The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Notice of Intent to Issue Order Requiring Access to Property (“Access Order”) issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) and directed to Glenda Mahaney, as the property owner, is a valid exercise of the Department’s authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Glenda Mahaney is a natural person and the owner of the property identified in the Access Order. The Department is the state agency which has been granted powers and assigned duties under chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, for the protection and restoration of air and water quality and to adopt rules and issue orders in furtherance of these powers and duties. Background The groundwater beneath a parcel of land adjacent to Petitioner’s property was contaminated with petroleum when the land was used in the past for auto salvage operations. Initial groundwater sampling near the border of Petitioner’s property showed groundwater contamination by gasoline constituents which exceeded Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (“GCTLs”). In other words, the contamination was at levels that required cleanup. However, later sampling showed the concentration of contaminants had decreased below GCTLs, probably as a result of natural attenuation. The existing data suggests that any groundwater contamination beneath Petitioner’s property is probably now at a level that would not require cleanup. However, the Department issued the Access Order because the Department is not certain about the contamination beneath Petitioner’s property and because Petitioner has continually requested further investigation. Petitioner believes contamination from the auto salvage site has caused illness in a tenant and even contributed to other persons’ deaths. However, no expert testimony was received on this subject and no finding is made about whether contamination exists on Petitioner’s property which has caused illness or death. The Department’s Site Investigation Section wants access to Petitioner’s property in order to determine whether contamination has migrated beneath Petitioner’s property and, if it has, the extent and concentration of the contaminants. The Department wants to: (a) install up to five temporary groundwater monitoring wells, (b) collect groundwater samples from the wells, (c) collect a groundwater sample from Petitioner’s potable water well, and (d) remove the monitoring wells after the sampling. The Access Order includes terms related to advance notice, scheduling, and related matters. Liability Although Petitioner believes petroleum contamination is present and wants it cleaned up, she objects to the provision of the Access Order related to liability. Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order provides: Ms. Mahaney shall not be liable for any injury, damage or loss on the property suffered by the Department, its agents, or employees which is not caused by the [sic] negligence or intentional acts. Petitioner insists that she should not be liable under any circumstances for injuries or damages suffered by Department’s agents or employees who come on her property for these purposes. She demands that the Department come onto her property “at their own risk.” At the final hearing, the Department stated that it did not intend to impose on Petitioner a level of liability different than the liability that would already be applicable under Florida law. The Department offered to amend Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order to indicate that Petitioner’s “liability, if any, shall be determined in accordance with Florida law.” Scope of the Investigation Petitioner objects to the proposed groundwater sampling because she does not believe it is extensive enough. Petitioner also believes the Department should test for soil contamination. The Department’s expert, David Phillips, testified that the proposed monitoring well locations were selected based on the direction of groundwater flow in the area and the wells are along the likely path of migration of any contaminated groundwater from the former auto salvage site. Another Department witness, Tracy Jewsbury, testified that no soil contamination was found on the auto salvage site, so the Department has no reason to expect there would be soil contamination on Petitioner’s property that came from the auto salvage operation. The Department will use the data collected from the wells to determine if contamination is present and whether future contamination assessment and/or remediation activities are necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection withdraw the Access Order or, alternatively, that Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order be amended to provide that Ms. Mahaney’s potential liability, if any, shall be determined in accordance with Florida law. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2017. William W. Gwaltney, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Glenda Q. Mahaney Post Office Box 123 Mount Dora, Florida 32756 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, 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 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
Findings Of Fact The permit Applicant and Co-Respondent, Florida Medical Facilities, Inc. is the owner and developer of a 60-acre tract of land upon which it has constructed a hospital and will construct various attendant laboratories, medical offices and the like. Additionally, the Applicant is the owner of approximately five acres of land adjacent to its original 60-acre site which lies on Morningside Drive in Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida. The Applicant proposes to construct and operate the wastewater treatment plant on that 5-acre parcel. The Applicant proposes to construct an extended aeration wastewater treatment plant and effluent disposal drain field system which will accommodate and dispose of all wastewater effluent on the site by the absorption bed, land application method. The proposed sewage treatment plant will have an average daily design flow capacity of 50,000 gallons per day. The anticipated peak flow of the treatment plant will be 60,000 gallons per day. The plant will generate and dispose of approximately 900 gallons of waste sludge on a daily basis. The facility would employ dual drain fields, use of which would be rotated on a weekly basis. The proposed average hydraulic loading rate would be 3.21 inches per day or two gallons per day, per square foot of drain field. The proposed facility will serve a 100-bed community hospital, assorted medical offices, a diagnostic laboratory and a 75-bed nursing home. The permit applicant has agreed and stipulated that chemical, nuclear and other hazardous and noxious waste materials, blood, body parts, medicines, and drugs will not be introduced into the sewage treatment system plant or drain fields. The Applicant (FMF) originally proposed to dispose of sewage effluent emanating from its hospital and other facilities by transmission of it through force-mains to existing public wastewater systems, one of which is in Charlotte County and the other in Sarasota County. After exploring these possibilities, these alternatives proved to be either too expensive or to involve transmission of effluent over too great a distance to make these options feasible. Sarasota County has a local pollution control program approved by the DER, pursuant to Section 403.182, Florida Statutes. Under this program the Sarasota Environmental Service Department reviews domestic wastewater treatment facility permit applications pending before the DER and makes recommendations on their disposition. The county's ordinance concerning such facilities is equivalent to the DER standards, except in some respects it is stricter Mr. Russell Klier of the county environmental services department established that the proposed project as planned and designed, will comply with county ordinances regarding wastewater treatment plants. Indeed, it was established through Mr. Klier's testimony, that the proposed project has more redundancy and reliability safeguards than any other such project presently operating in Sarasota County. The proposed sewage treatment plant and disposal system is designed to attain the secondary level of treatment required by Chapter 17-6.060, Florida Administrative Code. The effluent disposal system will provide for disposal of effluent in an absorption field system as envisioned by Chapter 17-6.040(4)(M), Florida Administrative Code and the Department's "Land Application Manual," incorporated by reference in that rule. The system, as proposed, will have the additional safeguards required by the "Land Application Manual" in order to attain "Class I reliability." The hospital, which is the initial facility to be constructed on the 60-acre site, is largely completed, and is being served by a temporary "package" sewage treatment plant until the permit application is resolved. The package sewage treatment plant, as well as the proposed plant and drain field land application system will only serve the medical center complex. All on-site stormwater and surface water run-off from both the 60-acre original medical center site, as well as the 5- acre proposed sewage treatment plant and disposal site, will be managed by directing stormwater and surface water run-off to holding ponds to be constructed and maintained on the original 60-acre site. Steven Houghton was accepted as an expert engineering witness. It was thus established that the system as designed will meet all water quality parameters regulated and enforced by the DER and Sarasota County in terms of the quality of the effluent generated by the plant and disposal system for disposal by land application. In this connection, he established that no nuclear, infectious, toxic or noxious waste will be processed by the system or introduced into the system nothing other than domestic-type sewage will be treated, processed and disposed of by the proposed system. Mr. Houghton acknowledged that the project will be located in an historically flood-prone vicinity, but that will not affect the quality or effectiveness of the operation of the plant nor the safe disposal of the resulting effluent. In that regard, the Applicant will place fill at the drain field site so as to provide a more effective soil percolation condition than that presently existing in the soils at the drain field site. Additionally, the Applicant will provide a sewage storage tank to provide extra reliability and avoidance of pollution caused by sewage overflows in the event of any excessive sewage flows into the plant, and as a safeguard against disposing of insufficiently treated effluent during periods of high rain and high surface or ground water conditions. Additionally, the system will be constructed and operated with sufficient redundancy of electrical and mechanical components so as to provide auxiliary capacity throughout the system, allowing it to operate efficiently 24 hours a day and to continue to provide treatment and disposal of the effluent in accordance with secondary treatment and Class I reliability standards, even during periods of mechanical or electrical outages. Petitioner Mary Wagoner owns and resides on acreage generally south and adjacent to the proposed project site. Mrs. Wagoner uses a potable water well in the shallow aquifer with a depth of approximately 35 feet. Mrs. Wagoner's well has recently been tested and at this time provides good, safe, potable water which she uses both for drinking, cooking, domestic usage, as well as water for her livestock. Mrs. Wagoner's well is less than 500 feet from the proposed "wetted area" of the drain field land application disposal site. Mr. Edward Snipes was accepted and testified as an expert witness in the areas of engineering and wastewater engineering on behalf of the Department. He corroborated Mr. Houghton's testimony in establishing that the project would meet the Department's standards for water quality and Class I reliability in large part. It was shown that the project will not likely have harmful effects on the Petitioners' water wells. Mr. Snipes established that the Department's "Land Application Manual" embodied in Rule 17-6.04(4)(Q), Florida Administrative Code requires a buffer zone of only 100 feet, instead of 500C feet, from the wetted area of the sewage effluent disposal site, due to the type of system and level of treatment proposed. That is, the system would provide secondary treatment, with additional safety measures incorporated in the design and operation so as to achieve Class I reliability. This Class I reliability standard includes a sufficiently high rate of disinfection so as to allow unrestricted public access to the site, and thus would meet the most stringent Class I reliability standards extant in Rule 17- 6.040(4)(M), Florida Administrative Code. This permits a reduced buffer zone between the wetted area of the drain field and any adjacent, shallow-water wells. Thus, the buffer zone would, in the case of this plant, be allowably reduced from 500 feet to 100 feet. In only one respect, was any doubt cast by Petitioner's testimony and evidence on the showing of reasonable assurances that all Department water quality and wastewater treatment standards will be met. That doubt concerns the distance from the bottom of the drain field to the water table elevation at the drain field site, as that relates to the ability of the system to continue to treat and dispose of effluent within appropriate standards in this admittedly flood-prone area, as that problem would in turn relate to potential contamination of ground water in the area, especially in times of high rainfall and high ground water levels. In that connection, Petitioner Wagoner offered Herman Weinberg as an expert witness in civil engineering and he was accepted. Mr. Weinberg acknowledged that he was not a soil engineer and acknowledged that the Department or its witnesses were more knowledgeable about wastewater regulation, treatment and disposal methods than he. He opined, however, that the plant may not be able to reach Class I reliability due to its location in a flood-prone area. He fears that insufficient soil testing and water quality testing had been done prior to the filing of the permit application. and prior to the ultimate construction of the project, if that is to be the case. Section 17-6.040(4) (M), Florida Administrative Code, adopts by reference the United States Environmental Protection Agency design criteria for mechanical, electrical and fluid system and component reliability manual. That manual sets forth certain minimum standards for Class I reliability sewage treatment and disposal plants and systems. In this regard, the rule in that manual establishes that wastewater treatment works include holding ponds and basins and other structures of the disposal system. It provides that all treatment works, structures, as well as electrical and mechanical equipment, shall be protected from physical damage by flooding of a magnitude occurring on the average of once in a hundred years, the so- called "100-year flood." In this connection, it was established through witness Weinberg's testimony as well as that of Mr. Houghton, the Applicant/Respondent's witness, that the 100-year flood plan elevation on and around the subject site is 12 feet above mean sea level. The top of the proposed drain field would be located at 12.33 feet elevation. The bottom of the drain field would be at 10.33 feet elevation. The water table level established by witness Houghton as a result of his survey and calculations, is at 8.33 feet elevation. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in its "Land Application Manual," which provides criteria for sewage plant and disposal system construction and operation, requires a 36-inch minimum separation between the bottom of a drain field and the design water table level. Thus, the legally operative Class I reliability standards, incorporated in the above-referenced rule and manuals, and which the Applicant and the Department agree is the level of reliability required, given the conditions and the proximity of Petitioner's well, can only be met if the drain field disposal system is at this required elevation of 36 inches above the design water table level. Affirmative, reasonable assurances that this safeguard will be incorporated in the subject system are necessary in view of the fact that Petitioner Wagoner's potable water well is clearly less than 500 feet from the wetted area of the drain field site. In this connection, the Applicant/Respondent has proposed placing fill soil of a suitable type for adequate percolation and land application treatment of the effluent on the drain field site, however, it has not been established that this will be done to such an extent as to raise the elevation of the drain field sufficiently so that the bottom of the drain field is a minimum of 36 inches above the design water table. The installation of an adequate depth of fill soil of a suitable percolation characteristic must therefore be a condition on the issuance of the permit. Further, in that regard, the Applicant/Respondent's soil test and calculation of tile ground water level or "design water table," occurred in January and February of 1985, at a time when the southwest region of Florida was in a drought or dry condition, such that the water level or ground water table at normal rainfall conditions would likely be at a higher elevation. Thus, a grant of this permit must be conditioned upon the installation of sufficient, appropriate quality fill soil to ensure that the minimum 36-inch separation between the drain field bottom and the water table is maintained during normal water table or rainfall conditions. If this measure is not taken, given the 2-foot separation between the drain field, as designed, and the water table, the oxygen transferring capacity of the soil beneath the drain field may not be sufficient to satisfy the oxygen demand required for consistently adequate treatment and safe disposal of the sewage effluent. Additionally, in this same context, Chapter 1 of the DER Land Application Manual at Section 1.3, requires that sufficient storage capacity exist on-site to ensure retention of sewage effluent during conditions which preclude land application, such as high ground water conditions or flooding conditions. This capacity should be equivalent to three days maximum daily flow at the design capacity of the plant, or in this case, 180,000 gallons. Although the Applicant, by its plans and specifications in evidence, has assured that a sewage effluent storage tank will be constructed and operated, it has failed to establish that sufficient storage capacity will be incorporated to assure the retention of 180,000 gallons of effluent. Any grant of the permit application should be conditioned upon such an assurance. Finally, in connection with the above-mentioned condition concerning installation of sufficient, appropriate soil filling to allow for a minimum 36-inch amount of unsaturated soil beneath the drain field, that addition of fill should also be of a sufficient type and amount to ensure that the Applicant's proposed rotation or "resting" of drain fields for 7-day periods will be adequate to ensure that the subject amount of soil is unsaturated before re-use of either of the two drain fields. There should be incorporated in these conditions, upon a grant of the permit, the requirement that the Department monitor construction of the proposed facility to ensure that the above conditions are adequately met, in view of the low-lying terrain at the drain field site and the flood-prone condition of that locality. Petitioner Mary Nygaard testified on behalf of herself and her husband, Lyle A. Nygaard. Mrs. Nygaard complains of feared pollution of her shallow-water potable well which she maintains is within 500 feet of the drain field and sewage plant site. Mr. Nygeard established that the well is 187.1 feet from the Petitioner's southern property boundary, but acknowledged that no survey has been done delineating the distance to the proposed wetted area of the drain field. It was not otherwise proven how far the Nygaard's potable well is from the wetted area of the proposed drain field where the effluent will be disposed of. Various easements and roadways lie between the Nygaard's well and the wetted area of the proposed drain field site with indeterminate dimensions, thus it was not proven what distance exists between the Nygaard's well and the drain field site other than that it exceeds 187.1 feet.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Florida Medical Facilities for a permit authorizing construction of an extended aeration, wastewater treatment plant and disposal system to serve only the Englewood Hospital and Medical Center project in Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida, referenced above be GRANTED, provided that the above-delineated conditions upon a grant of the permit are complied with. DONE and ENTERED this 30th of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Lyle and Mary E. Nygnard 740 Morningside Drive Englewood, Florida 33533 Harlan Domber, Esquire ISPHORDING, PAYNE, KORP and MUIRHEAD, P.A. 333 West Miami Avenue Venice, Florida 33595 James H. Burgess, Jr., Esquire SYPRETT, MESHAD, RESNICK and LIEF, P.A. Post Office Box 1238 Sarasota, Florida 33578 Douglas L. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following specific rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to the extent that the proposals actually constitute proposed findings of fact as opposed to recitations of testimony and evidence, conclusions and arguments of law. APPLICANT/RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Additionally, paragraph 7 constitutes a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Additionally, paragraph 11 constitutes in part a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Accepted, but this proposed finding of fact is unnecessary and immaterial to a resolution of the material issues presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. Rejected as constituting a mere discussion of evidence presented or not presented. RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as modified by the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order concerning the conditions which must be met before the permit should be granted as that relates to Class I reliability standards and the "buffer zone" issue. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the necessity of the installation of a minimum 36-inch adequate soil percolation zone and adequate sewage effluent storage capacity. Accepted in part, but rejected to the extent that this proposed finding of fact maintains that the nature of Mrs. Wagoner's well has been impossible to obtain due to her refusal to allow inspection. Indeed, Mrs. Wagoner adduced competent evidence of the water quality in her well. Accepted in part, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the additional conditions that should be placed upon the permit related to its location in a flood-prone area, and related to the distance between the bottom of the drain field and the high water table. Accepted. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning the conditions referenced above which must be met for Class I reliability and for avoidance of harmful effect on Petitioner's water well. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted.. Accepted, but modified by the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order concerning additional conditions referenced above which must be met concerning Class I reliability and protection of water quality in Petitioner's-well. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as constituting merely a discussion of testimony. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but this proposed finding is irrelevant to a resolution of the material issues presented. Accepted. Rejected as merely being a recitation of testimony. Accepted. PETITIONER WAGONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, except to the extent that it indicates the applicant will situate the facility in a manner so as not to be accessible to the general public. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented. Rejected as constituting a discussion and conclusion of law. 13 and 14. Rejected. These two proposed findings in reality constitute discussion and conclusions of law. 15 and 16. Rejected. These two proposed findings in reality constitute discussion and conclusions of law. They are rejected for the additional reason that portions of those two paragraphs that constitute proposed findings of fact do not comport with the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony presented. 17 through 31. These proposed findings are rejected as constituting conclusions of law and, to the extent that they embody proposed findings of fact, are not supported by the competent, substantial, credible evidence and testimony presented. The evidence and testimony shows that reasonable assurances (except as to the permit conditions recommended) have been provided that all pertinent regulatory criteria have been or will be met. The EPA Manual criteria referenced in these proposed findings of fact (17-31) are not mandatory, whereas those in Subsection (4)(q) of the above-referenced rule are mandatory and have been reasonably assured by the applicant to be met subject to the conditions recommended on a grant of the permit by the Hearing Officer. Accepted, except to the extent that the applicant is reputed not to have provided data to substantiate the estimated design water table. The applicant's proof of the water table elevation was un-refuted. Accepted as to the first sentence, the remaining portion of that proposed finding of fact is irrelevant and unnecessary to a disposition of the material issues presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Accepted to the extent that the conditions recommended to be attached to a grant of the permit envision assurance being provided before a grant of the permit that the issue raised by proposed finding No. 39 is satisfied. Accepted. Accepted as to its second sentence, the first sentence in that proposed finding is rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented, and as being unnecessary to a resolution of the material issues presented. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 47. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 48. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 49. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 50. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 51. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 52. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 53. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 54. Accepted. 55. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 56. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 57. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 58. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 59. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 60. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 61. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 62. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 63. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 64. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 65. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 66. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 67. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 68. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. 69. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and for the additional reason that the last sentence is a proposed finding of fact not supported by competent, substantial credible evidence and testimony presented. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and for the further reason that the proposed finding of fact is not supported by competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented. Rejected in part as constituting a conclusion of law and accepted to the extent that reasonable assurances concerning the effect of the water table elevation discussed in the Recommended Order have not been provided and such assurance should be a condition on a grant of the permit. The remainder of that proposed finding of fact is not supported by the competent, substantial, credible evidence presented and is irrelevant. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting with the competent, substantial, credible testimony and evidence presented.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health (Department or DOH) should fine the Petitioner, Jeffery Benefield, $500 and require him to move the drainfield of his onsite sewage disposal system so that no part of it is within ten feet of the potable water line of his neighbors, the Intervenors, Robert and Wanda Schweigel.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner's home at 10920 Lake Minneola Shores Road (Lake County Road 561-A) was built in 1977. It included an onsite septic tank and drainfield sewage disposal system. On March 31, 2003, the Petitioner personally applied for a permit to repair his existing sewage disposal system by replacing the drainfield. His application did not identify any potable water lines. Department personnel evaluated the site and calculated system specifications, and the Department issued a construction permit on April 3, 2003, based on the estimated size of the existing system. To replace the existing drainfield and meet specifications, 375 square feet of drainfield was required. However, the Petitioner wanted to add 125 square feet to what was required by the specifications, which is acceptable so long as required setbacks are maintained. The Petitioner's drainfield was replaced by a licensed contractor on April 29, 2003. Some work may have been done the following day to complete the job, but it appears that the contractor called for the final inspection on April 29, 2003. On inspection, it was clear that the new drain line closest and (like the other three) parallel to the property line was less than ten feet from a water line, riser, and spigot on the neighboring property, which was owned by Robert and Wanda Schweigel. Specifically, the closest of the new drain lines was estimated to be just five feet from the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot. (The next closest was just under ten feet from the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot.) As a result, the Department disapproved the installation. The Petitioner disputed the disapproval, initially contending that the Schweigels' water line, riser, and spigot did not convey potable water. It was decided that the new drainfield should be covered while pending a decision as to whether the water line was potable. By the end of July 2003, the Department decided that the Schweigels' water line was indeed potable. In that approximate time frame, the Petitioner's contractor offered to pay to have the Schweigels' water line "sleeved" to a distance at least ten feet from the nearest portion of the Petitioner's drainfield.2 He believed that solution would be much simpler and less costly than moving the Petitioner's drainfield to a distance at least ten feet from any part of the Schweigels' potable water line. This alternative was presented to the Schweigels in that approximate timeframe, but they refused (and continue to refuse.) In August 2003, the Petitioner took the position that, regardless whether the Schweigels' water line was potable, the Petitioner's new drainfield was in the same location as the existing drainfield, and the part of the water line closest to the new drainfield (i.e., the part including the riser and spigot) was not there until after the middle of April 2003 and was recently installed either just before or while the Petitioner's new drainfield was being installed. The evidence was not clear as to the configuration and precise location of the drain lines in the Petitioner's original drainfield. However, it appears to have had three drain lines emanating from the septic tank, starting in the direction of the Schweigels' property and then curving away in the direction of Lake Minneola, which is behind the Petitioner's and the Schweigels' properties, before terminating. The replacement drainfield had pipe emanating from the septic tank and running towards the Schweigels' property line before making a 90-degree turn towards the lake before connecting to the middle of a header pipe. Connecting to the header pipe are four equally-spaced drain lines, one on either end of the header pipe and two in between, that are perpendicular to the header pipe and parallel to each other and to the Schweigels' property line (and potable water line) and run towards the lake. As indicated, it was not clear from the evidence precisely where all of the old drain lines were located, or how close they got to the Schweigels' property (and potable water line.) However, it does not appear that they got as close as two of the four new drain lines in the replacement system. See Petitioner's Exhibits 13 and 21. There was conflicting evidence as to when the Schweigels' potable water line was installed. It is clear from the evidence that there are now three "T's" off the water line from the potable water source near the street. One "T- off" leads to near the front corner of the house, one leads to the middle of the side of the house, and one leads to near the rear corner of the house. The line then extends past the last "T" to the location of the water riser and spigot. The Petitioner's evidence proved that the water line riser and spigot now within ten feet of the Petitioner's drainfield were not there either in May 1999 or on April 14, 2003. But the Schweigels maintained, and the evidence as a whole was persuasive, that the potable water lines currently in place were installed in 1996 or 1997, but were cut and moved to enable the Schweigels to install footers for construction of a concrete privacy wall in approximately 1999. After installation of the footers, the water line had to be moved several inches closer to the Schweigels' house when replaced, and the "T's" were reconnected to the line. In approximately April 2003, the water line riser and spigot were damaged (the evidence was not clear how) and had to be replaced. The evidence was that the Schweigels got a permit to build their privacy wall but did not get a permit for the plumbing work that was necessary in conjunction with the installation of the footers for the wall. Although it appears from the evidence that a plumbing permit was required, the Schweigels did not think a separate plumbing permit was necessary. It is not found that the Petitioner participated in this proceeding for an "improper purpose"--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order that the Petitioner pay a $500 fine and either: (1) pay the reasonable cost of having the Schweigels' potable water line "sealed with a water proof sealant within a sleeve of similar material pipe to a distance of at least 10 feet from the nearest portion of the system," so long as no portion of the Schweigels' potable water line "within 5 feet of the drainfield shall be located at an elevation lower than the drainfield absorption surface"; or (2) move or relocate his drainfield to meet the setback requirements of the current Rule 64E-6.005(2)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 2005.
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 Whether permit application SWO 13-5152, should be granted under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. This case involves the application of Respondents City of North Miami and Munisport, Inc. to Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for an operating permit under the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code, to operate a sanitary landfill located in North Miami, Florida. DER granted provisional approval of the application by the issuance of a Notice of Intent to issue the permit on January 27, 1978. Petitioners filed the instant petition of February 13, 1978, challenging the issuance of the proposed permit. Final hearing herein was originally scheduled for April 7, 1978, but at the instance of the parties was continued and reset to commence on October 18, 1978. During the course of the final hearing, 29 witnesses presented testimony, including six public witnesses. (List of public witnesses - Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3) A total of 35 exhibits were admitted in evidence. Three exhibits (Exhibits 5, 13 and 15) were rejected by the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact By application dated November 14, 1977, Respondent City of North Miami, Florida, as owner, and Respondent Munisport, Inc. as the "responsible operating authority" requested Respondent DER to issue a permit to operate a solid waste resource recovery and management facility consisting of 345.90 acres located at 14301 Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Florida. The site, known as the North Miami Recreation Development, had been operating as a sanitary landfill under temporary operating permits (TOP) issued by the DER on May 8, 1975 and September 21, 1976. The 1976 TOP provided for an expiration date of July 1, 1977, and contained various conditions designed to give the permittees a reasonable period of time to conform to the DER regulations relative to sanitary landfills. These included standard requirements such as the rendering of reports on the operation of the facility and prohibiting the deposit of raw and infectious waste, or hazardous waste that had not been rendered safe and sanitary prior to delivery. Additionally, the permit conditions required the facility to be so operated that it would cause minimum adverse effects on the environment, such as objectionable odors, contaminated storm water runoff, or leachates causing degradation of surface of ground waters. Further, the permit provided for a three-month review program after its issuance to consider the feasibility of dumping solid waste in 63 acres of submerged land subject to previous filling with clean fill and/or construction debris, filling of land above mean high water with garbage either above clean fill or above trenches filled with wood and construction debris and covered with clean fill, and a six-week period of weekly water quality monitoring at agreed to sites for analysis by both permittees and the Dade County Environmental Resources Management (DERM). The permit further prohibited the placement of refuse waterward of the mean high water line or in trenches cut below the natural ground water table. (Exhibits 1, 4). By letter of January 27, 1978, DER gave notice to the applicant of its intent to issue the requested operation permit for the solid waste disposal facility and stated therein the following reasons for its determination: The solid waste disposal site is in the public interest. The Department feels that the site will not substantially affect the water quality or interfere with the area's wildlife. The applications and plans for this facility have been evaluated and found to be in conformance with Chapter 403, F.S., Chapter 17-4, FAC, and Chapter 17-7, FAC. The letter stated standard conditions to which the permit would be subject, including special conditions that had been noted in the 1976 TOP. It also prescribed specific conditions that no solid wastes could be placed within 30 feet of any existing or future lake area, no dumping below water at any time nor in any dewatered excavations, and that a quarterly water quality monitoring program at monitoring wells No. 4 through 12 be sampled for specified substances. Proposed Condition 16 stated as follows: Solid waste shall be deposited in locations consistent with those approved in the Army Corps of Engineers' dredge and fill permit #75B-0869. No solid waste shall be deposited in the areas commonly known as the wetlands and transitional zones of said wetlands, as shown on the attached map. Subject to the Corps approval of proposed modifications to permit #75B-0869, a revised DER solid waste permit will be issued consistent with the approved modifications. A sketch of the landfill site purporting to designate the landfill deposal area, wetlands and transitional zone, and mean high water line was attached. (Exhibit 3) The Petitioners consist of the Florida Audubon Society, which has some 2,000 members residing in Dade County, Tropical Audubon Society, which is affiliated with Florida Audubon Society; Keystone Point Homeowners Association, Inc., comprised of approximately 425 owners of mostly waterfront or canal homes in North Miami within a mile of the landfill site; Thomas Pafford, North Miami, Florida, who uses the waters of Biscayne Bay and nearby wetlands for recreational purposes; and Maureen B. Harwitz, who resides within a half mile of the landfill site and uses Biscayne Bay and the mangrove preserve adjacent to the landfill site for recreational purposes. Members of the above-named organizational groups use the waters surrounding the landfill site for recreational purposes and are concerned that the waters and fish and animal life therein will be adversely affected if the operation permit is granted. (Testimony of Lee, Brown, Pafford, Lippelman, Harwitz) Munisport has been operating the North Miami landfill under a lease with the City of North Miami since approximately 1974. The ultimate aim is to convert the area into a recreational complex consisting of golf courses, club house, and other sports facilities. The site was used as an unregulated dump for many years prior to initiation of the Munisport operation. The site has been the subject of previously issued state and Corps of Engineer dredge and fill permits which are not the subject of this proceeding. The landfill site occupies an area generally between Northwest 135th Street on the south and Northwest 151st Street on the north. It lies between Biscayne Boulevard on the west, and state mangrove preserves and land of Florida International University on the east. It is less than a mile to Biscayne Bay on the east side of the landfill. The nearest point of entry is in the southeast area where Arch Creek empties into the Bay. At this time, Munisport has filled approximately 210 acres at the site with ten feet or more of fill material. A final cover has been completed over about 70 acres of this land and a golf course is presently being constructed. Pursuant to the dredge and fill permits, five lakes approximately 35 feet deep are nearly completed and some six or seven more are to be dug in the future pursuant to those permits. These lakes are separated from the solid waste by a 30 foot wide dike of clean fill. Although some cover material has been trucked to the site, about 1.6 million cubic yards of fill from the excavated lakes have been or will be utilized in cover operations for the landfill. The solid waste layer averages 15 feet in depth and lies about two feet above the ground water table. About 230 acres lie within the upland fill area above the mean high water line which is not within the area of jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The mean high water line has been established by appropriate procedures under Chapter 177, F.S., and the surveying procedures were approved by the Department of Natural Resources on April 6, 1978. Although not stated in the Notice of Intent to issue the requested permit, DER intends to restrict the life of any permit to the time when the Metropolitan Dade County Resources Recovery Facility commences operation in approximately two years. The applicants and Dade County also have a memorandum of understanding to this effect. (Testimony of Stotts, Checca, Exhibits 1, 2, 35, 36, Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Munisport receives solid waste from a variety of firms, institutions, and surrounding municipalities. Its procedures are for vehicles to enter and exit the site from an access road leading to Biscayne Boulevard. A sign is located along the road indicating the operating hours, fee schedule, waste restrictions and other pertinent information. A large portion of the site is virtually inaccessible due to dense mangroves and mosquito control canals and ditches. At the check-in gate, a cursory inspection of vehicle loads is made by Munisport personnel who check the contents for quantity. Each load is directed to a designated place at the site where Munisport employees spread and compact the waste. At this stage, they are instructed to look for any unauthorized materials, such as hazardous and infectious waste. If such wasted is found, the offending party is required to remove it from the site. compactors and bulldozers push the solid waste to the face of the landfill and spread it out to facilitate compaction. During the hours of 6:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M., a watchman is on duty at the site to accommodate customers. If less than four or five truckloads arrive during the night hours, the material is not processed. If a larger quantity is involved, a Munisport employee moves and covers the material prior to the following workday. Due to the high ground water tabled, the area method is used for filling the site. This is a procedure by which refuse cells are constructed in lifts not to exceed ten feet in vertical height. They are composed of cells which constitute a one-day quantity of refuse. Six inches minimum cover of clean fill is applied daily, and a one foot intermediate cover is applied within a year after compaction. The cells are compacted in two-foot layers and, upon completion of a particular area, a minimum of two feet of final cover is applied. A dike constructed of compacted limerock borders the east side of the site and basically constitutes the present mean high water line. It is designed to protect the adjoining 129 acres of mangrove preserve and Biscayne Bay from any adverse water quality which might occur from runoff of degraded waters from the landfill site in the event of contamination. (Testimony of Haddad, Checca, Exhibit 1, 9) The shallow soil underlying the landfill at depths ranging to almost ten feet consists of a combination of organic matter and debris from prior dump use, muck, and sand. Soil borings taken at the site show that limestone or calcareous rock known as Miami oolite is about eight feet below the soil layer. At this depth is found the Biscayne aquifer that carries the unconfined ground water in the area. The aquifer is approximately 160 feet deep under the site and constitutes the major source of water supply in Dade County. The gradient of the water table for the landfill site runs in a southeasterly direction toward Biscayne Bay. Approximately 75% of the surface soil layer consists of organic muck, whereas in approximately 25% of the area, which was previously filled in the southern and westerly portions before commencement of the Munisport operation, the soil is primarily of a sandy type. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Exhibit 1) Leachate is produced in sanitary landfills by precipitation that percolates down through decomposing refuse cells and picks up polluting substances created from the decaying solid waste. It can form a "plume" or "bubble" that takes the course of least resistance in flowing laterally or vertically through a landfill site. The strength and concentration of the leachate is dependent upon various factors including the composition, compaction, and the age of decomposing refuse, and the amount of water being introduced into the area. As it passes slowly through the soil beneath the solid waste material, the unsaturated soils act as filters and permit ion exchange which reduces the quantity of contaminants. Dilution takes place where leachate comes in contact with ground water and leachate movement occurs gradually through the ground water aquifer in its direction of the flow. The presence and movement of leachate normally can be detected by analysis of ground water samples taken at various places throughout the landfill site. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Coker, Exhibit 1) Commencing in 1975, a monitoring program was instituted at the sanitary landfill to determine its effects on the ground water regime. A number of monitoring wells at various depths were constructed at different sites at the landfill, and samples were withdrawn and evaluated periodically to determine the types and degrees of pollution being generated by the landfill. Background samples were also obtained from wells off the site to establish the general character of water quality in the area and to compare these samples with those obtained from the site. Additionally, "grab" samples were taken of water from the bay and nearby canals and wetlands. Locations of the background and sampling wells were established by the applicants in conjunction with the DER and the Environmental Protection Agency. To determine the amount of leachate that probably would be generated at the site, the "water balance method" of computing the estimated time required to produce leachate, as well as the quantity that probably would be generated upon completion of the landfill, was made by representatives of the EPA in 1975 utilizing specific climatological and surface conditions at the site. This study indicated that percolation of surface water would increase during the operation of the landfill and before final soil and vegetative cover were in place, and that leachate would occur in about a year in larger quantities than would be produced by a completed landfill. Tests conducted during the ensuing three-year period of both surface and ground water through the monitoring program have failed to produce evidence that water quality is not within acceptable parameters or that water quality in the area surrounding the landfill site has been degraded. No significant differences in the concentrations of various ground water constituents were found between samples obtained at the disposal site and those collected in the adjacent mangrove forest or background areas. Neither was any evidence of contamination from leachate found in samples of surface water collected in the vicinity of the landfill or in nearby natural areas. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Linett, Perez, Exhibit 1, Exhibit 33) Three basic factors have undoubtedly accomplished reduction in the amount of leachate generated at the landfill. These are (a) attenuation and filtration of pollutants by unsaturated soils between and beneath the refuse cells, (b) biological assimilation by organisms living within the refuse cells and underlying soils, and (c) dilution upon contact with the ground water. A hydrogeologic study shows that the uppermost 14 feet of the aquifer immediately below the landfill represents only 0.2% of the total discharges with a ground water velocity of less than 0.1 foot per day. This part of the aquifer therefore provides considerable detention time for the water that percolates through the landfill. The strata, as well as the overlying organic marine soils, provide the absorption and assimilation that removes pollutants from the water. After water percolates through this layer, it reaches the highly permeable Miami oolite that carries about 43% of the ground water flow. The effects of soil absorption, filtration through the upper 14 feet of the aquifer, and dilution within the aquifer have demonstrably been sufficient to assimilate the water that percolates through the landfill. It is estimated that the time of travel of ground water from the landfill site to the closest discharge point in Biscayne Bay is approximately 68 years. Although the attenuation capability of the organic muck soil underlying the greater part of the landfill is high, the older area of the site in the southwestern portion which had been filled before the Munisport operation commenced, has no muck and consists primarily of sand with a higher rate of permeability. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Teas, Exhibits 1, 33) The fact that the organic muck material under the landfill is not uniform throughout the site, plus the fact that there have been various breaches in the permeable oolite layer below the soil, will, in the opinion of some experts, eventually lead to the generation and movement of a leachate plume into such breaches and ultimately to Biscayne Bay. These breaches consist of the deep lakes at the site, the Arch Creek Canal to the south of the site and a dredged excavation at the exit of that body of water into the bay some 3,600 feet distant from the landfill. Additionally, these experts postulate that the dike located on the eastern border of the site will not prevent leachate from moving into the surrounding mangrove area. It is therefore estimated that in the above ways, large amounts of leachate would enter the bay and adjacent wetlands within a period of five to ten years. (Testimony of Coker, Hudson, Pasley, Browder, Exhibits 12, 14, 29, 30) Although water monitoring at various levels in and at probable discharge points near the site have not found degradation of water quality, the applicants propose to address any future leachate problems in a variety of ways. These include continuous periodic testing of water quality and monitoring wells, excavation of a canal on the upland side of the site to intercept leachate and treatment of any contaminated water therein or by pumping the water to an interior lake for treatment. Based on the particular type of any degradation, chlorination and precipitators would be utilized. Long-range problems will be further reduced by the ultimate construction of the golf courses and placement of final soil and vegetative cover to reduce percolation of surface water. This will be aggravated to an undetermined degree, however, by periodic irrigation of the golf courses. (Testimony of Checca, Pitt, Kelman, Exhibits 1,33) During the early years of the Munisport operation, a number of violations of the conditions of the temporary operating permit occurred, but for the most part these were caused either through simple negligence of landfill personnel, breakdown of equipment, or introduction of unauthorized materials to the site by Munisport customers. In these situations, Munisport usually took prompt and effective action to prevent recurrence and to remedy the problem. For example, on one occasion in 1977, some 12 drums containing residue of a chemical substance deemed to constitute "hazardous waste" was brought into the site by persons unknown and was found leaking into the ground. A number of violations and warning notices were issued to Munisport by the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM), primarily in 1976, involving the placement of tree cuttings and wood scraps into excavations containing water at the south end of the site. These occurred, however, during a period when Munisport was engaging in tests to determine the suitability of such operations in conjunction with DER. Additionally, in 1976 and 1977, Munisport was advised of violations in the placement of garbage in exposed water, uncovered garbage, and delivery of garbage after hours. Munisport has had a continuing problem over the years with the unauthorized delivery of hospital wastes from various customers to the landfill in spite of letters written to hospital facilities and delivery firms cautioning them concerning the prohibition against the introduction of such material to the landfill. DERM personnel concede, however, that the operation has been continuously improved and that it is well-conducted in comparison with other landfills in the country. However, they believe that lakes should not exist in landfills and that the North Miami landfill is too close to the wetlands. (Testimony of Morrissey, Karafel, Sobrino, Haddad, Checca, Exhibits 6-11, 17, 18, 20-24, 27, supplemented by testimony of Pafford and Exhibit 16) In a letter of January 17, 1977, DERM expressed concerns about the Munisport operation to DER. One of these concerns was that leachate would migrate to proposed golf course lakes and the resulting pollution would produce poor water quality. Although 1976 testing of then existing lakes at the site reflected unusually high amounts of fecal coliform, subsequent tests in late 1978 showed very little, but tests again in January, 1979, showed that several lakes were again somewhat high in coliform. Coliform is not considered to be a strong parameter in assessing the presence of leachate and amounts vary considerably from day to day in lake areas. Additionally, great numbers of birds are normally present on the landfill site during operations and contribute in raising coliform readings to some extent. Dade County has a current policy that does not permit lakes to be excavated on landfills operated by the county. (Testimony of Checca, Morrissey, Sobrino, Karafel, Kosakowski, Linett, Newman, Kelman, Perez, Exhibits 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 31, 32, 37, 38)
Recommendation That a permit be issued to the City of North Miami, Florida and Munisport, Inc. to operate the solid waste disposal facility as described and under the conditions stated in the letter of the Department of Environmental Regulation, dated January 27, 1978, wherein it gave notice of its intent to issue the said permit. DONE and ENTERED, this 13th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David Gluckman, Esquire 5305 Isabelle Drive Ken VanAssenderp, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida Smith, Young and Blue, P.A. Post Office Box 1833 Josepy D. Fleming, Esquire 620 Ingraham Building Marvin Sadur and 25 Southeast Second Avenue Richard J. Potash, Esquires Miami, Florida 33131 2000 L Street NW - Suite 612 Washington, D.C. 20036 Silvia Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services seeks to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $350.00 on the basis of allegations that the Respondent, failed to report visible and accessible evidence of dry wood termite fecal pellets.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, James M. Dodds has been licensed to conduct residential termite inspections. On June 12, 1990, he conducted a termite inspection at the residence of a Mrs. Mitchell, located at 7420 W. 15 Court, Hialeah, Florida. During the course of that inspection, Dodds did not inspect the attic of the residence. The reason he did not inspect the attic was because the access to the attic (which was through a crawlspace in the ceiling of a small bedroom closet) was blocked by a large number of boxes stacked in the closet. During the course of the inspection Dodds told the owner of the house that unless she arranged to move all the boxes out of the way, he would have to indicate on his report that the attic was not inspected. The owner did not arrange to get the boxes moved and Dodds did not inspect the attic. At the conclusion of his inspection of the property described above, Dodds filled out an inspection report form and left a copy of the inspection report with the property owner. Dodds placed some check marks in some preprinted boxes on the back of the inspection report form. Those check marks included one that indicated "attic not available for inspection." Shortly thereafter, the house was sold to a new owner who, shortly after moving in, discovered what appeared to him to be evidence of possible termite infestation. Subsequent inspections of the premises by another pest control company and by an inspector of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services revealed the presence of fecal pellets left behind by dry wood termites. The termite fecal pellets were discovered in the attic near the crawl space opening. There was no other evidence of the presence of termites. No live termites were seen on either of the follow-up inspections.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a final order in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent, James M. Dodds. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of March, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 11th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha F. Barrera, Esquire, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Mr. James M. Dodds Creative Construction Services, Inc. P. O. Box 38-1996, Miami, Florida 33138 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Facility Permit No. 003397-013-SO (the Permit) should be revoked and the facility closed for the reasons stated in the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department's) Notice of Revocation (Notice) issued on July 31, 2014.
Findings Of Fact A. The Parties, the Property, and the Dispute The Department administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 403 and the rules promulgated thereunder, including those applicable to construction and demolition debris (C & D) disposal facilities. Respondent is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns real property located at 6990 Rolling Hills Road, Pensacola, Escambia County (County), Florida. The large, odd- shaped parcel (whose exact size is unknown) is south-southwest of the intersection of Interstate 10 and Pensacola Boulevard (U.S. Highway 29) and has Class III fresh surface waters running in a northeast-southwest direction through the middle of the property. See Resp. Ex. 28. The entire site is surrounded by a six-foot tall fence or is separated from adjoining properties by natural barriers. A railroad track borders on the eastern side of the parcel; the western boundary fronts on Rolling Hills Road; and the northern boundary appears to be just south of West Pinestead Road. Id. The area immediately south of the parcel appears to be largely undeveloped. See Dept. Ex. 40. The Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA), a local government body, has an easement that runs along the eastern side of the property adjacent to the railroad track on which a 48-inch sewer pipe is located. An older residential area, known as Wedgewood, is located northeast of the facility on the north side of West Pinestead Road. Id. The closest Wedgewood homes appear to be around 400 or 500 feet from the edge of Respondent's property. A community and recreational center, the Marie K. Young Center, also known as the Wedgewood Center, serves the Wedgewood community, is northwest of the facility, and lies around 500 feet from the edge of the property. Established in 2012 where a school once stood, it has more than 200 members. Although non- parties, it is fair to say that the Wedgewood community and County strongly support the Department's efforts to revoke Respondent's permit. Respondent acquired the property in 2007. At that time, an existing C & D disposal facility (the facility) was located on the property operating under a permit issued by the Department. The Permit was renewed in February 2013 and will expire in early 2018. Besides the general and specific conditions, the renewed Permit incorporates the terms and conditions of a Consent Order executed in November 2012, as well as detailed requirements relating to the operation of the facility, water quality monitoring, an odor remediation plan, financial assurance and cost estimates, and closure of the facility. The latter requirements are found in four Appendices attached to the Permit. The facility operates under the name of Rolling Hills Construction and Demolition Recycling Center. All material received by the facility is disposed of in an active disposal pile known as cell 2, located in the middle of the northern section of the parcel. Cell 1, southwest of cell 2 and just east of Rolling Hills Road, was closed a number of years ago by the prior operator. Respondent operates the only C & D facility in the County.1/ It currently serves around 50 to 60 active customers, employs 16 persons, and operates between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The former manager, Charles Davidson, who had overseen operations since 2010, was replaced in June 2014, and Respondent blames him for ignoring or failing to address most of the problems encountered during the last three years. Since June, the managing partner of the LLC, Scott C. Miller, has overseen the operations. Unlike Class I or III landfills, a C & D landfill may accept only construction and demolition debris. Construction and demolition debris is defined as "discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature." § 403.703(6), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 701.200(24). Debris includes not only items such as steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber that are typically associated with construction or demolition projects, but also rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter that normally result from land clearing or land development operations. Id. No solid waste other than construction and demolition debris may be disposed of at the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 701.730(4)(d). To address and resolve certain violations that predated the renewal of the Permit, the Department and Respondent entered into a Consent Order on November 14, 2012. See Dept. Ex. 2. These violations occurred in 2011 and included the storage and/or disposal of non-C & D debris, and a failure to timely submit an appropriate Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Id. Among other things, the Consent Order required that within a time certain Respondent submit for Department review and approval an RAP; and after its approval to "continue to follow the time frames and requirements of Chapter 62-780, F.A.C." Id. Those requirements included the initiation of an active remediation system and site rehabilitation within a time certain, and the continued monitoring and related corrective action for any water quality violations or impacts. Id. To ensure that it has the financial ability to undertake any required corrective action, the Permit requires Respondent to provide proof of financial assurance for the corrective action program cost estimates. See Fla. Admin. Code 62-701.730(11)(d); § 2, Spec. Cond. F.1. This can be done through a number of mechanisms, such as a performance bond, letter of credit, or cash escrow. The Permit also requires Respondent to provide proof of financial assurance to demonstrate that it has the financial ability to close the facility and otherwise provide for the long-term care cost estimates of the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.630; § 2, Spec. Cond. F.2. Rather than using a cash escrow or letter of credit, Respondent has chosen to use a performance bond for both requirements. These bonds must be updated annually to include an inflation adjustment. Given the many requirements imposed by the Permit and Consent Order, in 2013 and 2014 several follow-up site inspections of the facility were conducted by the Department, and a review of the operations was made to determine if the various deadlines had been met. Also, in 2014, the Department received complaints from the County and neighboring property owners, almost exclusively by those residing in the Wedgewood community, regarding offensive odors emanating from the facility. Based on field observations, the review of operations, and odor complaints, on July 31, 2014, the Department issued a Notice containing eight counts of wrongdoing. The Notice was issued under section 403.087(7)(b), which authorizes the Department to revoke a permit when it finds the permit holder has "[v]iolated law, department orders, rules, or regulations, or permit conditions." To Respondent's consternation, the Department opted to use that enforcement mechanism rather than initiating an enforcement action under section 403.121 or executing another consent order, both of which would likely result in a sanction less severe than permit revocation.2/ The Notice contains the following charges: exceeding surface water quality standards in rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530 (Count I); failing to implement an RAP as required by the Consent Order and Permit (Count II); failing to provide adequate financial assurances for facility closure costs (Count III); failing to provide financial assurances for the corrective action required by the RAP (Count IV); failing to reduce on-site and off-site objectionable odors and to implement a routine odor monitoring program (Count V); disposing non-C & D waste on site (Count VI); failing to remove unauthorized waste (Count VII); and disposing solid waste outside of its permitted (vertical) dimension of 130 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (Count VIII). These allegations are discussed separately below. Although the Notice is based on violations that occurred on or before July 31, 2014, the undersigned denied the Department's motion in limine that would preclude Respondent from presenting mitigating evidence concerning circumstances surrounding the violations and efforts to remediate them after July 31, 2014. Given that ruling, the Department was allowed to present evidence to show that Respondent's remediation efforts have not been successful and that some violations still existed as of the date of final hearing. Respondent disputes the allegations and contends that most, if not all, are either untrue, inaccurate, have been remedied, or are in the process of being remedied. As noted above, Respondent considers the revocation of its permit too harsh a penalty in light of its continued efforts to comply with Department rules and enforcement guidelines. It contends that the Department is acting at the behest of the County, which desires to close the facility to satisfy the odor complaints of the Wedgewood residents, and to ultimately use the property for a new road that it intends to build in the future. Count I - Water Quality Violations The Notice alleges that two water quality monitoring reports filed by Respondent reflect that it exceeded surface water quality standards at two monitoring locations (MW-2 and SW-6) sampled on August 26, 2013, and at one monitoring location (MW-2) sampled on March 4, 2014. The Notice alleges that these exceedances constitute a failure to comply with Class III fresh surface water quality standards in rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530 and therefore violate conditions in the Permit. These standards apply in areas beyond the edge of the discharge area (or zone of discharge) established by the Permit. To ensure compliance with water quality standards, when the Permit was renewed in 2013, a Water Quality Monitoring Report (Appendix 3) was attached to the Permit. It required Respondent to monitor surface water for contamination, identify the locations at which samples must be collected, and specify the testing parameters. All of these conditions were accepted by Respondent and its consultant(s). The monitoring network, already in place when Respondent purchased the facility, consists of six ground water monitoring wells and three surface water monitoring stations. The surface water stations, which must be sampled to determine compliance with water quality criteria, are SW-5, a background location, and SW-6 and MW-2, both compliance locations located outside the zone of discharge. A background location is placed upstream of an activity in order to determine the quality of the water before any impacts by the activity. A compliance location is placed downstream of an activity to determine any impacts of the facility on surface water. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Permit require Respondent to submit semi-annual water quality reports. To conduct the preparation and filing of the reports, Respondent used an outside consulting firm, Enviro Pro Tech, Inc. (EPT). On November 5, 2013, EPT submitted a Second Semi-Annual 2013 report. See Dept. Ex. 5. According to Mr. Miller, who now oversees operations at the facility, EPT did not provide Respondent a copy of the report, or even discuss its findings, before filing it with the Department. A Department engineer reviewed the report and noted that surface water samples exceeded the Class III Fresh Water Quality Standards for iron, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, and mercury at SW-6 and for iron at MW-2. See Dept. Ex. 6. A copy of the Department's report was provided to Respondent and EPT. Notably, the report indicated that background levels were lower than the down-gradient results. Under Department protocol, if the samples at the compliance locations exceed both the regulatory levels and the background, there is a violation of water quality standards. This accepted protocol differs from Respondent's suggested protocol that the background level should be added to the regulatory standard before a comparison with the sample results is made. In sum, except for the reported nickel value at SW-6, a violation which the Department now says it will not pursue, all exceedances shown on Department Exhibits 5 and 6 are violations of the standards. On April 1, 2014, EPT submitted a First Semi-Annual 2014 report. See Dept. Ex. 7. A Department engineer reviewed the report and noted that the surface water samples at one monitoring location, MW-2, did not meet water quality standards for iron; however, background levels for iron were much higher than downstream. See Dept. Ex. 8. No other exceedances were shown. Although the Department engineer considered the higher background level for iron to be an "inconsistency" since it varied from the prior reports, the reported iron value was treated as a violation when the Notice was drafted. In its PRO, however, the Department concedes that it did not establish a violation of standards for iron, as alleged in paragraph 7 of the Notice. While having no concerns with sampling taken at MW-2, Respondent's expert contends that the reported values for SW-6 are unreliable because the samples taken from that location were turbid and filled with large amounts of suspended solid matter. He noted that the well is located in a wetland area that is "clogged with vegetation." The expert estimated the turbidity at the site to be in the range of 480 to 500 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) and believes the sample was taken in a "high turbid sediment laden area," thus rendering it unreliable. However, at the time of the sample collection, turbidity was measured at 164 NTUs, or much less than the amount estimated by the expert. See Dept. Ex. 5, p. 147. There is no rule or procedure that disallows the use of turbid samples. In fact, they can be representative of actual water quality. Also, rule 62-302.500(2)(d) provides that if an applicant for a C & D permit believes that turbid samples are not representative of water quality, it may use filtered samples by establishing a "translator" during the permitting process. Respondent did not request a translator during the permitting process, nor is any such translator provision found in the Permit. The expert also criticized EPT for holding the 2013 sample for iron for 22 days after collection before reanalyzing it without providing any explanation for this delay. A reasonable inference to draw from the data, however, is that iron was present in the original sample at levels that required dilution and reanalysis. Respondent's expert testified that even though off- site stormwater is discharged onto the property, no offsite monitoring locations exist, and therefore any offsite exceedances would not be reported. He also criticized the sampling locations that were selected by EPT. In fairness to Respondent, a repositioning of the monitoring network and retesting of the samples might have produced more favorable results. But these are measures that should have been addressed long before this proceeding was initiated. Finally, Respondent's expert testified that the implementation of its RAP, now partially completed, will cure all of the reported exceedances. Assuming this unrefuted testimony is true, it should be taken into account in determining an appropriate penalty. Count II - Failure to Implement an RAP In this Count, the Department alleges that after the issuance of an RAP Approval Order on July 3, 2013, Respondent was required to implement the RAP within 120 days. The Notice alleges that as of July 31, 2014, the RAP had not been implemented. An RAP was first filed by Respondent on November 15, 2010. See Dept. Ex. 3. When the Department determined that changes to the RAP were necessary, the Consent Order imposed a requirement that an RAP addendum be filed within 150 days. The date on which the addendum was filed is not known. However, an RAP Approval Order was issued on July 3, 2013. See Dept. Ex. 4. The terms and conditions in the RAP were incorporated into the renewed Permit. The work required by the RAP consists of two phases, with all work to be completed within 365 days, or by early July 2014. Phase I related to the initiation of an active remediation system within 120 days, or by October 31, 2013. This phase requires Respondent to install a pump and treat system at the facility, which will withdraw contaminated groundwater through recovery wells, pump the water to aeration basins to treat the water, and then re-infiltrate the treated water back into the ground. As noted below, the system was not operational until the second week in December 2014. Respondent's failure to implement the approved RAP by the established deadline constitutes a violation of rules 62- 780.700(11) and 62-780.790 and Permit conditions, as charged in the Notice. While Respondent concedes that it did not comply with the deadline for implementing the RAP, it points out that work on Phase I was begun in a timely manner. However, on October 16, 2013, or just before the 120 days had run, a Notice of Violation was issued by the County. See Resp. Ex. 2. The effect of the Notice of Violation was to halt much of the work on Phase I until Respondent obtained a County stormwater permit. Respondent asserts that this was responsible for all, or most, of the delay. The record shows that the EPT consultant did not apply for the County permit until September 10, 2014, or almost one year after the Notice of Violation was issued. Additional information was required by the County, which was supplied on October 23, 2014, but final sealed documents were not filed by the consultant until around Thanksgiving. The permit was issued by the County "a week or so" before the final hearing. Respondent attributes the delay in applying for a County permit to its former manager and his failure to coordinate with the EPT engineers assigned to the project. It also claims that the County failed to process the application in an expeditious fashion. However, the facts suggest otherwise. Once the permit was issued, Phase I was completed on December 8, 2014, and it was operational at the time of the final hearing. Respondent's expert, hired in August 2014, has proposed a modification to the RAP that would avoid impacting the existing stormwater pond. However, the modification must be reviewed and approved by the Department, and as of the date of the hearing, it had not been formally submitted. The Department asserts that the only reason the modification is being sought is to reduce the cost of a performance bond. In any event, in its PRO, Respondent does not argue that the proposed modification excuses its 13-month delay in completing the requirements of Phase I, or the second phase of the project, which should have been completed by early July 2014. Count III - Failure to Provide Financial Assurance This Count alleges that Respondent failed to provide the required annual 2014 financial assurance mechanism that demonstrates proof of financial assurance for closure and long- term cost estimates of the facility. At the beginning of 2014, Respondent had an $836,000.00 financial performance bond in place for closure and long-term costs. The Permit requires that on or before March 1 of each year Respondent revise the closure cost estimates to account for inflation in accordance with rule 62-701.630(4). See § 2, Spec. Cond. F.2. Once the estimates are approved, the performance bond must be updated within 60 days. In this case, an increase of around $18,000.00 was required. The annual inflation adjustment estimate was not submitted until April 15, 2014. The Department approved the cost estimates the following day and established a due date of June 16, 2014, for submitting a revised financial assurance. Respondent did not have a revised performance bond in place until a "week or two" before the hearing. Other than Respondent's manager indicating that he had a new bonding agent, no evidence was presented to mitigate this violation. The failure to timely update its financial assurance for closure and long-term costs constitutes a violation of rule 62-701.630, as charged in the Notice. Count IV - Financial Assurances for Corrective Action In the same vein as Count III, the Notice alleges that Respondent failed to maintain a financial assurance mechanism to demonstrate proof that it can undertake the corrective action program required under the RAP. Respondent was required to submit proof of financial assurance for corrective actions within 120 days after the corrective action remedy was selected. On July 3, 2013, the RAP Approval Order selected the appropriate remedy. On August 8, 2013, the Department approved Respondent's corrective action program cost estimates of $566,325.85 and established a deadline of October 31, 2013, for Respondent to submit this proof. When the Notice was issued, a corrective action bond had not been secured, and none was in place at the time of the final hearing. This constitutes a violation of rule 62-701.730(11)(d) and applicable Permit conditions. Respondent's manager, Mr. Miller, concedes that this requirement has not been met. He testified that he was not aware a new bond was required until he took over management of the facility and met with Department staff on June 17, 2014. Due to the Notice, Mr. Miller says he has had significant difficulty in securing a bond. He explained that the bonding company is extremely reluctant to issue a bond to an entity faced with possible revocation of its permit, especially if such revocation might occur within a matter of months. Mr. Miller says the bonding company wants 100 percent collateralization to put a bond in place. Nonetheless, he is confident that a bond can be secured if only because its cost will dramatically drop when the RAP project is completed. However, even at hearing, he gave no timeline on when this requirement will be fulfilled. Count V - Objectionable Odors One of the driving forces behind the issuance of the Notice is the complaint about off-site objectionable odors. A considerable amount of testimony was devoted to this issue by witnesses representing the Department, County, Wedgewood community, and Respondent. The Notice alleges that during routine inspections in April, May, and July 2014, mainly in response to citizen complaints, Department inspectors detected objectionable odors both at the facility and off-site. The Notice further alleges that Respondent failed to immediately take steps to reduce the odors, submit an odor remediation plan, and implement that plan in violation of rules 62-296.320(2) and 62-701.730(7)(e) and section 2, Specific Condition E of the Permit. Notably, the Department has never revoked a landfill permit due solely to objectionable odors. Several Department rules apply to this Count. First, objectionable odors are defined in rule 62-210.200(200). Second, a C & D facility must control objectionable odors in accordance with rule 62-296.320(2). Finally, if odors are detected off-site, the facility must comply with the requirements of rule 62-701.530(3)(b). That rule provides that once off-site odors have been confirmed, as they were here, the facility must "immediately take steps to reduce the objectionable odors," "submit to the Department for approval an odor remediation plan," and "implement a routine odor monitoring program to determine the timing and extent of any off-site odors, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the odor remediation plan." These same regulatory requirements are embodied in the Permit conditions. See § 2, Spec. Cond. E. At least occasionally, every landfill has objectionable odors emanating from the facility. As one expert noted, "The trick is, how can you treat it." The technical witnesses who addressed this issue agree that the breakdown of drywall, wall board, and gypsum board, all commonly recycled at C & D facilities, will produce hydrogen sulfide, which has a very strong "rotten egg" type smell. The most effective techniques for reducing or eliminating these odors are to spray reactant on the affected areas, place more cover, such as dirt or hydrated lime, on the pile, and have employees routinely patrol the perimeters of the property and the active cell to report any odors that they smell. Although the facility has been accepting waste products for a number of years, the last seven by Respondent, there is no evidence that the Department was aware of any odor complaints before April 2014. While not an active participant in the operations until recently, Mr. Miller also testified that he was unaware of any citizen complaints being reported to the facility prior to that date. However, in response to citizen complaints that more than likely were directed initially to the County, on April 14, 21, and 24, 2014, the Department conducted routine inspections of the facility. During at least one of the visits, objectionable odors were detected both on-site, emanating from cell 2, and off-site on West Pinestead Road, just north of the facility. See Dept. Ex. 14. Because the inspector created a single report for all three visits, he was unsure whether odors were detected on more than one visit. After the inspection report was generated, Department practice was to send a copy by email to the facility's former manager, Mr. Davidson. A Department engineer who accompanied the inspector on at least one visit in April 2014 testified that she has visited the site on several occasions, and on two of those visits, the odor was strong enough to make her physically ill. On a follow-up inspection by the Department on May 22, 2014, the inspector did not detect any objectionable odors. See Dept. Ex. 17. In June 2014, however, a County inspector visited the Wedgewood Center area in response to a complaint that dust was coming from the facility. He testified that he detected a rotten egg type smell on the Wedgewood Center property. At a meeting attended by Mr. Miller and County and Department representatives on June 17, 2014, the Department advised Respondent of its findings and provided Mr. Miller with copies of the inspection reports. On July 1, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility. The inspector noted a hydrogen sulfide odor on the north, south, and west sides of the disposal area of the facility, and on the top of the disposal pile at the facility. See Dept. Ex. 18. Another inspection conducted on July 9, 2014, did not find any objectionable odors. See Dept. Ex. 19. On July 18, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility. The inspector again noted objectionable odors at the facility but none off-site. Id. On July 24, 2014, Department inspectors noted objectionable odors on top of the pile, the toe of the north slopes, and off-site on West Pinestead Road. See Dept. Ex. 20. An inspection performed the following day noted objectionable odors on top of the pile and the toe of the north slopes, but none off-site. Id. The Notice, which was already being drafted in mid-July, was issued a week later. In response to the meeting on June 17, 2014, Respondent prepared a draft odor remediation plan, made certain changes suggested by the Department, and then submitted a revised odor remediation plan prior to July 31, 2014. A Department engineer agrees that "in the strict sense it meets the requirements of the rule" and "could work," but there are "two or three things that still needed . . . to be submitted in order for it to be completely approvable." For example, she was uncertain as to how and when dirt cover would be applied, and how erosion would be controlled. Although the plan was filed, it was never formally approved or rejected, and the "two or three things" that the witness says still needed to be done were never disclosed to Respondent. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to accept Respondent's assertion that it assumed the plan was satisfactory and complied with the rule. After the Notice was issued, Respondent set up a hotline for community members to call and report odors. A sign on the property gives a telephone number to call in the event of odors. At an undisclosed point in time, Respondent began requiring employees to walk the perimeter of the facility each day to monitor for odors; spreading and mixing hydrated lime to reduce the odors around the facility; and increasing the amount of cover applied to the working face of the facility. The parties agree that these measures are the best available practices to monitor and eliminate objectionable odors at a C & D facility. Despite these good faith measures, Mr. Miller acknowledged that he visited the facility during the evening a few days before the final hearing in December 2014 and smelled hydrogen sulfide around the ECUA sewer pipe and "a very mild level" by the debris pile. Respondent does not deny that odors were emanating from the facility during the months leading up to the issuance of the Notice. But in April 2014, the County experienced a 500- year storm event which caused significant flooding and damaged a number of homes. Because Respondent operates the only C & D facility in the County and charges less than the County landfill, it received an abnormal amount of soaked and damaged C & D debris, which it contends could have generated some, if not all, of the odors that month. Given the magnitude of the storm, this is a reasonable explanation for the source of the odors at that time. Respondent also presented evidence that an underground ECUA sewer pipe that runs on the eastern side of the property was damaged during the storm, causing it to rupture and be exposed. Although ECUA eventually repaired the damaged pipe at a later date, the pipe is still exposed above ground. Until the pipe was repaired, Respondent's assumption that it likely contributed to some of the odors detected by the Department appears to be valid. Finally, Respondent's expert attributes some of the odors to biological degradation from other sources both on-site and off-site, including a large wetland area running through the middle of the property. To a small degree, County testing later that fall confirms this assertion. The County has also been an active participant in the odor complaint issue. In response to complaints received from residents of Wedgewood, in July 2014 it began collecting hydrogen sulfide data using a device known as the Jerome 631X Hydrogen Sulfur Detector. This equipment is used to monitor for the presence of hydrogen sulfur. On July 21 and 22, 2014, samples were taken documenting that hydrogen sulfide was coming from the facility. In early September the County set up a fixed station at the Wedgewood Center, around 500 feet from the edge of Respondent's property, to continuously and automatically collect the data. During September and October 2014 the detector reported the presence of hydrogen sulfide at that location 64 percent of the days in those months, and this continued into the month of November. Seventy-five percent of the exceedances occurred when wind was blowing from the south, or when winds were calm. The data also reflected that when the wind was blowing from the meter to the facility, or to the south, hydrogen sulfide was still detected on some occasions. A resident of the Wedgewood community testified that on multiple occasions she has smelled objectionable odors in her home and yard and at the Wedgewood Center, and that these odors have been emanating from the facility for a number of years. Because of the odors, she says fewer citizens are participating in programs hosted by the Wedgewood Center.3/ The evidence establishes that before the Notice was issued, Respondent filed an odor remediation plan that was never rejected; therefore, the allegation that a plan was not submitted has not been proven. However, objectionable odors were detected off-site in June and July 2014, or after the April inspection reports were provided to the facility, and they continued throughout much of the fall. Therefore, the Department has established that the plan was not properly implemented. These same findings sustain the allegation that steps were not immediately taken to reduce the objectionable odors. Counts VI and VII - Disposal and Failure to Remove Unauthorized Waste Counts VI and VII allege that on April 14, 2014, the Department documented the disposal of prohibited or unauthorized waste, including waste tires; and that on July 18, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection that documented the disposal of unauthorized waste, including waste tires, clothing, shoes, and Class I waste, including one electronic item and a grill, in violation of rule 62-701.730(4)(d). The Permit specifies that the facility can only accept for disposal C & D debris. See § 2, Spec. Cond. C.2. Another condition provides that if unauthorized debris is spotted after a load is received, the unpermitted waste should be removed and placed in temporary storage in a bin at the sorting area. See § 2, Spec. Cond. C.3. The Operations Plan spells out these procedures in great detail. Photographs received in evidence show that during the inspection on April 14, 2014, the following unauthorized items were observed at the facility: tires, a basketball goal, Quiklube material, chromated copper arsenate treated wood, a toy, and a crushed electronic item. See Dept. Ex. 22. Photographs received in evidence show that during an inspection on July 18, 2014, the following unauthorized items were observed at the facility: blanket or clothing, a shoe, a bag of Class I garbage, several bags of household garbage, furniture, an electronic item and garbage, drilling mud, a suitcase, and tires. See Dept. Ex. 23. Respondent's expert, who has trained numerous spotters, including a current Department inspector, established that a de minimis amount of unpermitted waste, which is easily hidden in the debris, is not unusual and would not constitute a violation of the rule. For example, when a building is torn down, numerous thermostats containing mercury vile will be in a C & D container but very difficult to see. Also, workers at construction sites may throw small amounts of leftover food in the pile of debris that goes to the facility. However, he agrees that most, if not all, of the items observed during the two inspections would not be considered de minimis. Respondent does not deny that the unauthorized waste was present on two occasions. However, it contends that one would expect to find some of the items in a C & D dumpster. It also argues that the amount of unauthorized waste was minimal and not so serious as to warrant revocation of its Permit. The evidence supports a finding that on two occasions Respondent violated two conditions in its Permit by accepting non-C & D waste and failing to remove it. Therefore, the charges in Counts VI and VII have been proven. Count VIII - Facility Outside of Permitted Dimensions This Count alleges that on May 22, 2014, the Department conducted an inspection of the facility in response to a complaint that Respondent had disposed of solid waste outside its permitted (vertical) limit of 130 NGVD; that on July 25, 2014, the Department had a survey performed at the facility that confirmed this violation; and that this activity violated section 2.3 of the facility's Operation Plan and Specific Condition C.10 in the Permit. Section 2.3 provides that "the proposed upper elevation of waste at the [facility] will range up to 130-feet, NGVD, which is slightly above original grade[,]" while Specific Condition C.10 provides that "[t]he final (maximum) elevation of the disposal facility shall not exceed 130 feet NGVD as shown on Attachment 3 - Cell 2 Closure Grading Plan." Respondent admits that on July 25, 2014, the maximum height of the disposal pile exceeded 130 feet NGVD. However, it argues that, pursuant to Specific Condition C.10, which in turn refers to the Permit's Cell 2 Closure Grading Plan, the 130-foot height limitation comes into play only when cell 2 is being closed and is no longer active. This interpretation of the conditions is rejected for at least two reasons. First, a disposal pile in excess of the established height would trigger concerns about the integrity of the foundation of the facility. When the 130-foot ceiling was established by the Department at the permitting stage, it was based on calculations that the ground could support the weight of the waste. Second, the facility's financial assurance calculations are based on a set dimension of the site; these calculations would likely be impacted if there were no height restrictions. The Department's interpretation is more reasonable and limits the height of the pile to no more than 130 feet NVGD at any time when the cell is active. The Department has established that Respondent violated Permit conditions by disposing of waste outside its maximum permitted height of 130 feet NVGD. To Respondent's credit, its new consultant, Charles Miller, completed preparation of a height reduction plan on September 3, 2014. See Resp. Ex. 4. Although Mr. Miller says the plan was being implemented at the time of final hearing, it has never been formally submitted to the Department for approval. Under the plan, Respondent proposes to extract all of the existing waste from the pile in the next two years. To reduce the volume of new waste being accepted, Respondent recently purchased a Caterpillar bulldozer, low-speed grinder, and Trommel screener. New waste will be shredded, screened to separate sand and dirt from the material, and then ground and compacted. Mr. Miller anticipates that the facility can achieve up to an eight to one (or at a minimum a five to one) reduction in the size of the waste. This will dramatically reduce the height of the pile and bring it well below 130 feet at closure. But whether cell 2 is now below 130 feet NGVD is unknown. In any event, these proposed remediation steps should be taken into account in assessing an appropriate penalty.
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 revoking Respondent's C & D Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 2nd day of March, 2015.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Redd’s Cleaners, DEP Facility No. 139502588 is eligible for state-administered cleanup under the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program pursuant to Section 376.3078, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Metropolitan Dade County (Petitioner) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 24, Metropolitan Dade County Code, Petitioner regulates, among other things, the use, storage, and disposal of industrial wastes and hazardous substances in Dade County. Sekoff Investments, Inc. (Intervenor) is a Florida corporation and is the owner of commercial real property located at 5821 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida. Intervenor is a "real property owner" as defined by Section 376.301(25), Florida Statutes (1995). Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) is an agency of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapters 20, 376, and 403, Florida Statutes, Respondent DEP has jurisdiction, among other things, over the regulation and protection of the State's surface waters, groundwater, and other natural resources. From 1956 to December 1994, Intervenor leased its property to "drycleaning facilities," as that term is defined by Section 376.301(8), Florida Statutes (1995), which operated under the name "Redd's Cleaners" (Respondent Cleaners). Intervenor was not an owner of the drycleaning facilities, nor did it participate in their management or operation. Intervenor's property has never been served by sewers and has a septic tank. Intervenor's property is not in an area served by private drinking water wells or in a cone of influence of a County wellfield. Starting in 1988, Petitioner began inspecting drycleaning facilities and requiring them to obtain operating permits pursuant to Section 24, Metropolitan Dade County Code. On February 28, 1989, Petitioner issued Operating Permit No. IW5-3387-88 to Jen-Dan, Inc., d/b/a Respondent Cleaners. Operating Permit Nos. IW5-3387-89, IW5-3387-90, IW5-3387-91, IW5-3387-92, and IW5-3387-94 were subsequently issued for the period between April, 1989 through April, 1995. On October 14, 1993, Petitioner collected soil and groundwater samples from the septic tank and storm drain/soakage pit at Intervenor's property and discovered elevated levels of perchloroethylene, a "drycleaning solvent," as that term is defined by Section 376.301(9), Florida Statutes (1995). On March 15, 1994, Petitioner issued Respondent Cleaners and Intervenor a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action (NOV). The NOV provided that the presence of drycleaning solvents in the septic tank and storm drain/soakage pit violated Sections 24-11, 24-13, 24-14, 24-26, and 24-55, Metropolitan Dade County Code, and ordered Respondent Cleaners and Intervenor to submit a formal plan for the assessment and cleanup of the drycleaning solvent contamination. The cited provisions of the Dade County Code generally provide that it is unlawful to throw, drain, run, seep, or otherwise discharge industrial or liquid wastes into septic tanks, sewers, or waters of the County; to cause or maintain a nuisance or sanitary nuisance as defined by the Metropolitan Dade County Code; or to violate any provision or condition of an operating permit. Intervenor hired the environmental consulting firm, REP Associates, Inc., which prepared and submitted to Petitioner a Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP) dated April 21, 1994. By letter dated May 5, 1994, Petitioner approved the CAP with modifications, and required the immediate pump out and disposal of the contaminated contents of the septic tank and storm drain/soakage pit. In May and June, 1994, Intervenor began collecting soil, groundwater, and sediment samples from the septic tank and storm drain, and installed a groundwater monitoring well, as required by the CAP. The test results disclosed the presence of drycleaning solvents in the soils and groundwater at Intervenor's property. The contaminants in the septic tank and storm drain/soakage pit were a source or a likely source of soil and groundwater contamination at the facility. On May 8, 1994, Respondent DEP announced that it was suspending all enforcement actions against drycleaning facilities based on the Florida Legislature's anticipated passage of the Florida Drycleaning Solvent Contamination Cleanup Act (Drycleaning Act). On June 3, 1994, the Drycleaning Act became effective. On August 23, 1994, Petitioner mailed Intervenor and Respondent Cleaners a Final Notice Prior to Court Action stating that they were not in strict compliance with the deadlines set forth in the NOV. On September 22, 1994, Intervenor submitted to Petitioner a Report of Sampling and Analysis summarizing the results of the work performed in May and June, 1994. By letter dated September 23, 1994, Intervenor further advised Petitioner that it would be applying for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Contamination Cleanup Program (Drycleaning Cleanup Program) as soon as Respondent DEP promulgated the necessary implementation rules. Intervenor proposed that Petitioner approve a no further action plan pending its notice of eligibility under the Drycleaning Act. By letter dated September 30, 1994, Petitioner disapproved Intervenor's no further action plan. Petitioner again notified Intervenor and Respondent Cleaners that they must immediately remove and dispose of the contents of the septic tank and storm drain. In December, 1994, Intervenor evicted Respondent Cleaners. Since that date, the former drycleaning facility has remained vacant. On July 18, 1995, Intervenor's environmental consultants removed and properly disposed of the contents of the septic tank and storm drain. 18.1 On October 3, 1995, Intervenor's consultants advanced new soil borings and installed a new groundwater monitoring well. Groundwater samples were collected on October 24, 1995. 19.2 On February 21, 1996, Intervenor submitted its Contamination Assessment Report Addendum to Petitioner, summarizing the results of the work performed in July and October, 1995, and requesting a monitoring only plan (MOP). By letter dated February 29, 1996, Petitioner disapproved Intervenor's proposed MOP. 20. In March 1996, Respondent DEP began to accept applications for the Drycleaning Cleanup Program. Intervenor submitted its application for Respondent Cleaners on March 8, 1996. 21.3 By letter dated June 11, 1996, Respondent DEP approved Intervenor's application and determined that Respondent Cleaners' drycleaning facility was eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Cleanup Program. By Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing served July 11, 1996, Petitioner appealed Respondent DEP's eligibility determination. According to Petitioner, Intervenor's failure to timely comply with Petitioner's order to assess and remediate Respondent Cleaners constitutes gross negligence in the operation of the cleaner, thereby precluding its eligibility in the Drycleaning Cleanup Program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order finding Redd's Cleaners, DEP Facility No. 139502588 eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Contamination Cleanup Program.DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The Department (DER) is the regulatory agency of Florida charged with the duty and authority to administer and enforce Chapter 403 and Sections 376.30-376.319, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Hendry is a Florida corporation that has been conducting business in excess of 60 years. The two main aspects of its business are the dredging operation and the shipyard. Hendry's site can be loosely described as an industrial site. The shipyard division performs approximately one-half its work for governmental entities, particularly the U.S. Coast Guard, which operations are largely ship refurbishing. Hendry has a Coast Guard certificate enabling it to receive mixtures containing oil and oily water waste. A significant portion of Hendry's ship refurbishing work involves repairing/replacing steel on ships which has deteriorated due to salt water exposure. That work frequently requires cutting, welding and burning. Prior to commencing the refurbrushing work, the ships must be certified as safe. In certifying a ship as being safe, the bilge area is pumped of used oil or waste oil which collects in standing waste water and oil. Also, before that works commences, the ship is defueled. Currently, Hendry's practice is to subcontract the pumping of waste oil from the ships bilge, which waste oil is pumped directly into the tanker truck of the subcontractor. Hendry no longer pumps or stores waste oil on site. In the past, the waste oil and water from the ship's bilge was pumped from the ship through a pipeline from the dry dock across the property to a 10,000 gallon above-ground storage tank. During December 1987, the U.S. Coast Guard observed a fuel spill on the water at Petitioner's facility. Based on that observation, Respondent conducted site inspections of Petitioner's facility during March and April 1988. The fuel spill was occasioned by Petitioner's refurbishment of a tuna boat at its site. Petitioner subsequently received a warning notice regarding alleged violations in its petroleum storage tanks and contamination. The transfer pipeline is of steel construction. Between 1980 and 1984, the pipeline leaked. In 1984, the pipeline was rerun with PVC line and in 1986, it was refitted with 4 inch steel pipe. The 10,000 gallon above-ground tank is located in Area 1. The removal of waste oil occasionally resulted in accidental spills. After 1985, a smaller, above-ground tank was installed adjacent to the 10,000 gallon tank to provide a storage tank for draining off water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The small tank was used to receive only water drained from the 10,000 gallon tank. Prior to installation of the small tank, a retention pond was used to drain water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The retention pond had a 2 foot berm with a visqueen liner. In October 1988, Hendry submitted an EDI Program Notification Application, a prerequisite for EDI reimbursement eligibility, under the program for costs associated with cleanup of certain petroleum contamination. In May 1989, Hendry submitted a document entitled Preliminary Contamination Assessment III Specific Areas--Task IV Rattlesnake Terminal Facility--Westshore Boulevard, Hillsborough County prepared by Mortensen Engineering, Inc. That document included reports of analysis of oil and groundwater samples taken from the site in January, March and April 1989, demonstrating extensive contamination of soil and groundwater including "free product" in monitoring wells MW-2, MW-4 and MW-4A. By letter dated November 9, 1989, the Department informed Hendry of its determination that the facility had been denied EDI reimbursement based on specific enumerated findings. Hendry entered into a stipulation with the Department on October 16, 1990, "regarding the conduct of this case and the basis for denial. " Attached to the stipulation is a sketch of the facility grounds showing a rough division of the area into four separate areas. Area 1 has two waste tanks. One was a large 10,000 gallon closed tank approximately 20 feet high and 12 feet in diameter; the other contained a volume of approximately 1,500-2,000 gallons and was an open tank. Petitioner's practice was to pump bilge in the dry dock area, located west of "Area 2" and direct the waste through underground pipes to the 10,000 gallon tank. The smaller tank was used to "bleed" water from the larger tank. Bilge waste is approximately two-thirds water. Area 2 was the location of Hendry's diesel tank farm. In the stipulation, the Department agreed to withdraw two of the seven specific grounds for the denial, namely denial of site access and failure to report discharges. Likewise, Hendry agreed to withdraw "Area 4" from its application for EDI eligibility. In the stipulation, Hendry was informed of a then recent amendment to Section 376.3071(9), which offered certain applicants who had been earlier determined ineligible for participation in the EDI program, standards and procedures for obtaining reconsideration of eligibility. The amendment required the facility to come into compliance, certify that compliance and request reconsideration prior to March 31, 1991. Additionally, compliance was to be verified by a Department inspection. Pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the stipulation, these standards and procedures were specifically to be applied to Areas 2 and 3 at the facility. Hendry did not make a written request for reconsideration of the denial of eligibility with respect to Areas 2 and 3 on or before March 31, 1991 or at anytime subsequently. Hendry also did not come into compliance with the underground or above-ground storage tanks system regulations on or before March 31, 1991 in that Hendry failed to register a 560-gallon above-ground diesel storage tank which was onsite on that date as required by Rule 17-762.400, Florida Administrative Code. Hendry also failed to notify the Department of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC), as the administrator of a designated local program at least thirty days prior to closure of the storage tank system, pursuant to Subsection 376.3073, Florida Statutes. These determinations were made on April 1, 1991 by Hector Diaz, inspector in the HCEPC tanks program. Hendry submitted a registration form for the 560-gallon tank on November 18, 1991, which was of course subsequent to the March 31, 1991 deadline. Hendry stored petroleum products and waste material including petroleum constituents in the above-ground tanks until approximately March 25, 1991 when it initiated tank removal. Hendry's above-ground storage tanks, which were in use at its facility for approximately three years after extensive soil contamination was documented, were without secondary containment. In November 1991, Hendry submitted a document entitled Supplemental Preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, prepared by Keifer-Block Environmental Services, Inc. (Supplemental PCAR). The stated purpose of the study was solely to determine whether hazardous constituents were present in groundwater in Areas 2 and 3. The report included laboratory analysis of groundwater samples taken from the site in August 1991 including monitoring wells located in Area 3. The results of these analysis reflect that Area 3 is contaminated solely with heavy metals, lead and chromium. No petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was detected in Area 3. In the area adjacent to Area 2, seven of eight monitoring wells show chromium or lead contamination. Hendry had, and continues to have, a practice of removing paint from vessels by blasting them with a gritty material known as "black beauty." This practice takes place in the dry dock area near Areas 2 and 3. The waste blast grit/paint chip mixture is vacuumed or shoveled into wheelbarrels or a frontend loader and dumped into an open pile. Occasionally, the waste blast grit/paint mixture is blown about or spilled. Waste "black beauty" has been observed scattered on the ground throughout the facility. Paints sometime contain heavy metals, specifically, lead and chromium. The concentrations and distribution of lead and chromium contamination at the site are consistent with Hendry's long-standing practice of grit-- blasting paint from ships and other vessels and allowing the metal-contaminated paint and waste mixture to fall to the ground. Areas 2 and 3 are contaminated with substances other than petroleum or petroleum products, namely heavy metals. Costs associated with cleanup of lead and chromium are not reimburseable under the EDI program. Paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation allowed Hendry an opportunity to establish eligibility for Area 1 by providing information regarding operating practices at two above-ground storage tanks and a retention pond in that area demonstrating that contamination in that area is predominantly from leaks or unintentional spills of petroleum products from the tanks in that area. Hendry did not provide the required information. On January 27, 1992, Hendry submitted to the Department an affidavit executed by its principal, Aaron Hendry, which Hendry contends fulfills the requirements of paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation. Hendry, the principal who executed the affidavit, is an affiant with a legal and financial interest in the outcome of the EDI eligibility determination. The executed affidavit did not contain specific information with respect to "operating practices at the tanks and retention ponds as required by the stipulation." Specifically, the affidavit is silent as to: What the tanks were made of; When, how and by whom they were installed; What piping, leak detection or overfill protection was associated with them; What repairs or alterations had been made to them; What inventory reconciliation methods were used; Where the materials came from which was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was removed from the tanks; Disposition of material removed from the tanks; When, how, by whom and why the retention pond was dug; How and for what period of time the retention pond was used; How, often and by whom inspections of the tanks were conducted; When and how leaks occurred and were discovered at the tanks; When and how spills occurred and were discovered at the tanks; What records, including reports to state or local agencies, insurance claims, newspaper accounts, and so forth were kept with respect to leaks or spills at the tanks; What cleanup efforts were made at the time of any leaks or spills; Documentation related to registration of the tanks with state or local agencies; and Documentation with respect to any removal of the tanks, including any description of the condition of the tanks when, or if, removed. For years, the facility's retention pit was used as a "waste pit" namely, a rectangular hole in the ground, approximately 30 feet by 120 feet by 3 feet, for direct discharge of bilge waste piped from vessels at the dry dock area to the waste pit, prior to installation of the storage tank systems. After installation of the large tank in Area 1, the retention pit was used to bleed water from the bilge tank. In the past, the Department has denied eligibility to facilities where a retention pond was used for disposal of petroleum related waste and cleanup of contamination resulting from use of a retention pond. Hendry's affidavit nor other documentation submitted to the Department prior to the EDI redetermination or at hearing establishes that the bilge waste taken from the storage tanks was "a liquid fuel commodity" or recycled into such a commodity. By letter dated June 9, 1992, the Department notified Hendry that reconsideration of its EDI eligibility request for Areas 2 and 3 was denied and that the affidavit of Aaron Hendry submitted with respect to Area 1 did not satisfy the requirements of the stipulation. Thereafter, Hendry challenged the Department's denial of reconsideration and EDI eligibility which joins the issue for this proceeding. The hazardous waste allegation discovered during an inspection of Hendry's facility on April 14, 1988, resulted in a consent order which was entered as a final order of the Department on November 21, 1990. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to demonstrate that not all areas at the facility were hazardous waste disposal areas and, thus, not all areas would be subject to closure and cleanup under the permitting requirements of Subsection 403.722, Florida Statutes and the remediation standards set forth in Chapter 17-730, Florida Administrative Code. To establish appropriate remediation standards and procedures which would be applicable to various areas, Hendry was required to prepare a property diagram designating areas at the property exhibiting any of the following types of contamination: Areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products or used oil which is not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by materials which are not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by the past or present disposal of hazardous waste. The consent order allows contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code, for areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 11.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the Department's corrective action and groundwater contamination cases for all areas at the facility contaminated by used oil which is not hazardous waste or by hazardous material. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 12.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to a closure permit with a contingent post-closure plan to close the areas at the facility contaminated by the disposal of hazardous waste. In response to the consent order to delineate areas on the property exhibiting various types of contamination, Hendry submitted the supplemental PCAR. By letter dated March 19, 1992, the Department responded to the supplemental PCAR with a determination that: Area 1 can be assessed and remediated through the standards set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code. Contamination in Areas 2 and 3 includes heavy metals, which are hazardous materials. Thus, Areas 2 and 3 should be assessed and remediated through the corrective action process for groundwater contamination cases. A hazardous waste facility closure permit application should be submitted for assessment and remediation of Area 4, which, because of the presence of Dichloroethylene, a hazardous substance and chlorinated solvent, should be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2. Hendry had a practice of cleaning electrical motors by placing such motors on the ground outside the electrical repair shop near Area 4. The motors were sprayed with Trichloroethylene, a waste solvent, which was allowed to runoff into the soil. At the time of this practice, the intention was to leave the solvent contamination unchecked. The Department, pursuant to directives from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), characterizes the disposition of hazardous waste to the environment as a result of intentional, ongoing industrial practices as "disposal of hazardous waste" within the meaning of Subsection 475.703(21), Florida Statutes and 40 CFR 260.10. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to challenge the Department's determination with respect to delineation of the various areas by filing a petition per paragraph 21 of the order for formal administrative hearings. Hendry filed its petition with respect to the March 19, 1992 letter, which petition is the subject of DOAH Case No. 92-2312.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that 1) the contamination areas at issue herein are not eligible for EDI reimbursement under Subsections 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes; 2) that Petitioner cleanup the contamination in Areas 1, 2 and 3 under the guidance document entitled "Corrective Actions for Groundwater Contamination Cases"; and 3) that Area 4 be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2 and closed through a hazardous waste closure/post closure permit application process. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 14, partially adopted in Paragraph 13, Recommended Order. Paragraph 19, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and speculative. Paragraph 20, rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 21, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 24-28, Recommended Order. Paragraph 22, partially adopted, Paragraphs 13 and 14, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, partially adopted, Paragraph 15, Recommended Order. Paragraph 29, partially adopted, Paragraph 18, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 48, 49, 51, 52, 60, 62 and 73 rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 33, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 38, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 41, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and the two cases cited at hearing where Respondent exercises his discretion are distinguishable from Petitioner's failure to timely apply. Paragraph 43, rejected, unnecessary and/or argument. Paragraph 45, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 50, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 37-39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 54, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 55, rejected, not probative. Paragraphs 56 and 57, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 58 and 59, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 23 and 24, Recommended Order. Paragraph 61, rejected, speculative and unnecessary. Paragraph 63, rejected, speculative. Paragraph 67, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 68, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraph 69, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 70, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 72, rejected, irrelevant and not necessary to the issues posed. Paragraph 74, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and unnecessary. Paragraph 75, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 76, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 77, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 78 and 79, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraph 80, rejected, not probative. Rulings in Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 2 and 3, adopted in part, Paragraph 9, Recommended Order. Paragraph 12, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, adopted in part, Paragraph 32, Recommended Order. Paragraph 27, adopted in part, Paragraphs 38 and 39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 30, rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Patka, Esquire Rory C. Ryan, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT 200 South Orange Ave - Suite 2600 Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Agusta P. Posner, Esquire Lisa Duchene, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400
