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used in the process Singularly or in any combination: Petroleum refining: K048 Waste --- TOXIC -- Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the petroleum refining industry K049 Waste --- TOXIC -- slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining industry K050 Waste --- TOXIC -- heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry K051 Waste --- TOXIC -- API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry K052 Waste --- TOXIC --- tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining industry Iron and steel: K062 Waste --- CORROSIVE, TOXIC -- spent pickle liquor generated by steel finishing operations of facilities within the iron and steel industry Ink formulation: K086 Waste --- TOXIC -- solvent washes and sludges, caustic washes and sludges, or water washes and sludges from cleaning tubs and equipment used in the formulation of ink from pigments, driers, soaps and stabilizers containing chromium and lead Secondary lead: K100 Waste --- TOXIC -- wastewater leaching solution from acid leaching of emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting The federal law which governs hazardous waste is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its amendments. The RCRA was part of the initial federal effort to manage hazardous waste and expressed a clear preference for the reduction of hazardous waste over managing such wastes at treatment, storage or disposal facilities. The Act required EPA to develop a national plan to manage and regulate hazardous waste and provide states with incentives to develop state hazardous waste management plans. Most of the incentives were based on the availability of federal funds. The federal funds were contingent on the states assuring EPA that a particular disposal site would be available for disposal of any waste generated by a remedial action taken under the Act. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Emergency Response Liability Act (CERCLA). The Act granted EPA the authority and funds to respond to uncontrolled site cleanup, emergency remedial activities, spills and other incidents due to hazardous waste. 5/ As of November, 1989, five such remedial sites are located in Escambia County. The Act also defines the liability of businesses that generate, transport and dispose of hazardous waste. Generators of hazardous waste, generally, have "cradle to grave" liability for the waste they generate. In 1980, the Florida Legislature enacted the state's first hazardous waste law. The law primarily adopted the federal regulations and guidelines on hazardous waste and established separate procedures for permitting and site selection of hazardous waste facilities. The act also directed DER to develop and implement a state hazardous waste management plan. The portions of the 1980 law relative to site selection (403.723, Florida Statutes) provided a cabinet override of a local decision adverse to the location of a hazardous waste facility. In order to obtain a cabinet override, the facility had to have been issued a permit by DER. Need for a hazardous waste facility was not addressed in either the permitting or site selection processes of the Act. In 1983, the legislature passed the Water Quality Assurance Act. The Act amended 403.723, Florida Statutes, to provide that each county prepare a Hazardous Waste Facility Needs Assessment and "designate areas within the County at which a hazardous waste storage facility could be constructed to meet a demonstrated need." The Act further provided in 403.723, Florida Statutes, that, after the counties had completed their assessments, each regional planning council, likewise, would prepare a regional Hazardous Waste Facility Needs Assessment and "designate sites at which a regional hazardous waste storage or treatment facility could be constructed." The regional Assessment included a determination of the quantities and types of hazardous waste generated in the region, a determination of the hazardous waste management practices in use within the region, a determination of the demand for offsite hazardous waste management services, a determination of existing and proposed offsite management capacity available to hazardous waste generators, a determination of the need for additional offsite hazardous waste facilities within the region, and the development of a plan to manage the hazardous waste generated in the region and/or to provide additional offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facility needs. As noted earlier, these plans and designations were required to be made part of the county and regional comprehensive plans. The regional Assessment was completed by the West Florida Regional Planning Council in August of 1985. The assessment was based on a survey of suspected hazardous waste generators in the region. An overall response rate of 76.8 percent was received. The study showed that all types of hazardous waste, except for cyanide waste, are generated within the West Florida Planning Region. 6/ The quantity of hazardous waste produced annually within the region was estimated to be 14,245,064 pounds. The estimates for each County were as follows: Escambia County, 4,582,872 pounds; Okaloosa County, 3,203,534 pounds; Bay County, 2,433,343 pounds; Santa Rosa County, 1,866,831 pounds; Holmes County, 381,840 pounds; Walton County, 229,984 pounds; and Washington County, 170,244 pounds. Based on the survey responses, the study estimated that 11,903,738 pounds (83.6%) of hazardous waste generated annually within the region was not being properly treated or disposed of. The vast majority of the waste (78.1%) found to be improperly treated was a combination of waste oils and greases, spent solvents, and lead-acid batteries. Neither the waste oil and greases or lead- acid batteries are wastes which will be managed at the proposed Trans Pac facility. The study found that a recycling or reuse market existed for waste oil and greases, spent solvents and lead-acid batteries; and therefore, there was no need for a transfer/temporary storage facility. The remaining 2,602,630 pounds of hazardous waste not being properly managed was generated by both large and small quantity generators and is subject to a variety of appropriate waste management methods. The management plan adopted by the West Florida Regional Planning Council sought to encourage first waste reduction, second waste recycling, reuse or recovery, third onsite treatment or incineration methods, and fourth transporting wastes to offsite temporary storage facilities. One of the goals of the plan was to discourage, as much as possible, the importation of hazardous waste from outside the region, and particularly, with the close proximity of the Alabama state line, from outside the state. The plan concluded that due to the small quantity of mismanaged hazardous waste in the region there was no need for a permanent treatment and storage facility. The only need found to exist within the region was for a temporary transfer and storage facility. That need has since been met by a temporary transfer and storage facility located in Pensacola, Florida. 7/ However, Escambia County issued a Certificate of Need for a hazardous waste transfer, storage and treatment facility to Trans Pac on February 28, 1989. The Certificate of Need was issued pursuant to County Ordinance Number 85-7. The ordinance provides in relevant part that a Certificate of Need may be issued upon the Board's determination that the service or facility for which the certificate is requested "answers a public need, is necessary for the welfare of the citizens and residents of the county, is consistent with any solid waste management plan adopted pursuant to [this ordinance], and will not impair or infringe on any obligations established by contract, resolution, or ordinance." The ordinance further provides that no Certificate of Need may be denied solely on the basis of the number of such certificates in effect at the time. The issuance of that certificate appears to have been granted on the sole representations of need given by Trans Pac to gain issuance of the certificate and at a time when the Board's attention and consideration of the facility was on matters other than the true need as established in the regional plan or the exact service Trans Pac would actually provide. The evidence suggests that no formal or informal investigation of Trans Pac's representations or on the actual need of the region was conducted by the Board. Such an investigation was informally conducted by some of the Board members after the proposed facility became apparent to members of the public. The members of the public raised a great hue and cry of opposition towards the construction of the facility and prompted a closer look at Trans Pac's representations. The Board members who did conduct the informal investigation found there was no need for the facility within the county or region and discovered that the Certificate of Need had been issued in error. No evidence was presented that the County had ever formally rescinded the issuance of Trans Pac's certificate. However, the evidence did show that there was a de facto rescission of Trans Pac's certificate when the County authorized the filing of this administrative action. 8/ Trans Pac would have the ability to treat and store some of the waste generated in the region and some waste which is not generated in the region. Trans Pac would not treat or store a large part of the waste generated in the region. The small amount of regional waste which Trans Pac would be capable of handling would not be profitable. In order to be profitable, most of Trans Pac's waste would have to come from outside the region and/or the State. In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The Act amended CERCLA to provide that, three years after the Act's effective date, a state could not receive any superfund monies unless the state entered into an agreement with the President providing assurance of the availability of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities which would have enough capacity for the treatment, disposal or storage of all hazardous waste generated within the state over the next 20 years. SARA was enacted because Congress did not believe that Superfund money should be spent in states that were taking insufficient steps to avoid creation of more superfund sites. Such steps included some provision for the future secure disposal or management of hazardous waste generated within that state. It was feared that certain states, because of public opposition and political pressure, could not create and permit enough hazardous waste facilities within their borders to properly manage, either through disposal or treatment, the hazardous waste generated within those states. Put simply, SARA requires each state to keep its own house clean and be responsible for the hazardous waste generated within its borders. SARA did not require the states to develop or permit hazardous waste facilities. The Act only required that each state provide assurances that the state possessed the capacity to manage or securely dispose of hazardous waste produced in that state over the next 20 years. Such assurances could take the form of developing hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities within that state's borders or by exporting its waste to another state. However, in order to provide adequate assurances of capacity if a state chose to export its hazardous waste, that state must enter into an interstate or regional agreement with the importing state. Such agreements could include contracts to ship hazardous waste to public or private facilities. Other assurances of capacity could be obtained through programs for the reduction of hazardous waste within the state. Whatever method of assurance adopted by a state, the goal of SARA was to force the states to provide assurances that their legislative program for the management of hazardous waste generated within their borders could work and would be used. In October, 1979, Florida entered into a Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP) with the President. The CAP established and implemented the statewide management plan required under the state statutes described earlier and under the SARA. The CAP is made up of four major components and includes a regional agreement between Florida and the other EPA Region IV Southeastern States. The four major components of the CAP are: 1) an assessment of past hazardous waste generation and capacity at facilities within or outside of Florida; 2) documentation of any waste reduction efforts that exist or are proposed for the future; 3) future projections of waste generation and capacity either within or outside of Florida and an assessment of any capacity shortfalls; and 4) descriptions of plans to permit facilities and a description of regulatory, economic, or other barriers which might impede or prevent the creation and permitting of such new facilities. The data gathered for the CAP showed that Florida currently has and will have a shortfall in its capacity to properly manage and dispose of its own hazardous waste. Therefore, Florida must provide and implement a way to increase its capacity for the management and disposal of the waste it now generates and will generate in the future or lose its funding for cleanup of superfund sites. Florida's plan to meet that shortfall consists of the interstate agreement, a commitment to a multistate treatment and storage facility and underfunded and understaffed incentives to reduce the generation of hazardous waste. The interstate agreement between the EPA Region IV Southeastern States is an effort at cooperative planning between these states for the management of hazardous waste. In reality, every state, including Florida, imports some hazardous waste from other states. Florida's imports are predominantly spent solvents and waste which can be burned as fuel. All of the imported waste was treated at recovery facilities located within the state. The majority of these imports came from Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia and South Carolina. However, even with these imports, Florida is primarily an exporter of hazardous waste. The main recipients of Florida's exports are Alabama and South Carolina. 9/ The agreement, therefore, includes provisions on applicable interstate waste flow characteristics and quantities and on projected exports and imports between and among the participating states. The agreement provides that hazardous waste facilities presently exist or will be created and permitted to manage such exported waste. Besides the interstate agreement, Florida's plan includes a commitment to permit a multipurpose hazardous waste storage and treatment facility. The site selected for the facility is located in Union County. The permit has not yet been issued for this facility. However, the application for the facility is being processed by DER under the special statutes dealing with the Union County facility. Trans Pac's proposed facility is not required for the state to meet its assurances under the CAP entered into with the President. The hoped for benefit of the commitment to a statewide multipurpose facility is to allow Florida to reduce the amount of waste requiring export, but, at the same time allow enough waste to be exported, in accordance with the interstate agreement, to supply a sufficient waste stream to facilities in other states which need such additional waste in order to stay open. Florida's CAP also includes a waste reduction plan. The waste reduction plan is embodied in its Waste Reduction Assistance Program. The philosophy of the program is that recycling (particularly waste oil) and reduction of hazardous waste will produce greater long term across-the-board cost savings to both business and government, as well as the obvious benefit of having less of this very dangerous pollutant around in the environment. The program is not mandatory and is information-oriented. It consists of technical assistance, limited economic incentives (some of which have not been funded by the legislature), research and development, education and a waste exchange program operated by FSU and the Chamber of Commerce. The waste exchange program puts businesses in touch with other businesses who can use their waste for recycling or recovery. Additionally, in conjunction with Florida's CAP, the legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution #1146. The resolution states in part that, except for the siting of the Union County facility, "the Legislature has not and does not intend to enact barriers to the movement of hazardous waste and the siting of hazardous waste facilities for the storage, treatment, and disposal, other than land disposal, of hazardous waste." As can be seen from an overview of Florida's CAP, Trans Pac's proposed facility, while not being directly a part of the CAP, will have an impact on the implementation of that plan should state need not be a criteria for the issuance of a permit. A few of these potential impacts are listed below. First, a facility the size of Trans Pac's proposed facility has the potential to divert some waste away from the proposed Union County facility and may cause that facility to be unprofitable and inoperable. Second, Trans Pac's proposed facility may enable the State to handle more of its waste within its borders, thereby reducing its exports and Florida's dependency on the good offices of other states. Such reduction may or may not have an adverse impact on the interstate agreement contained in the CAP if Florida cannot meet the amount of waste established for export under that agreement. Third, Trans Pac's proposed facility has the potential to decrease the effectiveness of the State's hazardous waste reduction program by encouraging the use of its facilities instead of reduction, recycling or recovery methods. Such a decrease would be highly dependent on the prices charged by various hazardous waste facilities vis. a vis. reduction, recycling or recovery expenses, the cost of transportation to the various types of facilities, and the ease of use among the various types of facilities and reduction methods. Fourth, not considering at least the needs of the State for a hazardous waste facility allows the state to become a dumping ground for hazardous waste generated in other states. 10/ No evidence was presented on any of these points and because of the conclusions of law such an issue is not ripe for consideration in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order granting the application of Trans Pac, Inc., for a permit to construct a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility in Escambia County, Florida subject to a permit condition requiring a pre-sale notice as described in this Recommended Order. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 16th day of April, 1990.
The Issue Whether Bay North Corporation should be issued a permit to construct a domestic wastewater treatment and disposal system at Camp Weed, Franklin County, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1978, Lomax Smith, a builder and developer in Tallahassee, Florida, entered into an agreement with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Florida to purchase some 42 acres of real property and the improvements thereon known as "Camp Weed" which is located in Franklin County, Florida. The purchase price of the property was $725,000, with an earnest money deposit of $20,000, and closing of the transaction to be on or before July 1, 1978. At the time of purchase, eight dormitory and several accessory buildings were located on the property which utilized septic tanks for sewage disposal. An existing deep well is in the northwest portion of the property for a water supply. Smith proposed to develop the property by the sale of lots, remodel some of the existing buildings, and construct new housing units. He employed the engineering firm of Broward Davis and Associates, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida, to prepare the necessary design plans and a state environmental permit application for a proposed domestic wastewater treatment plant to be located on the site. (Testimony of L. Smith, N. Smith, Exhibits 12, 13) On September 6, 1978, Smith filed an application with Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to construct the sewage treatment plant (STP) at Camp Weed. He signed the application as owner of the property although he had not closed the purchase transaction nor acquired legal title at that time. The application and supporting plans were reviewed in the Northwest District Office of the Department of Environmental Regulation after site investigation, and it was determined that construction of the facility would be in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. A construction permit was issued to Smith for the STP on October 10, 1978, subject to certain specified conditions attached to the permit. Notification of the permit issuance was not preceded by a notice of intent to grant the permit, nor were any third parties advised of its issuance. Petitioners St. Teresa Dock Association, Inc. (then St. Teresa Dock Association) and H.S. Oven first learned of the permit issuance when their counsel was informed by Smith's counsel on November 3, 1978, that the permit had been issued. Petitioners thereafter on November 17 filed a petition for hearing with DER. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibits 1, 4-5, 8) Camp Weed is bounded on the north by U.S. Highway 98 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico. The planned site for the STP is in the northeast corner of the tract which is some twelve feet above mean sea level and approximately 950 feet from the shoreline. The elevation of the property on the northwestern side is about 24 feet and is five feet in the middle. The land slopes generally toward the middle area and drains in a southerly direction to the gulf. The subdivision of St. Teresa where Petitioners' members own summer homes is located immediately west of Camp Weed. The members of the St. Teresa Dock Association, Inc., and Petitioner Hamilton S. Oven use the beach and gulf waters for boating, fishing, and other recreational purposes. About a dozen shallow wells in the St. Teresa subdivision provide drinking water for the residents. They are located over 1700 feet southwest from the site of the proposed STP. There are two ponds north of the St. Teresa area adjacent to U.S. Highway 98. An artesian well is located in the gulf about 25 feet south of the Camp Weed property. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Oven, Sensabaugh, Exhibits 2,7, 9-11, 22, 24) The proposed plant is designed to provide sewage treatment for 132 housing units containing an estimated population of 3 persons per unit. A gravity flow collection system to a pumping station will produce a peak influent rate of 29,700 gallons per day with an estimated biological oxygen demand (BOD) loading of 49.6 pounds per day. A basket strainer on the influent line will remove trash. Plant operation will involve the use of aeration tanks, clarifier, chlorination, sand filter and clear well for discharge to a percolation pond. A polishing pond was originally planned, but was deleted at the suggestion of the DER because it performs the same function as the proposed sand filter. Two percolation ponds for alternate use will be construed so that the pond bottom is twelve feet above sea level. A soil test revealed that a sand layer extends under the shallow surface top soil to a depth of approximately 10 feet before reaching the shallow ground water table and that the effluent will percolate through the sand at the rate of one inch per minute. A five foot soil boring by DER failed to encounter ground water at that level and show that rate of percolation through the sand would be acceptable. The ground water table is subject to an unknown variance indepth during the wet and dry seasons of the year depending on the amount of rainfall. Although tide fluctuations may also have some effect on depth of the ground water table, the tide most likely will be of minimum influence due to the distance of the plant site from the gulf. Percolation of at least three feet through sand before reaching ground water is sufficient to meet DER policy requirements. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Bishop, Exhibits 1, 3, 16-17). Based on the design of the STP, it is predicted by applicant's design engineer that there will be at least 90 percent removal of pollutants after chlorination and prior to passage of the effluent through the sand filter. The engineer predicts that after such filtration, there will be approximately 95 percent removal prior to percolation and that the effluent will then be pure enough to use as drinking water. Further purification will take place during the percolation process. The DER District Supervisor of Domestic Wastewater Permitting, who also is a professional engineer, substantially agrees with those predictions. Actual results of the treatment process can be determined, however, only after tests from monitoring wells are made during actual trial operations of the plant. It is further agreed by those experts that the average chlorine residual content in the effluent will be 0.5 parts per million. The DER supervisor therefore is of the opinion that, if the STP is properly operated, the processed effluent will not degrade ground waters, not adversely affect the wells in the St. Teresa Community or the waters of the gulf. After percolation, there is further dilution and ultimately the ground water which reaches the gulf in eight to ten days will be in a purer form than prior to introduction of the effluent. Although a twenty-year storm criterion was applied in the design of the percolation ponds, a catastrophic storm such as a hurricane was not taken into consideration since it would not be economically feasible to design for such an effect and, in any event, super dilution caused by such a storm would negate the possibility of water quality degradation. (Testimony of Huff, N. Smith, Exhibit 1) The buildup of sludge in the plant's holding tank will require removal about once a year when the plant is in full operation. The applicant will employ a certified individual to operate the plant and to remove sludge periodically to an appropriate place for disposal in an authorized manner. DER regards sludge disposal to be a matter for determination at the time application is made for an operating permit. (Testimony of Huff, L. Smith, McNeill, N. Smith, Exhibit 1) The applicant estimates that the construction of the plant and collection system will cost approximately $1,000 per housing unit for a total of $132,000. It is planned to recover this cost on the sale of lots. A condition of such purchases will be that the sewage system and treatment plant will be operated by a home owners association which is to be activated in the near future. Maintenance cost of the sewage plant will be shared by the individual members. Approximately twenty or twenty-five members are required for economical operation of the plant. (Testimony of N. Smith, L. Smith) The county zoning classification for the Camp Weed area is currently the subject of litigation by the applicant in the Franklin County Circuit Court and the result of that litigation as to permitted density of housing will determine the amount of units to be constructed by the applicant. In any event, if the applicant does not secure a county building permit, any DER construction permit would expire at the termination of the time granted therefor. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibit 24) At the time Intervenor Lomax Smith signed the permit application, Bay North Corporation had not been formed. It was incorporated in November, 1978, in order that Smith could obtain financing to complete the property purchase. The transaction was closed November 6, 1978, and a warranty deed to the property was issued to Bay North Corporation by the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Florida, Inc. The deed was recorded in the public records of Franklin County on November 7, 1978. Lomax Smith is the president and principal stockholder of Bay North Corporation. Promissory notes secured by mortgages to the Southern Bank of Tallahassee and the Episcopal Diocese of Florida in the amounts of $350,000 and $362,500 respectively, were executed by Bay North Corporation on the same date. Pursuant to a request to DER from Lomax Smith on May 15, 1979, the Northwest District DER Office, on June 29, 1979, purported to transfer the permit to Bay North Corporation and extend the expiration date to September 30, 1980. (Testimony of L. Smith, Huff, Exhibits 6, 14-15, 21) The construction permit issued in October, 1978, was subject to standard and special conditions, including the requirement that the permit holder comply with county and municipal regulations prior to construction. They provided that monthly reports be furnished to the DER prior to issuance of an operation permit setting forth wastewater characteristics during a trial period of plant operation. They also required that the facility meet the treatment requirements contained in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., including a 90 percent reduction in BOD and suspended solids based on concentration of the influent entering the plant. The conditions further provide that at the time of application for an operation permit, it must be shown that a certified operator under Chapter 17- 16, F.A.C., is retained, together with a copy of any contract for contract operation of the facility. Additionally, the conditions require that two monitoring wells be established upstream and downstream of the ponds and that quarterly ground water samples be analyzed and reported to DER. A further condition provides that a three-foot buffer zone must be maintained between the bottom of the percolation ponds and the maximum elevation of the ground water. (Exhibit 8)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the requested permit to Bay North Corporation, subject to the conditions attached to the permit issued on October 10, 1978. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of November, 1979. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George E. Lewis, II, Esq. 316 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32303 William L. Hyde, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ben H. Wilkinson, Esq. Pennington, Wilkinson, Gary and Dunlap Post Office Box 3875 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Alfred O. Shuler, Esq. Post Office Box 850 Apalachicola, FL 32320
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
