The Issue There are two issues in this case: whether the Petitioner, Thomas M. Parham, is maintaining an unpermitted stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of air or water pollution; and whether installations on Mr. Parham's property are discharging into groundwater, and whether he should therefore be required to obtain a groundwater monitoring permit and conduct groundwater monitoring as ordered in the Department's Final Order, DEP OGC File No. 08-0521 (the Order).
Findings Of Fact Thomas Parham purchased the property at 5401 Pickettville Road, Jacksonville, Florida (the Property), in a tax sale on November 21, 2007. His intention was to use it to park and store trucks and heavy equipment. At the time of purchase, there were no signs posted on the Property indicating that it was hazardous or toxic or otherwise compromised environmentally. At the time, there was no statute or rule requiring the Property to be posted to give the public notice of any of those conditions. Parham drove past the Property before buying it, but it was fenced, and the gates were locked, and he was unable to get in to inspect it. From the fence, he saw no indication that the Property was hazardous or toxic or otherwise compromised environmentally. However, Parham knew that there was fill material on the Property. He states that he did not know the Property was toxic or hazardous, but he did no due diligence to determine what kind of fill was on the Property. Parham has bought and sold property in tax sales for a living for the past 11 years. He owns 115 different properties, and has been involved in 795 property transactions. Once, he accidentally bought a contaminated property, which the City of Jacksonville bought back from him after the contamination was discovered. Based on his experience, Parham knew or should have known to conduct due diligence on the Property before buying it. After purchasing the Property, Parham saw that part of it had a significant amount of a black material. He testified that he believed it was charcoal or bituminous coal, which he called "black beauty." Instead of determining what it was, Parham decided to cover it with dirt. He had 124 truckloads of fill delivered to the Property and covered all of the supposed "black beauty." Someone saw the activity on the Property and contacted the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). DEP inspected and entered a Final Order, DEP OGC File No. 08-0521 (the Order) to require Parham to install monitoring wells and implement a monitoring program to determine whether the Property was causing pollution and contamination offsite. Parham challenged the Order, which resulted in this proceeding. Actually, the black material on the Property was not charcoal or bituminous coal. It was sandblasting grit material used by Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (Jacksonville Shipyards), in its shipyard operations to sandblast old paint coatings and rust from ships before re-painting. It would be expected that the used grit would be contaminated with metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The used grit was trucked to and deposited on the Property when it was owned by Jacksonville Shipyards in the 1970's and early 1980's. Prior to Jacksonville Shipyards' purchase of the Property in 1972, it was used as a sand mine. In the process, two large pits, each 20 to 25 feet deep, were excavated on the Property. Later, waste was dumped into the pits, including concrete, asphalt, metal pipes, wire, and wooden demolition material. When Jacksonville Shipyards purchased the Property in 1972, sandblasting grit was added to the waste placed into the pits. Initially, these activities were not regulated, and the pits were not lined before being used for waste disposal. By July 1980, leachate generated when waste material (including the sandblasting grit, which was being delivered to the Property daily) came in contact with water was running off the Property towards Six Mile Creek, which flows east to where it is joined by Little Six Mile Creek, from which the combined flow towards the east becomes the headwater of the tidal Ribault River. In addition, leachate was entering the groundwater on the Property, which also flowed generally to the north towards Six Mile Creek. When DEP's predecessor, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) began to regulate land fills, it required Jacksonville Shipyards to submit a groundwater monitoring plan, which DER approved. Monitoring wells were installed, and the groundwater on the Property was sampled once in 1984 and showed groundwater contamination. DER groundwater standards and criteria for arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, chlorides, copper, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids (TDS), and zinc were exceeded. DER attempted to negotiate a consent order with Jacksonville Shipyards to address the contamination, but those efforts failed, and then Jacksonville Shipyards and related business entities went into bankruptcy proceedings. After the bankruptcy proceeding was initiated, Jacksonville Shipyards conducted no further groundwater monitoring at the Property. Neither DER nor DEP issued a solid waste permit or a groundwater monitoring permit for the Property. No waste has been removed the Property, and no liner has been installed. Leachate has continued to run off the Property and infiltrate the groundwater on the Property and flowed towards Six Mile Creek. After bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, representatives of DER and DEP checked from time to time to see if overdue property taxes had been paid, reasoning that payment of the taxes would be an indication that the bankruptcy proceedings had progressed to the point that a financially viable owner of the Property could be required to implement an appropriate monitoring program for the Property. In fact, unbeknownst to DEP, title to the Property was conveyed to Picketsville Realty Holdings, LLC, in 1998. In 1998 DEP contracted with a consultant to conduct sampling at the Property to identify the source of the groundwater contamination detected in the onsite monitoring wells in 1984. Groundwater, soil, and surface water samples were collected and analyzed, as were reports on assessments conducted at the Pickettville Road Landfill, a federal Superfund site located across Pickettville Road from the Property. The consultant reported in 1999 that lead in groundwater samples exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) in shallow well 11 and in deep well 2. In shallow well 9, N-nitrosodiphenylamine also exceeded the MCL. Lead was detected in all twelve soil samples collected in areas where sandblasting grit was found on the surface although none of the soil samples exceeded DEP's residential direct exposure Soil Cleanup Target Level (SCTL) of 400 mg/kg. The report concluded that the Property was the source of most if not all of the contamination detected in the monitoring wells on the Property. The Pickettville Road Superfund site was not considered to be contributing to the groundwater contamination on the Property because groundwater data indicated that the Superfund site is not up-gradient of the Property. Groundwater flow from the Property was found to be generally westerly towards Six Mile Creek. In approximately 2003, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted with a consultant to perform an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) on the Property to determine whether it should be placed on the federal National Priorities List (NPL) of sites at which a release, or potential release, of hazardous substances poses a serious enough risk to the public health or the environment to warrant further investigation and possible remediation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. In this assessment, surface and subsurface soils and groundwater were collected from the Property, sampled, and analyzed. In addition, surface water and sediment samples from Six Mile Creek and from the Ribault River were collected, sampled, and analyzed. The federal ESI report was issued in 2004. It found arsenic, copper, benzo(a)pyrene equivalents in the surface soil samples that exceeded the default levels of concern for direct exposure, as provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-777. It also found arsenic, copper, iron, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and benzo(a)pyrene equivalents in the subsurface soil samples that exceeded the default levels of concern for direct exposure, as provided in Rule Chapter 62- 777. It also found chromium, iron, and lead in one groundwater sample at concentrations exceeding DEP's groundwater standards. Aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, nickel, vanadium, acenaphthene, fluorine, and phenanthrene levels in various groundwater samples were elevated but did not exceed DEP's groundwater standards. It also found that surface water samples from Six Mile Creek contained barium, copper, manganese, and vanadium at elevated concentrations. Sediment samples from Six Mile Creek and the Ribault River contained numerous metals, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, several polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and PCB-1260 at concentrations exceeding EPA Region 4 guidance values. It was concluded that from the elevated concentrations in the surface water samples that contamination of the surface water pathways continues to occur from inorganic contaminants from the Property. The number of impacted groundwater monitoring wells decreased from 1984 to 2004. However, arsenic concentrations increased in shallow well 9, and barium concentrations increased in shallow well 8, during that time. Also, acenapthene, which is a semi-volatile compound associated with PAHs, was reported in two wells in the 2004 ESI report but no detection was reported in the 1985 report. The 1985, 1999, and 2004 reports indicate that the waste-filled pits on the Property are discharging to groundwater. This is not surprising since there is no liner beneath the waste that has been placed in the pits. Rain and runoff on the Property would percolate through the waste and leaches contaminants out of the waste. The leachate enters the groundwater on the Property. Parham contends that contamination found on the Property is from the 53-acre Pickettville Landfill, which was operated by the City of Jacksonville. He contends that a large number of lead batteries were placed in the Pickettville Landfill from extensive lead battery disposal. The evidence proved that the Pickettville Landfill is a Superfund site but did not prove composition or amount of the waste placed in the Pickettville Landfill over the years. Even if the Pickettville Landfill was used extensively for lead battery disposal over the years, the evidence was that little or none of the contamination on the Property is attributable to the Pickettville Landfill. Besides groundwater flow from the Pickettville Landfill likely being away from the Property, lead contamination was found in the surface and subsurface soils of the Property, making it very unlikely that the contamination on the Property came from the Pickettville Landfill. Parham also questions the estimate in the three contamination reports on the Property that 200,000 cubic yards of sandblasting grit were dumped on the property. He estimated that would amount to 13,000 truckloads, which would not fit on the 4-acre Property. But a witness for DEP estimated that two- acres of 20-25 foot deep pits would hold that quantity of sandblasting grit. Even if the actual quantity of sandblasting grit dumped on the Property was less, the evidence was that it was the likely source of the metal contamination found in the soils and groundwater on and under the Property. Similarly, Parham suggests that waste oil and other waste in the Pickettville Landfill could be the source of PAH or PCB contamination on the Property. Besides groundwater flow from the Pickettville Landfill likely being away from the Property, those contaminants move very slowly and do not move large distances, making it very unlikely that the contamination on the Property came from the Pickettville Landfill. Even if some did, the Pickettville Landfill would not account for much of the contamination on the Property. Parham contends that, even if the Property is contaminated, his placement of 124 truckloads of dirt on the Property will prevent any further groundwater contamination. But dirt is not impervious and will not prevent rain and runoff from percolating through the waste on the Property and leaching contamination into the groundwater on the Property. Eventually, this groundwater leaves the Property and enters Six Mile Creek.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order requiring Thomas Parham to: Submit a complete application for monitoring plan approval on Form 62-520.900(1) to the Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast District, 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite B200, Jacksonville, Florida 32256-7590 within 90 days of entry of the Final Order; Implement the approved monitoring program within 90 days after Department approval; and Install monitoring wells in accordance with the approved monitoring program and Rule 62-520.600(6). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2008, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 2008.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent violated Chapters 381 and 386, Florida Statutes, specifically Sections 386.041, 381.0061, 381.065, and 386.03, and Rules 10D-6.043(2) and 10D-6.0571. If the Respondent committed the charged violations, it must be determined whether a fine should be imposed and the amount of any such fine.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the installation and continued maintenance of OSDS's, within the guidelines of the statutes and rules cited below. In the event violations of the rules regarding the safe operation and maintenance of OSDS's are detected, HRS has the authority to require correction of the unsafe, human-health conditions involving such systems and to impose penalties for the failure to adequately correct such unsafe health situations. In order to secure enforcement of the statutes and rules concerning the installation and operation of OSDS's, HRS has the authority to issue Administrative Complaints initiating formal enforcement proceedings such as the one at bar. The Respondent is a citizen of the State of Florida and owns the property located at 835 N.W. 109th Drive in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. The Respondent owns and operates an OSDS on that property which serves her personal residence for the on-site containment, disposal and treatment of sewage generated by that residence. In the spring of 1992, the Respondent detected problems with the OSDS on her property. The problems were noticed because of a difficulty in flushing the toilets in her home and the unusual greening of the grass in a pattern of rows above the septic tank's drain field. The abnormal greening of grass in this pattern indicates that the OSDS is malfunctioning by allowing incompletely treated sewage effluent (waste water) to escape upward towards the surface of the ground instead of percolating in a downward direction into the underlying soil, for appropriate filtration and treatment, which is the pattern of effluent disposal if such a system is operating correctly. Mr. Ron Meyers of Meyers Septic Tank Company was contacted for correction of the problem by the Respondent. On April 15, 1992, he applied for an OSDS repair permit to the Alachua County Public Health Unit of HRS on behalf of the Respondent. The permit application described that the repairs for which authority was requested would be to the existing system which was a below-ground-level septic tank and drain-field system (conventional system) in the Respondent's front yard. Mr. Dennis Chesky is an environmental specialist with the HRS Health Unit for Alachua County. He conducted a site inspection of the OSDS site on April 16, 1992 and determined that a repair of the existing system would not result in compliance with the applicable standards of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code cited below. He made a determination that a mounded drain- field system would be required in order to comply with HRS rules. HRS rules require that when repairs are made to an existing OSDS and inspection reveals that proper percolation and other indicia of soil-borne treatment of the effluent will not be adequately performed in accordance with HRS rules, then alterations to the OSDS, including the requirement of a mounded drain-field system, so as to acquire a sufficient treatment zone of appropriate fill soil, can be imposed. Mr. Chesky had noted that a sanitary nuisance existed due to insufficiently treated effluent escaping to the ground surface and pooling on the surface of the ground, rather than percolating downward below the drain field, as a properly operating system would perform. In accordance with the permit application and the results of Mr. Chesky's inspection, a repair permit with specifications requiring a mounded septic tank and drain-field system was issued by Mr. Chesky on April 16, 1992. The permit required the system to be installed in the Respondent's front yard. Because such a mound in the Respondent's front yard would destroy the aesthetic character of the Respondent's property and landscaping, Mr. Meyers requested, on the Respondent's behalf, that the permit be modified to allow installation of the mounded system in the backyard of the Respondent's property. On April 22, 1992, this request was granted by Terry Shipley, Mr. Chesky's supervisor, and the relocation was duly noted on the permit. The permit issued was valid for a period of ninety (90) days. The letter transmitting the permit to the Respondent informed the Respondent, as permittee, that she had ninety (90) days to correct the problem which caused the need for the repair permit. The letter also advised the Respondent that if a sanitary nuisance was present on the property, the problem should be rectified as expeditiously as possible. The permit expired without the repairs having been performed. Mr. Shipley, therefore, directed that a member of his staff visit the Respondent's home to inspect the situation. Mr. Paul Meyers visited the Respondent's home on July 22, 1992 and noted that raw sewage was still existing on the surface of the ground in the form of waste water from the septic tank. Mr. Meyers took photographs of that condition. The photographs were introduced into evidence. One photograph depicted that an area of the ground at the end of the drain field had collapsed or subsided, leaving a hole through which waste water was seeping to the ground surface. Mr. Meyers thereupon issued a notice to abate a sanitary nuisance on July 23, 1992. It was received by the Respondent on August 1, 1992. On August 3, 1992, the problem still existed with effluent being observed on the surface of the site by Mr. Chesky. On August 25, 1992, he returned to the site and observed evidence that a large area of the front yard, over the drain-field location, had been disturbed. He determined that the ground and the grass had been disturbed in such a way that repairs had obviously been made to the existing drain field. This was contrary to the permit that had been issued, which had required that a mounded system be installed as a means of effecting necessary repairs. The repaired area had been covered without notification of the repair to HRS. A notice of intended action was issued on September 16, 1992 and received by the Respondent on September 19, 1992. This notice gave the Respondent three (3) days to take action toward correcting the problem. The Respondent was thus advised that if the problems and violations were not corrected, then an Administrative Complaint seeking imposition of a fine would be issued. Within several days of receipt of that notice, the Respondent's husband called Mr. Shipley and Ms. Wilson of HRS to advise them that repairs had been delayed by the necessity of removing some trees in the backyard of his property where the mounded system would have to be placed. The Petersons were also having difficulty securing the necessary financing to pay for the installation of the mounded system required by HRS during the summer and early fall of 1992. Although Mr. Peterson advised HRS of the delay caused by the necessity to remove some trees with attendant expense, apparently HRS was not advised of the financing problem at that time, although the Respondent's testimony shows it to be the case. During this period of time, on September 22, October 1, and October 22, 1992, inspections by HRS revealed that the problem of effluent escaping on the surface of the ground had not yet been corrected. Since repairs had not been visibly commenced by the time of the last inspection on October 22, 1992, HRS elected to seek imposition of a fine and issued an Administrative Complaint to the Respondent, which was received by the Respondent on November 5, 1992. The Complaint sought a fine in the amount of $200.00 per day dating from the receipt of the Administrative Complaint until the date the violation was corrected. The Respondent obtained a second contractor to begin construction of the required mounded system which was completed on November 10, 1992. The contractor on that day called for an inspection by HRS. The inspection was conducted on November 12, 1992, but final approval could not be issued although all essential work was completed because the required sodding and stabilization measures had not yet been completed on the surface of the mound. Final approval was granted on November 17, 1992 by HRS. Installation of a new below-ground, drain-field system, as originally requested, similar to the one which was already installed and malfunctioning, would have cost approximately $1,000.00. The mounded system required by HRS' permit, pursuant to the relevant rules cited below, cost approximately $5,000.00. In addition to the approximate $5,000.00 expended for the installation of the mounded system, the Respondent had to expend approximately $7,000.00 related to tree removal and re-landscaping of their yard to repair damage caused by installation and the requirement to install a facility to pump sewage from the front yard outlet to the mounded system in the backyard. The Respondent apparently attempted to repair the existing below-ground system after receiving the notice regarding sanitary nuisance in August of 1992 in order to avoid the high costs related to the mounded system. The effluent pooling on the ground surface, as it was on the Respondent's property at times pertinent hereto, can pose a threat to public health. In order to adequately treat sewage effluent, it must filter in a downward direction through at least 24 inches of suitable soil medium in order to be sufficiently decontaminated. Improperly treated effluent on the surface of the ground can cause the transmission of human pathogens to persons who come into contact with the effluent in and near the area of the discharge. There is no evidence to indicate that any such harm came to any specific persons or to the public's health generally, in the subject situation. Ms. Wilson, the supervisor responsible for issuance of the Administrative Complaint, decided to seek a fine of $200.00 per day after considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the statutory authority cited herein, contained in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. HRS has fining authority in the amount of up to $500.00 per day for each of the claimed violations. The unrefuted evidence establishes that the violations occurred and persisted over the period time described in the above Findings of Fact. In fairness to the Respondent, however, it should be pointed out that the Respondent and her husband were not in Florida for most of the summer of 1992 because their work required them to be in Dallas, Texas. Even so, they had secured the services of an OSDS contractor to attempt to alleviate the problem. Due no doubt to the high cost and their reluctance to be encumbered by it, they delayed actual installation of the mounded system, however. It is also true that they had difficulties obtaining financing for such a costly system but ultimately did so and satisfactorily completed the work. They ultimately expended approximately $14,000.00 for all phases of the work involved, including site preparation, re-landscaping and related expenses. They have thus have undergone a severe cost burden to alleviate the inoperable condition of the previous OSDS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by HRS imposing a fine in the amount of $500.00 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7376 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Accepted. 16. Rejected, as immaterial in this de novo proceeding. 17-25. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted, although the evidence does not reveal the bank's posture with regard to ownership of the property. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as to its material import because the repairs and installation were not effected until after the issuance of the Administrative Complaint. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented other than as consideration for mitigation of the fine imposed. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented other than as consideration for mitigation of the fine imposed. Accepted, but not materially dispositive of the issues presented. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Robert Peterson 835 Northwest 109th Drive Gainesville, Florida 32606
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern generally whether the Respondents named above are liable for the contamination and violations alleged in the Petitioner, Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER) Notice of Violation and Amended Notice of Violation, pursuant to the relevant provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in Title 17, Florida Administrative Code, as relevant to this proceeding and treated herein.
Findings Of Fact DER is an agency of the State of Florida charged, under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and related rules, with preventing and alleviating environmental contaminations, as pertinent hereto, including such issues involving ground waters of the State of Florida. The property in question in this proceeding is located at the northwest corner of Blount and Guillemard Streets in Pensacola, Florida. The legal description of that property and the state of the title of the property is as described in the Prehearing Stipulation filed by the parties at page two thereof. The Belleaus are the current owners of the real property at that location. Crown is the owner and operator of a commercial laundry and dry cleaning business situated on that property in the building(s) located thereon. Crown is a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is a "person" within the meaning of Section 403.031(5), Florida Statutes. American Linen is a corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida and is also a "person" within the meaning of that Statute. American Linen obtained the property by purchase by corporate warranty deed from Rentex (RCD) on April 23, 1979. It operated a commercial laundry at the property from that date until June 3, 1985, when it sold the laundry business to Crown and the real property upon which it operated to the Belleaus. In November of 1971, RCD, a Delaware corporation and a 100 percent-owned subsidiary of Rentex Services corporation (RSC), also a Delaware corporation, acquired the property. RCD owned and operated a commercial laundry and dry cleaning business on the property until April 23, 1979, on which date it sold the laundry business and property to American Linen. It actually operated a dry-cleaning service on the property during only 1974 and early 1975. Sketchley Delaware, Inc. (SDI), a Delaware corporation, purchased RSC, which then became a 100 percent- wholly-owned subsidiary of SDI in 1982. RCD, however, remained a 100 percent-wholly-owned subsidiary of RSC until 1983. In March of 1983, SDI merged with RSC, and the resulting corporation was named "Sketchley Services, Inc." RCD continued as a corporation, 100 percent-wholly-owned as a subsidiary of Sketchley. In October of 1983, RCD merged into Sketchley, and Sketchley survived. Respondent Sketchley has never held title to nor conducted any form of business on the property in question. On March 29, 1991, Sketchley was renamed "Jura Services, Inc." (Jura) and was converted to a close corporation under Delaware law. This controversy had its origins in May of 1986 when a representative of DER performed a routine sampling of tap water at the DER district office in Pensacola. Those samples were subjected to chemical analysis which revealed the presence of PCE, a widely-used solvent often associated with dry-cleaning operations. That tap water came from the public water supply for the City of Pensacola, supplied by a network of potable water wells. Upon learning of the PCE content in the water supply, DER began an investigation to attempt to locate its source. Analysis of a number of the Escambia County Utilities Authority (ECUA) wells (PW-6, PW- 8, PW-9, and east well) contained quantities of PCE in excess of the maximum contaminant levels for drinking water authorized by DER's rules. Those wells were taken out of service in June of 1986, subjected to carbon filtration which ultimately removed the PCE from the water supply for those wells, and the wells have since been put back in public service. A ground water investigation was undertaken by DER to determine the source of contamination in the upper portion of the sand and gravel aquifer and in the production zone of the deeper Floridian aquifer which supplies those wells. A total of 29 ground water monitoring wells (MW) were installed and sampled. An analysis of these was prepared (87-04 report). On February 7, 1987, DER and representatives of the utilities authority and Crown, the operator of the laundry facility, conducted an inspection and clean-out of the surge tank located in the floor of the Crown laundry building. A chemical analysis of three samples of liquid residue in the bottom of the tank revealed the presence of PCE in those sediments in concentrations of 1,952 parts per billion (PPB), 108.5 PPB, and 50 PPB. Additionally, one of the samples revealed trichloroethene at 34 PPB and 1, 2 dichloroethene at 52,800 PPB. Under certain conditions, these last two-named compounds are produced as bi-products of the breakdown of PCE. Based upon this inspection and the investigation of other potential sources, DER took the position that the surge tank at Crown had discharged waste water containing PCE into the adjacent soils and that PCE migrated into ground water produced by the ECUA's public water supply wells, PW-6, PW-8, PW-9, and "east well". Although not stipulating that the samples were representative or to the conclusions to be drawn from the analytical results of testing the samples, the parties stipulated that proper physical and technical procedures and methods were used in the collection, preservation and analysis of all of the samples and the laboratory results were consequently stipulated into evidence. Jura, American Linen, Crown, and the Belleaus had no actual knowledge that any PCE had been deposited in the surge tank between 1971 and the date in 1979, when American Linen bought the facility. A commercial laundry has been operated on the subject property since 1971. The laundry was operated by RCD at that time, and in the summer of 1974 and during at least part of 1975, a dry-cleaning operation, in addition to laundry, was conducted by RCD at the site. The dry-cleaning operation involved the use of PCE. This was the only period of time when dry-cleaning operations were conducted on the property until 1985 when Crown conducted a dry-cleaning operation. Crown's operation, however, made no use of PCE, but rather, Crown used "stoddered solvent" as its dry- cleaning fluid. During American Linen's ownership and operation of the laundry at the site, no dry-cleaning operations, whatever, were conducted. At no time during American Linen's ownership and operation of the laundry at the site nor during the Belleaus ownership, and Crown's operation, of the laundry facility was any PCE used or stored on the property. Since laundry operations commenced at the site, the waste wash water from the laundry was discharged to the surge tank located beneath the floor of the Crown building. That tank intercepts and stabilizes wash water prior to its discharge to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The surge tank also served as a component of the laundry operation as a thermal recovery system. Although the surge tank and the commercial laundry and dry-cleaning businesses which have been operated at the site constitutes an "installation" for purposes of Section 403.031(4), Florida Statutes, the tank has never been used for the intentional storage or disposal of any "hazardous substances", as defined in Section 403.703(31), Florida Statutes, by any of the Respondents. The tank has never been used for the intentional disposal of any hazardous substances by American Linen, Crown, the Belleaus, or Jura. During normal laundry operations, lint, sand and other sediment accumulated in the bottom of the surge tank over a period of time. When the accumulated quantity of sediment became too great so as to interfere with the operation, the liquid and the sediments were removed periodically by a vacuum truck and manual labor, using shovels, buckets, and a dumptruck. The surge tank was cleaned out several times over the pertinent years, including 1976, 1978, or 1979 (before American Linen's purchase), as well as in 1980-81, 1983, 1987, 1990 and 1991. It was possibly cleaned in 1972 or 1973, as well. In the 1976 clean-out, the surge tank was cleaned thoroughly enough that the workers reported searching for loose change on the concrete floor of the tank. DER must prove a violation of Section 403.161(1)(a) or (b), Florida Statutes, in order to establish liability for purposes of Section 403.141(1), Florida Statutes, and Section 403.121(2), Florida Statutes. DER has also sought, as of the time of hearing, to impose liability on the Respondents, pursuant to Section 403.727(4), Florida Statutes, which imposes strict liability on the owner and operator or former owner and operator of a facility at which a release to the environment of a hazardous substance has occurred. Section 403.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that it is prohibited for a person to cause pollution so as to harm or injure human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life, or property. In this proceeding, DER did not establish with competent, substantial evidence that the alleged pollution by PCE caused any harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life, or property. No risk assessment was conducted to determine the potential harm or actual harm. No testimony was presented with regard to the possible health effects or injurious impacts of PCE in the environment. There was no evidence shown to establish what amount of PCE in the environment or ground water might cause or potentially cause such harm to human health or any of the other injurious effects referenced in the above-cited Statute. DER has not adduced any evidence of a preponderant nature to show that any Respondent is thus liable for a violation of Section 403.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that it is a violation to fail to comply with any rule of DER. Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, is implemented with regard to ground water through former Rule 17-4.245(2), Florida Administrative Code, now Rule 17- 28.700, Florida Administrative Code, which provides a cause of action for violation of ground water standards. In order to maintain a cause of action under that Rule, DER must prove that the Respondents violated either Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code (the "Free From" Rule), or Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which sets forth the ground water criteria alleged in the NOV and Amended NOV to have been violated. Concerning Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code, which establishes narrative, minimum health effects-based criteria applicable to ground water, DER has alleged that the Respondents failed to comply with this Rule, but introduced no evidence concerning any health effects of PCE in the ground water. DER produced no evidence whatever regarding the concentration, if any, of PCE, which may be carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic, or which would pose a serious danger to the public health, safety or welfare, or create a nuisance, or impair the reasonable and beneficial use of any adjacent ground water. Even assuming that some amount of PCE was released from the surge tank at some period of time, DER failed to present any evidence regarding the quantity of PCE which may have been released, and the concentration in the ground water which could have resulted from a release from the Crown property. It simply was not proven that the concentration shown in the wells, at which samples were taken, all resulted from any release, if any, which came from the Crown property. Thus, DER failed to adduce evidence which can demonstrate in a preponderant way a violation of the "Free From Rule" cited above or which would support its cause of action under Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, with regard to alleged violation of this Rule. DER has also alleged that the Respondents violated Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, cross- referencing and incorporating former Rule 17-22.104(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, now Rule 17-550.310(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, which sets forth the ground water standard, in the form of maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PCE. In order to demonstrate a violation of Rule 17-3.404(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as to each Respondent, DER had to prove that the Respondents caused a release of PCE to the ground water, resulting in a concentration of PCE in the ground water greater than the MCL established by the Rule. Effective May 23, 1984, DER thus established 3 parts per billion as the MCL for PCE in drinking water and as the water quality standard for PCE applicable in Class G- II ground water, which is the classification of the ground water underlying the Crown property, and occurring at all of the supply wells and monitor wells involved in this proceeding. In order to demonstrate a violation of the MCL by release of PCE from the laundry property, DER had the burden of proving: (a) that PCE entered the surge tank; (b) that the surge tank, in fact, released it to the environment and to the ground water; (c) that the release of PCE occurred during the ownership and/or operation of the laundry by one or more of the Respondents; and (d) that the amount of PCE entering the ground water during ownership and/or operation of each Respondent caused the concentration of PCE in the ground water to exceed the MCL in effect at the time of each Respondent's ownership and/or operation. Proof of PCE in the Tank Rentex installed a dry-cleaning machine at the Crown facility during mid-1974. It was equipped with two PCE holding tanks with PCE being used as the cleaning solvent in the dry-cleaning process. There was a storage tank, four to five feet tall, which stored pure PCE. The other tank was an eight to ten foot tall "cooker" tank used to heat and reconstitute PCE used in the dry-cleaning process. The machine was located near the rear of the Crown building, close to the floor drains and the wash room. The dry-cleaning machine was dismantled and removed from the Crown facility to another dry-cleaning establishment in Baltimore sometime in late 1974 or the early part of 1975. The thrust of DER's case is that spills of PCE occurred from the dry-cleaning machine and its operation at the Crown facility which were allowed to enter the surge tank and thence leaked into the soil, the environment and the ground water. Indeed, several boil-overs of PCE occurred during the period of 1974 and early 1975, when the dry-cleaning operations were being conducted at the facility. Witnesses, Mathias and Hedrick, for DER, established that one spill of PCE in the amount of four to five gallons also occurred, along with several boil-overs from the laundry machine during that time period; however, the actual amount of PCE spilled or boiled over from the dry-cleaning machine and its operation was not established by DER. Mr. Mathias worked as a maintenance man at the facility during the relevant period when dry-cleaning operations were conducted by RCD. He established that there were several boil-overs of PCE from the cooker tank and that when PCE boiled over from the top of the machine, some quantity would be sprayed onto the floor which was then hosed off into the floor drains, which communicate with the surge tank. He was unable to quantify the amount of PCE spilled on the laundry floor or which reached the surge tank, however. He was not able to definitively establish how many boil-overs he witnessed nor their severity in terms of the amount of PCE which was resultingly spilled on the floor of the laundry. He did not witness any spills of PCE other than those occurring in conjunction with boil-over events. Mr. Hedrick was also a maintenance man at the facility during RCD's period of ownership and its dry- cleaning operations. He knew of one incident in mid-1974 in which four to five gallons of PCE were spilled directly onto the floor of the laundry due to a hose connecting the holding tank to the cooker tank being inadvertently disconnected. That PCE was washed with a hose into the floor drains and thence into the surge tank. Mr. Hedrick could recall only two boil-overs of PCE from the dry- cleaning machines. These incidents involved PCE spraying over the top of the cooker tank but did not involve the release of any significant amount of PCE onto the floor. Mr. Hedrick established that employees were careful in handling the chemical because it was very expensive and they were careful not to waste it. After boil-over events which he described, he observed the level of the PCE in the holding tank, which did not appear to drop much as a result of the boil-overs. He was also responsible for refilling PCE into the holding tank as necessary. His experience was that he was not required to add PCE to the machine as the mere result of a boil-over because the boiling PCE escaped from the top of the machine mostly as foam with very little actual volume of PCE being discharged during such a boil- over event. Mr. Hedrick's testimony is corroborated by that of Dr. Mercer, an expert in hydrogeology, dense, non-aqueous phase liquid behavior (DNAPL), and the fate and transport of chemicals in the subsurface environment, presented by Jura. Dr. Mercer established that in a boil-over event, the PCE escaping from the top of the machine is pure PCE, chemically, but it escapes in the form of a foam or mist very near the boiling point of approximately 250 Fahrenheit. Because it is very volatile, most of the PCE escaping from the machine in a boil-over event, due to its volatility enhanced by its high heat, dissipates into the atmosphere. Whatever PCE did not volatilize would spread in a thin film over the floor of the facility and, because it was still a warm fluid, would continue to volatilize into the atmosphere. The small amount which did not volatilize would be washed into the floor drains and correspondingly diluted prior to entry into the surge tank, where it would be further diluted by the large volume of warm water present in the tank which would enhance dissolution and dilution. Consequently, the boil-overs would have produced only dissolved PCE entering the tank in small quantities, most of which would be flushed from the tank into the city sanitary sewer system through the outfall line exiting from the wall of the surge tank. Thus, the testimony of these witnesses establishes that only one spill of four to five gallons of PCE occurred in 1974, most of which was washed into the floor drains and into the surge tank. It was not established that the boil- over events materially contributed to the volume of PCE entering the surge tank during the dry-cleaning operations conducted in 1974 and early 1975. No PCE was shown to have been deposited in the surge tank after dry-cleaning operations ceased in 1974 or at the latest in early 1975 during the RCD ownership and operation of the facility. It was not shown that PCE was released or discharged to the environment by any other means since that time at or on the property or facility. Release of PCE to the Environment DER has thus established that some four to five gallons of PCE from a spill entered the surge tank in 1974 and that some minor quantities from boil-overs entered the tank through wash down of the laundry floor. DER also has the burden to establish the next evidentiary link; that the PCE was released from the surge tank to the environment. The surge tank consists of a poured concrete floor with concrete-block walls with a plaster or cement covering on the outside of the tank. The concrete-block mortar joints and concrete with which the tank is constructed are porous materials, although the specific porosity has not been quantified. The extent of coverage, the integrity and continuity of the exterior cement or plaster layer over the outside of the tank, and for the life of the tank, is not established. The surge tank was constructed in 1969 in conjunction with the construction of the laundry building. It is 20 feet long by 10 feet deep by 9 feet wide. It is stipulated that the surge tank leaks wash water at some rate because of the porosity of the materials and because of cracks and fissures which have opened in its walls since its construction. Testing of the tank in 1971 revealed that it leaked, at that time, at the rate of 6.5 gallons per day. No evidence establishes what the leakage rate before 1991 might have been. There is no direct evidence of a release of PCE from the surge tank to the soil or ground water. Michael Clark testified in this regard, as a member of the Operations Response Team of DER. In his opinion, DNAPL or "separate phase" PCE (undissolved PCE) had escaped from the tank into the ground water; however, he testified that he performed no calculations to determine the quantity of PCE which would have had to enter the surge tank in order to create a release of separate phase PCE. Mr. Clark assumed in the gravamen of his testimony that the contents of a 55- gallon drum of PCE had been released to the surge tank in a spill, in performing his analysis of the potential for release of PCE from the surge tank. He admitted, however, that the release of 55 gallons of PCE had been only hypothetical and no evidence was presented in this case to establish that 55 gallons of PCE had been spilled or otherwise placed in the surge tank. Mr. Clark was neither offered nor qualified as an expert in hydrogeology or any other field of expertise which could establish that he had any expertise in the movement of chemicals in the environment or in ground water or soils, nor as to the chemical state of those chemicals while in the soils or ground water at any point in time. Mr. Clark's opinion that separate phase PCE was released to the soil and then the ground water from the surge tank and that it resulted in the contamination found in the public water supply wells at issue, as well as in the monitoring wells, is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Inasmuch as Mr. Clark's opinion testimony did not demonstrate, by preponderant evidence, that separate phase PCE was released to the environment from the tank and there being no direct evidence of such a release, then inferential evidence must be used to establish whether such a release occurred. PCE was shown to be present in the tank in 1974 based upon the above-described events. The presence of PCE has been detected in the ground water immediately downgradient of the Crown property, as well as in the public drinking water supply wells and the monitoring wells, downgradient of the Crown facility. That evidence, together with the evidence concerning the porous nature of the materials of which the tank is constructed and the tank's condition, which has deteriorated over time, is sufficient to support an inference that some undetermined quantity of dissolved PCE escaped from the surge tank over some undetermined points or periods of time. DER, however, did not adduce evidence which could establish an inference that a release of dissolved PCE or separate phase PCE from the tank would be sufficient to cause the violations of the MCL for PCE found at the monitoring points in the vicinity of the Crown property nor is the evidence sufficient to establish when the releases, if any, which may have contributed to a violation of the MCL for PCE at the monitoring or sampling points may have occurred. The lack of sufficient evidence to support such an inference is pointed out by the testimony of witnesses Mathias and Hedrick, testifying for DER, concerning the quantity of PCE which entered the tank and by the testimony of Jura's expert witness, Dr. James Mercer, regarding the behavior of PCE upon entering the tank and upon a release to the environment. The finding that the evidence is insufficient to support an inference that the tank released sufficient PCE to cause a violation of the MCL for PCE is further supported by the evidence that DER did not exclude, through its PCE source investigation, other potential sources of PCE contamination in the ground water, other than Crown, particularly in view of the evidence concerning the cone of influence of the "east well" and the location of the contamination in the PW-9 well, located upgradient from the Crown facility. Dr. Mercer testified concerning the behavior of separate phase PCE with regard to the spill of four to five gallons of pure PCE from the holding tank, as found above. He established that because PCE is very volatile, much of the spill would have volatilized into the atmosphere, although at a slower rate than the boiling temperature of PCE released during boil-over events, as described herein. The spilled PCE, which did not volatilize, would have been washed down with a hose, diluting it and dissolving it in water prior to its entry into the floor drains and the surge tank. In the floor drains and in the tank, some of the PCE would have been entrained or bound up in the lint present in those locations; and some of the PCE would have made its way to the surge tank. Because of prior dilution and dissolution, a relatively small amount of pure PCE would have entered the surge tank. The presence of warm water in the tank would have promoted more dissolution and dilution of the chemical, such that most of the four to five gallons of pure PCE spilled would have become mostly dissolved PCE upon entry into the tank. Some of that would have then been washed out into a sanitary sewer system through the outfall line. Since separate phase PCE is denser than water, any of it in that form entering the tank would sink to the bottom of the waste water in the tank, coming to rest on the layer of sand, lint and other sediments on the bottom of the tank. Dr. Mercer established that any separate phase PCE from the referenced spill would thus form a layer on top of accumulated sediments at the bottom of the tank, approximately .14 inches thick, assuming that it was evenly distributed over the bottom of the tank. In order for separate phase PCE to penetrate the pore spaces in the sediments, it would have to displace the waste water or wash water already occupying those pore spaces. If the layer, established by Dr. Mercer, was as thin as .14 inches thick, such a thin layer would not penetrate the pore spaces of the sediments because they would be filled already with wash water. That thin layer of separate phase PCE would not exert sufficient hydraulic pressure to displace that water because of the capillary pressure barrier formed between the water in the pore spaces and the separate phase PCE layer on top of the sediments. The capillary pressure effect is the pressure difference between two liquids, which creates a capillary pressure barrier, inhibiting the penetration of separate phase PCE into the pore spaces of the sediments. Dr. Mercer testified that a thickness of 4.7 inches of separate phase PCE, resting on top of the sediments, would be necessary to overcome the capillary pressure barrier between the wash water and the pore spaces of the saturated sediments and the separate phase PCE layer lying on top of those sediments. Therefore, most of the separate phase PCE would remain as a layer on top of the sediments. Dr. Mercer opined that if separate phase PCE does not reach the sediments in the bottom of the tank in sufficient volume to maintain the movement of the chemical through that porous medium, the separate phase PCE, which does settle to the top of the sediments, will tend to dissolve over time, partially into the wash water above the layer of PCE at the bottom of the tank and partially into the water occupying the pore spaces within the layer of sediments in the bottom of the tank. Any separate phase PCE, which dissolves into the overlying wash water, will become extremely diluted. Eventually, most of that dissolved PCE would be discharged through the tank's outfall to the public sanitary sewer system. Any separate phase PCE, which is able to overcome the capillary pressure barrier and move into the pore spaces of the sediments, by displacing wash water within those spaces, would become trapped within those pore spaces, because of an effect known as "residual saturation". When a separate phase liquid moving through a porous medium is not of sufficient volume to maintain its movement, it tends to physically break apart into globules of separate phase liquid within those pore spaces. As more globules form within the spaces, the movement of the separate phase liquid decreases until at some point the flow stops. When the flow stops, the globules of separate phase liquid become trapped within the spaces. The point at which a sufficient percentage of pore spaces are filled with globules of separate phase liquid is called "residual saturation". Because of the effect of residual saturation on any separate phase PCE at the bottom of the tank, Dr. Mercer concluded that separate phase PCE within the pore spaces of the sediments would be unable to flow and would effectually be trapped in the sediments in the bottom of the tank until those sediments were removed, either through dissolution into the wash water in the tank as flushing occurs through use of the tank over time or when the sediments were removed during clean-outs of the tank. Therefore, little, if any, separate phase PCE could have been released from the tank to the environment. Dr. Mercer's testimony was unrefuted and thus demonstrates that most PCE entering the tank would dissolve into the wash water already present, flow through the outfall to the sewer system, or become dissolved in the free water and water occupying the pore spaces in the sediments at the bottom of the tank. The evidence supports the finding that little, if any, PCE would be released to the soil surrounding or underlying the tank as a result of the spill of four or five gallons of PCE from the dry-cleaning machine. No evidence was presented to establish the quantity of PCE which could have escaped from the tank as a result of the spill of four or five gallons of PCE into the tank nor was any evidence presented which would establish during what period of time the release to the environment may have occurred. Charles Ferst testified as an expert in environmental engineering concerning the amount of PCE which may be released from the tank over time. Mr. Ferst testified that the leakage rate of the surge tank likely increased over time until reaching the current rate established in the evidence of 6.5 gallons per day, as determined by the 1991 test. Although the surge tank leaked at earlier periods, Mr. Ferst could not determine when the tank started leaking and could not calculate the leakage rate at any period of time prior to 1991 nor could any other witness. Based upon standard construction practices and the materials used in the tank at the time of its construction in 1969, Mr. Ferst opined that the tank leaked more after 1980 than in earlier years. Using that assumption and the fact that the sediments in the bottom of the tank were cleaned out several times between 1974 and 1991, he calculated the maximum amount of PCE which could have escaped from the tank after 1980. Mr. Ferst's calculations, however, are based upon a number of unsupported assumptions. Although he establishes that the tank leaked more in later years than in earlier years, his calculations and assumptions do little to establish how much PCE may have been released during any particular period of time; and little weight can be given to his conclusions regarding the specific amounts of PCE allegedly released at particular periods of time. DER did not present any evidence concerning the amount of PCE which could have escaped from the tank, even assuming that the tank leaked since 1974, when it was shown that some PCE had been placed in the tank. DER failed to prove that any amount of PCE which may have leaked out of the tank was sufficient to cause a violation of the MCL for PCE, and it did not inferentially demonstrate that any PCE which may have leaked out of the tank caused a violation of the MCL, because it simply failed to show that the violation levels found in the various wells where samples were drawn, solely resulted from contamination emanating from the Crown tank. DER failed to adduce evidence sufficient to carry its burden of proving a violation of the ground water standard for PCE caused by a release of PCE from the Crown property. Source of Contamination DER must prove that a release of PCE from the tank caused or contributed to the PCE contamination found in the public water supply wells and the monitoring wells. Dr. Mercer testified that if it is assumed that the tank is a source of contamination and the PCE concentration data collected by DER is used, the travel time of PCE from the surge tank to one of the monitoring wells, MW-3, where the highest concentrations were found, would indicate a release occurring many years prior to 1969, the year in which the Crown building and surge tank were constructed. Dr. Mercer therefore concluded that the surge tank at the Crown facility was likely not the sole or even the primary source of PCE contamination found by DER. In attempting to determine the source of the PCE discovered in the subject water supply wells, DER conducted soil sampling in suspected areas of contamination. This soil sampling revealed only two significant areas of PCE contamination in soils, neither of which was near the Crown property. DER then also selected monitoring well locations based upon ease of accessibility in order to determine the source of the contamination quickly. The monitoring wells were placed in the deep, intermediate, and shallow zones of the aquifer system underlying downtown Pensacola. Near the Crown facility, however, the intermediate zone was not present; instead, there was a shallow zone separated from the deep zone by a confining unit of relatively-impervious material. DER demonstrated that the shallow, intermediate and deep aquifer systems within the downtown Pensacola area are contaminated with PCE and PCE-derived breakdown compounds at widely-varying concentrations. DER did not prove, however, that one or more discreet plumes of PCE contamination exist. Mr. Clark, testifying for DER, attempted to calculate the travel time of contaminants found in MW-3 based upon their being released to the ground water from the Crown facility. Although Mr. Clark indicated this to be, in his belief, between 1970 and 1980, he admitted that he only estimated the travel time of ground water, as opposed to PCE, from the Crown property. Moreover, he averaged high hydraulic conductivity values for monitoring wells quite distant from the Crown property, near PW-9, and ignored data from closer, more relevant wells. Dr. Mercer, however, testified that the method used by DER to calculate travel time, which relies on conductivity values too far away from the suspected source and wells of concern, and averages only those high-conductivity values, while ignoring more pertinent values, provides a less accurate result. Hydraulic conductivity values are used to calculate ground water velocities, which can then be used to calculate travel times over a certain distance. Dr. Mercer testified that using the hydraulic conductivity values obtained from monitoring wells in close proximity to an assumed source and which reveal the presence of PCE in significant concentrations, which DER did not do, produces a much slower ground water velocity than that calculated by DER because the hydraulic conductivity values used are much lower. Averaging the hydraulic conductivity values obtained from monitoring wells which indicated significant concentrations of PCE in close proximity to the Crown facility to calculate travel time for PCE produced an estimate of 37 years for PCE released from the surge tank to reach MW-3. Thus, the PCE would have had to have been released prior to 1969 when the surge tank and the laundry facility were built (or from a different location). Because of this, it was not definitively shown that the PCE found in MW-3 came from the surge tank at the Crown facility. Dr. Mercer's testimony, because of his higher level of training, expertise and experience in hydrogeology and the fate and transport of chemicals in ground water, is accepted over that of Mr. Clark. Mr. Ross Mitchell testified regarding DER's search, which he conducted for facilities within the downtown Pensacola area which used or could have been the sources of a release of PCE. That investigation apparently concentrated on dry-cleaning establishments because DER opined that PCE was commonly used in such operations. Mr. Mitchell described his source investigation as "quick and dirty". He indicated that he did not follow up with every lead that he developed and that he established a "ball park" area within which to conduct his investigation. In fact, his investigation concentrated on a specific geographic area, in which other DER personnel had told him high concentrations of PCE had been found in ground water. As part of his investigation, he relied upon verbal representations by owners and operators regarding whether their facilities had ever used PCE. He made no effort to confirm those representations, other than cross-checking, in some instances, whether a given facility had been identified by a PCE supplier as a facility to which it had supplied PCE. However, he did not obtain customer lists from suppliers of PCE and was only able to get fragmentary information from the suppliers. Mr. Mitchell made no effort to verify whether PCE had ever been used at many of the facilities he had identified. He simply looked for readily- available evidence. That investigation was completed before DER became aware that PCE had been used at the Crown facility. Once that knowledge was obtained, Mr. Mitchell assumed that it would be the source of the PCE contamination found. He did not follow up regarding any of the other facilities which were on his list of suspect locations. He acknowledged at hearing that several of the suspect facilities, other than Crown, had not actually been eliminated as potential sources and acknowledged that he had not considered possible sources, other than dry-cleaning establishments, such as refuse dumpsters at facilities which had been identified as using or having used PCE. He did no environmental sampling around dumpsters at such facilities to detect spillage and did not investigate any records of any of the facilities he had investigated to determine whether they had purchased or used PCE. Mr. Mitchell located four dry cleaners, all upgradient of the PCE contaminated drinking water wells operated by ECUA. Among the dry cleaners suspected as potential sources of the contamination, only the Crown facility was located hydraulically downgradient of PW-9. In order for the contamination to travel from the Crown surge tank to PW-9, the pumping regimen employed by ECUA's supply wells would have to reverse the direction of ground water flow or hydraulic gradient. Dr. Mercer's calculations demonstrated that the pumping regimen employed by ECUA could not have reversed the gradient so as to pull contaminants from the Crown facility upgradient to be captured by PW-9. Dr. Mercer and Mr. Clark both agreed that the "east well" pumps continuously throughout the year. PW- 9 does not pump continuously. When the "east well" is pumping, it will capture anything that would be in the subsurface in the vicinity of the Crown facility; and its capture zone would extend upgradient as far as PW-9. Mr. Clark admitted that he had no calculations to support his conclusion that ECUA's pumping of PW-9 could have reversed the gradient in the subsurface to draw contaminants from the Crown facility to PW-9. Accordingly, it is concluded that DER did not adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the Crown facility could be the source of contamination in PW-9. The source investigation conducted by DER was inadequate to definitively determine whether the Crown facility was the source of PCE contamination or not. DER did not collect adequate soil and ground water samples throughout the area of known contaminations so as to pinpoint a specific source or sources for the contamination. No soil samples were collected from the immediate area around potential sources identified in close proximity to PW-9, for instance, such as the other four dry-cleaning establishments. Instead, once DER found PCE in MW-3 in high concentrations, it apparently focused all of its efforts on the Crown facility, assuming it to be the source of contamination. There are other upgradient PCE users (TCE), identified in Exhibit 6 which have not been ruled out as sources by competent evidence and that exhibit also shows that there may be three older dry cleaning sites in the downtown area with underground solvent tanks, which the record does not prove to have been investigated and ruled out as sources. Since Crown was shown not to be the source of PCE contamination at PW-9, there could be sources of PCE contamination other than Crown which better account for conditions observed in the ground water in downtown Pensacola. DER simply failed in its investigation to adequately rule out other potential sources of contamination within the cone of influence of the public water supply wells, PW-6, PW-8, the "east well", and PW-9. It is as likely as not, for example, that PCE emanating from whatever source or sources contaminated PW-9 (potentially four different dry-cleaning establishments) was also drawn hydraulically downgradient and into the "east well" and other wells. The record reflects that the "east well", for instance, when it is pumping, has a capture zone which extends as far as and including PW-9. DER failed to adequately investigate that potential explanation, as well as other potential sources of the contamination, including the stormwater pond, and thereby failed to prove that contamination emanating from the Crown facility, more likely than not, caused the contamination observed in the ECUA wells, or at least all of it, to the extent of its violating the MCL for PCE in the sites sampled. DER also seeks to impose liability on the Respondents pursuant to Section 403.727(4), Florida Statutes, which imposes strict liability on the current or former owner or operator at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance, as to a facility at which a release of hazardous substances has occurred. PCE is a hazardous substance, as that term is used in Section 403.727, Florida Statutes. However, Section 403.727, Florida Statutes, did not become effective until 1980; and PCE was not listed as a hazardous substance until 1984. DER has failed to prove in what quantity or during what period of time PCE may have been released from the surge tank at the Crown facility. It has established that PCE was only placed in the surge tank during 1974 and 1975 and not since, well before the effective date of this statutory provision and the listing of PCE as a hazardous substance. It has produced evidence from which it is inferred that a certain amount of dissolved PCE in laundry waste water leaked from the tank. It has not been established when the leakage started nor in what quantities PCE dissolved into the wash or waste water may have leaked into the surrounding soil, nor what rate (continuously increasing, decreasing, or static) the leakage occurred. Thus, the most that may be inferred is that leakage of dissolved PCE in an unknown concentration occurred sometime after 1974, but it has not been proven that PCE, as a hazardous substance, has been released into the environment during a specific period of time when each of the Respondents owned and/or operated the Crown facility. Thus, DER has failed to adduce evidence sufficient to carry its burden of proving a release of a hazardous substance, subjecting any of the Respondents to liability under Section 403.727, Florida Statutes. In any event, the Respondents were not on notice of the need to defend against a charge under that statutory section since the NOV and the Amended NOV did not inform them that such would be the basis of any purported liability alleged by DER. DER contended, for the first time at hearing, that the Respondents are liable for violation of the hazardous waste disposal rules. DER alleged at hearing that PCE, as a waste, is a listed hazardous waste, either as a spent solvent or a discarded commercial chemical. No such allegations were included in the NOV or the Amended NOV. However, Dr. Mercer established that any PCE which may have been released into the environment from the surge tank was in dissolved form and not as separate phase PCE. Dissolved PCE has not been shown to be a hazardous waste. Therefore, there is no evidence of record to support a finding that improper disposal of hazardous waste occurred at any point or points in time relevant to his proceeding. Moreover, Mr. Clark testified that he conducted a hazardous waste inspection of the Crown facility in 1982. Mr. Clark determined at that time that there was no hazardous waste being generated in the building or being stored in the building. DER has failed to demonstrate that any hazardous waste was generated or stored on the Crown property or disposed of into the surge tank at anytime by any of the Respondents. Finally, no evidence has been presented in this case that any of the Respondents had actual or constructive knowledge of the presence of PCE in the surge tank or of whether or not any release to the surge tank had occurred between 1971 and 1979 or any knowledge of any use or discharge of PCE to the surge tank prior to the commencement of DER's investigation in this action. Only RCD may be presumed to have had knowledge of the spillage of PCE which was discharged to the surge tank in 1974 and 1975, which entity was Jura's predecessor, ultimately merged into the corporation now known as Jura Services, Inc. Additionally, DER seeks in this proceeding only to be reimbursed for the costs of the investigation and tracing of the source of contamination and not for any natural resources damages nor any adjudication of the extent of liability for such damages, except insofar as the Order for Corrective Action which DER seeks to have imposed in this case reserves DER the opportunity to seek a determination after completion of corrective action of the extent to which the Respondents may be liable for natural resources damage, if any.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, 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 DER enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended NOV against all Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 5th day of November, 1992. 5985 APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-3077 & 88- Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence of record and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not dispositive. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the Hearing testimony and evidence and subordinate to the Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected for the same reason. Accepted but not in itself dispositive of the material findings issues and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 23-27. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 28-30. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 31-34. Accepted. 35-40. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 41-50. Accepted but not in themselves materially dispositive. 51. Accepted but not in itself dispositive and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 52-53. Accepted. Accepted as to the DER intent in placement of the wells. Accepted but not materially dispositive standing alone. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that Crown Laundry has been shown source by circumstantial evidence to be inferentially a of the contamination found in the various wells mentioned but not the sole source nor the source actually causing this made on violation of appropriate standards and otherwise proposed finding of fact is subordinate to those this subject matter by the Hearing Officer. Rejected as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted as to the levels of chemical depicted in this the proposed finding of fact but not as to the material import of the proposed finding of fact concerning tank being the cause of the excession of the MCL standards. Accepted but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. 61-62. Accepted. Accepted except that the presence of these chemicals in excession of the MCL inside the tank does not constitute a violation of any pertinent legal authority. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that the walls of the tank are a continuing source of PCE. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted in terms of the amount spent but rejected otherwise as being, in effect, a conclusion of law. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as constituting a recitation of a portion of the fact pleadings at issue and not as a proposed finding of which is materially dispositive of any issue. Rejected as not constituting a material proposed finding of fact but rather a recitation or discussion of the remedies sought by the Petitioner. Rejected as immaterial in this proceeding. Accepted but not dispositive. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Respondent, American Linen Supply Company's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-21. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not as probative that leakage could have raised the level of PCE in the monitoring and production well samples above the maximum contaminant level. Accepted. Accepted but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself dispositive. 27-28. Accepted. Respondents, Belleaus and Crown Laundry and Dry Cleaners, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact 1-21. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and to some extent, as speculative. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted but not itself dispositive of material issues. Accepted. Respondent, Jura Services, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact 1-63. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 66-68. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Jack Chisolm, Esq. Richard Windsor, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 William D. Preston, Esq. Thomas M. DeRose, Esq. HOPPING, BOYD, ET AL. 123 S. Calhoun Street P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas P. Healy, Jr., Esq. MAYER, BROWN & PLATT 190 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60603 John W. Wilcox, Esq. Derek B. Spilman, Esq. RUDNICK & WOLFE 101 East Kennedy Blvd. Suite 2000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Jeffrey C. Bassett, Esq. BARRON, REDDING, ET AL. Box 2467 Panama City, Florida 32401
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation is the administrative agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to protect the water resources of the State and to administer and enforce the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972, embodied in Chapters 373, Florida Statutes, as well as the rules promulgated thereunder. The St. Johns River Water Management District is a unit of government established by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, also charged with the duty to administer and enforce that chapter and related rules. The Department of Environmental Regulation, pursuant to Section 373.103, Florida Statutes, and Section 317.104(8), Florida Administrative Code, has delegated to the District the power and authority to administer and enforce Part III of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to that part which implement it. Those rules are embodied in Chapter 40C-3, Florida Administrative Code. Stanley U. Monds is a licensed water well contractor licensed by St. Johns River Water Management District. He has been issued license number 2257. Mr. Monds is also registered by the District as a "water well driller." That registration bears the number 2257. The Respondent on various dates in 1984-1986 contracted to construct and constructed water wells from which water was to be drawn for drinking or other domestic purposes, within the geographical boundaries of the District, for the following named individuals: WELL OWNER COUNTY YEAR CONSTRUCTED Ray Howell Clay 1986 Clayton McCumbers Clay 1986 Joe Eddy Nassau 1986 Joe Eddy Nassau 1986 Kevin Brooks Clay 1984 Nancy Harris Duval 1985 Marcus Rhoden Baker 1985 Cecil Hagen Baker 1985 Ken Tenson Baker 1985 Jim Griffis Baker 1985 Tom Scott Baker 1985 Tom Ott Baker 1985 J. Ray Gatlin Baker 1984 J. Ray Gatlin Baker 1984 The Respondent never filed "well completion reports" with the District for these wells, as required by District rules. The Respondent also contracted to construct and constructed wells for domestic water use, including drinking, located within the geographical boundaries of the District for the following named individuals and thereafter filed well completion reports, however, the reports were actually filed more than 30 days after the wells were completed and thus in violation of District rules: WELL OWNER COUNTY DATE COMPLETED COMPLETION REPORT FILED James Hall Clay 3/10/86 5/06/86 Dennis Bennett Duval 6/16/83 5/04/85 Bennett's Hardware Duval 6/17/83 5/23/85 Don Tenbush Clay 1/08/86 10/1/86 In March 1986, the Respondent installed a water well for a Mr. Joe Eddy in Nassau County, Florida. This well was abandoned by the Respondent and a second well was drilled nearby in June 1986. The Respondent failed to properly abandon the first well by filling it from top to bottom with grout. The Respondent was warned of this condition and reminded to correct it by certified letter sent him by District personnel concerning his improper abandonment of the first well. He acknowledged receiving that letter in a conversation with witness J. C. Varnes, a District field representative. The Respondent, however, refused or failed to later properly abandon the first well by filling it with grout from bottom to top. In June 1986, the Respondent contracted to construct and did construct a second water well for the same Mr. Eddy on his property in Nassau County. That well penetrated multiple aquifers, but the Respondent refused or failed to complete the well so as to prevent cross-contamination of different aquifers or water-bearing strata by water of significantly different quality. This should have been prevented by proper casing of the well which Respondent failed to do. Further, the Respondent used PVC (polyvinylchlride) plastic casing instead of metallic casing in constructing the well and seated the casing by driving it into the ground which resulted in the plastic casing being cracked. The Respondent also failed to grout and seal the annular space between the well casing and the naturally occurring geological formations through which the well bore passed. Another certified letter was sent him by District personnel advising him of these violations of District rules which he acknowledged. He refused or failed to correct the well construction violations, however. Failing to case a well to the bottom of a well or having cracks in the casing allows water and/or other materials from one geological strata to enter the casing, migrate upward or downward and enter aquifers or water-bearing strata at other levels, thus posing a potential of cross-contamination of different aquifers or water-bearing strata due to improper "short casing" or due to cracked casing. In 1984, the Respondent constructed a water well for Kevin Brooks on his property in Clay County, Florida. The well was constructed into an "unconsolidated aquifer," but the Respondent failed to attach a well screen to the bottom of the casing as a filtering device, in violation of well construction standards promulgated by the District. In June 1983, the Respondent contracted to construct and did construct a well for Bennett's Hardware on its property in Duval County. He failed to grout and seal the annular space between the well casing and the naturally occurring geological formations from the bottom to the top of the well in violation of District well construction standards. In 1984, the Respondent constructed two four-inch water wells for J. Ray Gatlin on his property in Baker County, Florida. The Respondent failed to grout and seal the upper three feet of annular space in each of these two wells. He was sent a certified letter on July 14, 1986, advising him of the deficiencies in the well construction. He acknowledged receiving that letter in a conversation with witness J. C. Varnes, but failed to grout the well properly anyway. Also in 1984, he constructed an eight-inch water well for J. Ray Gatlin on property in Baker County, Florida. He failed to grout and seal the annular space between this well's casing and the surrounding geological formations from the bottom to the top of the casing. He also failed to install a water tight seal at the top of the well casing. After being sent a certified letter advising of these violations by District personnel, he acknowledged to Mr. Varnes once again that he had received that letter. He still failed to properly grout or seal the well after being so warned. On September 16, 1986, he was sent a second certified letter which he acknowledged receiving which instructed him to properly abandon the well. He refused to follow that instruction. In January 1986, the Respondent constructed a water well for Don Tenbush on his property in Clay County. He failed to grout and seal the annular space between the well casing and the geological formation surrounding the casing in this well from top to bottom. This well penetrated multiple aquifers or water-bearing zones and yet the Respondent failed to complete the well so as to prevent potential cross-contamination of different zones or aquifers by water of significantly different quality. He did not case the well all the way down to the producing aquifer at the bottom of the well. Here, again, he acknowledged receiving a certified letter advising him of these violations and requiring correction and yet failed to correct the violations. The Respondent began construction of a second well for Mr. Tenbush on the same parcel of property in January 1986 after abandoning the first well described above. He failed to properly abandon the first well by filling it from bottom to top with grout. He was notified of that deficiency or failure, but refused to correct that condition. In constructing the second well for Mr. Tenbush, he refused to or failed to extend the well casing from the land surface all the way down to the producing aquifer and to seat it. After being sent a certified letter advising him of this violation, receipt of which he acknowledged to Mr. Varnes, he again refused or failed to correct the violation. Both wells drilled by Respondent for Mr. Tenbush subsequently had to be abandoned by another water well contractor.
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Petroleum Markers and Convenience Store Association (Florida Petroleum) is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes, and if so, in what amount.1
Findings Of Fact Introduction Florida Petroleum is the prevailing party in the underlying rule challenge and requests an award of reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes.2 Florida Petroleum prevailed in DOAH Case No. 05-0529RP on one of two challenged proposed rule revisions to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-770, which governs cleanup of petroleum contamination. Proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(b) was held to be an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." Proposed rule 62-770.220(4), was "not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, except insofar as notice must be given every five years to persons other than 'local governments and owners of any property into which the point of compliance is allowed to extend,' as provided in Section 376.3071(5)(b)2., Florida Statutes."3 The Department argues that its actions were "substantially justified" because there was a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time its actions were taken. The proposed rules were approved by the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) on February 2, 2005, which is the time when the Department's "actions were taken." The Department does not argue that special circumstances exist that would make the award of fees unjust. Department Contamination Programs The Department's Division of Waste Management is comprised of the Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems, the Bureau of Waste Cleanup, and the Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste. The Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems administers the state's petroleum contamination cleanup program. This cleanup program encompasses the technical oversight, management, and administrative activities necessary to prioritize, assess, and cleanup sites contaminated by discharges of petroleum and petroleum products from petroleum storage systems. There are approximately 23,000 petroleum-contaminated sites statewide. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-770 establishes petroleum contamination site cleanup criteria. These criteria are established for the purposes of protecting the public health and the environment and for determining, on a site-specific basis, the rehabilitation program tasks that comprise a site rehabilitation program and the levels at which a rehabilitation program task and site rehabilitation program may be deemed complete. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-770.160(8). The petroleum contamination cleanup program incorporates risk-based corrective action (RBCA) principles to achieve protection of human health, public safety, and the environment in a cost-effective manner. The phased RBCA process is iterative and tailors site rehabilitation tasks to site-specific conditions and risks. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-770.160(8). The Bureau of Waste Cleanup administers the state's drycleaning solvent cleanup program. This program is for the cleanup of property that is contaminated with drycleaning solvents as a result of the operations of a drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-782 establishes drycleaning solvent cleanup criteria, established for the purposes of protecting the human health, public safety and the environment under actual circumstances of exposure and for determining, on a site-specific basis, the rehabilitation program tasks that comprise a site rehabilitation program and the levels at which a rehabilitation program task and site rehabilitation program may be deemed complete. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-782.150(1). The drycleaning solvent cleanup program, like the petroleum contamination cleanup program, the brownfield site rehabilitation program, and the global RBCA contamination cleanup program mentioned below, incorporates RBCA principles to achieve protection of human health and the environment in a cost-effective manner. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-782.150(1) and 62-785.150(1). In 2003, the Legislature adopted Section 376.30701, Florida Statutes, which authorizes the Department to adopt rule criteria for the implementation of what is referred to as "global RBCA," which extends the RBCA process to contaminated sites where legal responsibility for site rehabilitation exists pursuant to Chapter 376 or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Global RBCA is a cleanup program for contaminated sites that do not fall within one of the Department's other contamination cleanup programs. Department Rulemaking Efforts After the passage of Section 376.30701(2), Florida Statutes, the Department initiated rulemaking to develop Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-780 (global RBCA). Section 376.30701(2) established July 1, 2004, as the date the Department was to adopt rule criteria to implement the global RBCA contamination cleanup program. At the same time, the Department initiated rulemaking with respect to revisions to Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-770 (petroleum), Chapter 62-782 (drycleaning solvents), and Chapter 62-785 (brownfields). This decision was predicated on the similarities among the four waste cleanup programs and the Department's desire to ensure a consistent approach across the four programs and pursuant to one large rulemaking effort. As such, the Department sought to include the same notification provisions in each rule for consistency purposes. (T 33-34, 55). However, the Department also recognized at the time that the notice provision for RBCA for petroleum contamination cleanups, i.e., Section 376.3071(5)(b)2., was different from the notice provisions for RBCA cleanups for the drycleaning solvent (Section 376.3078(4)(b)), brownfields (Section 376.81(1)(b)), and global RBCA (Section 376.30701(2)(b)) programs. (T 69, 115, 126-129). In each of these three statutes, the Legislature expressly expanded the class of persons to whom notice is required to be given and expressly referred to a specific type of notice to be given (actual or constructive) depending on the class of persons designated to receive notice. Each of the latter statutes was enacted after, and presumably with knowledge of Section 376.3071(5)(b)2., which was materially amended in material part in 1996 to add, in part, the notice provision. See Ch. 96-277, § 5, at 1131, 1135-1136, Laws of Fla. In May 2004, the Department became aware of concerns with regard to on-going efforts to assess the groundwater contamination at the former American Beryllium plant in Tallevast, Manatee County, Florida. (The party's refer to the city as Tallavast, whereas the Transcript (T 36) and DEP Exhibit 1 refer to the city as Tallevast.) For approximately two years, the owner of the plant, Lockheed Martin, had been conducting an on-going assessment of the extent of the solvent (trichloroethylene) contamination. The Department was concerned that there were residential areas located adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the former industrial plant. In May 2004, it became apparent that there were problems with certain assumptions concerning the assessment of the groundwater contamination. First, there had been an erroneous assumption that the contamination plume was small and located predominantly on-site. Second, based on well surveys, there was an assumption that there were no human health exposure points in the form of contaminated off-site potable water wells. Significant concerns arose when it became apparent the contamination plume was more extensive than anticipated and had migrated off-site. These concerns were exacerbated when it became apparent that groundwater contamination was impacting off-site potable water wells. Tallevast residents raised concerns that they were being exposed to contamination and that they were never properly notified by the Department, upon the initial discovery of the groundwater contamination. Tallevast residents were also concerned about whether the Department had failed to properly notify then once it was discovered the groundwater contamination had migrated off-site. The problems experienced at Tallevast emphasized to the Department the need to explore available avenues to enhance public notification procedures as a whole.4, 5 The Department asserted as to a reasonable basis in fact for the proposed rules, that contamination affecting Tallevast residents provided an impetus for the Department in May 2004 to address notification of contamination to affected off-site property owners. The situation in Tallevast arose because well surveys failed to indicate the extent of the contamination plume and that residents were using private wells for potable water. The Department's objective was to make sure that if there was exposure potential, the potentially affected parties should be notified. The Department seems to agree that the failure to discover the contamination of the potable wells in Tallevast occurred during the assessment phase of the cleanup and that it had not yet gotten to the stage of determining the remediation strategy. (T 45-46). The Department's stated concerns regarding Tallevast are not specifically addressed by proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(b) and (4). (T 74-75, 95-96). The Department’s procedure for granting a temporary extension of the point of compliance is that the responsible party will propose such an extension in its remedial action plan. (The four cleanup programs provide for the establishment of a TPOC.) The Department will then issue its notice of intended agency action, notice of the agency action will be provided to the enumerated persons, and the persons receiving notice will have a 30-day comment period. (T 149-155). (Pursuant to proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(a), the person responsible for site rehabilitation (PRSR) "shall provide" actual notice "to the appropriate County Health Department and all record owners of any real property into which the point of compliance is allowed to extend . . . ." In this regard, as Mr. Chisolm testified, the process is "similar to a permit.") Mr. Sole testified that, in the course of rulemaking, Florida Petroleum argued to the Department that the "petroleum statute under 376.3071 is different as it addresses the temporary point of compliance. It's not as prescriptive as the other statutory provisions for Risk-Based Corrective Action and the dry-cleaning, the Brownfields, and now the Global RBCA [statutes]. And their concern was that because it's not as prescriptive, [the Department] should not be establishing these additional notice provisions, such as constructive notice . . . But their fear was or concerns . . . were that you're going to engender a lot of litigation that's unnecessary because, as soon as you say the word 'contamination,' somebody is going to want to sue me . . . . And I understood that position. But at the same time, the lessons that we learned were that failure to provide that notice, unfortunately, can cause exposure and can cause a public health concern; and [the Department] needed to balance the two." (T 63-64, 122). Mr. Chisolm testified, in part, about the development of the constructive notice provision in proposed rule 62- 770.220(3)(b) and explained that the global RBCA, brownfields, and drycleaning solvent statutes required constructive notice to residents and business tenants of impacted properties.6 Mr. Chisolm further explained: So, if you're going to give notice to the legal owners of a piece of property, many cases there are tenants there. And they may not get the word, and they may be the ones that are drinking the water. The same with business tenants. So the idea was let's give notice to the people who are going to be or potentially going to be affected by this contamination, which is, after all, under the property which they may be inhabiting and using. So that was the purpose for the rule change in this case. Let's give notice to everybody who could potentially be affected by the rule, by the contamination beyond the property boundaries . . . . The whole idea behind RBCA, Risk- Based Corrective Actions, is that, if there's no exposure, there's no risk. There's no danger to the individual, to any individual. (T 116-117).
The Issue Whether Respondent's permit for disposal of septic tank sludge should be revoked, as set forth in letter of the Volusia County Health Department, dated February 15, 1979. This case was originally set for hearing on June 21, 1979, pursuant to Notice of Hearing, dated March 30, 1979. On June 20, Respondent Philip G. Koan orally advised the Hearing Officer that he wished to withdraw his request for hearing. He was advised by the Hearing Officer to submit a written withdrawal of the petition and that the scheduled hearing would be cancelled pending receipt. On June 21, Respondent orally advised the Hearing Officer that he had changed his mind after reflection and now desired that the hearing be rescheduled. Since no written withdrawal of the petition or voluntary dismissal had been filed, the case was renoticed for hearing to be held on September 10, 1979. At the commencement of the hearing on that date, Petitioner moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction claiming that the petition had been dismissed by Respondent by his oral communication to the Hearing Officer on June The motion was denied because the proceeding had never been formally terminated by action of the Respondent or the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1978, Respondent Koan Septic Tank, Inc., Deland, Florida, submitted an application to the Volusia County Health Department for a permit to operate a septic tank cleaning service and temporary privy service. The application reflected the equipment which the applicant intended to use for the operation. Petitioner's application form contained a block entitled "Method and Place of Disposal." The applicant inserted the words "Smith Farm and Greens Dairy Grove" on the form. On November 7, 1978, Larry Herman, a sanitation aide for the County Health Department, performed an inspection of Respondent's facilities and equipment, and prepared a report on a mimeographed form headed "Septic Tanks and Privy Pump Truck Inspection." This form had a block entitled "Method and Place of Disposal." The inspector entered the words "Smith Farm - Greens Diary (sic), dumped & tilled." Although Herman testified that he had made no special inquiry at the time of his inspection as to the intended method of sludge disposal, he was aware that Respondent's customary method at its Smith Farm location was to "bury" the sludge into the ground by spreading and mechanical tilling. However, he recalled having conversations with Respondent's owner, Philip G. Koan, concerning disposal of sludge by the action of worms, prior to and after his inspection. On the other hand, both Koan and another officer of the corporation testified that Koan advised Herman at the time of the latter's inspection that the worm method of disposal would be used at the Greens Dairy location and that he expressed no objections. It is found that Herman was advised of Respondent's proposed method of disposal at the time of the inspection; however, he was not authorized to approve or issue permits. (Testimony of Herman, Gnann, Koan, Page, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2) On November 7, 1978, the Volusia County Health Department issued a permit authorizing Respondent to operate its establishment. The permit reflected an expiration date of September 30, 1979, and provided that violation of any applicable health law would revoke the permit. No conditions were attached to the permit, nor did it indicate any required method of sludge disposal. (Testimony of Page, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Respondent has been in the business of manufacturing, installing and servicing septic tanks for approximately eighteen years. In addition, Koan conducted a business involving the sale of worms. In the fall of 1978, he had approximately 12,000 pounds worms on hand. He had conducted various experiments at his business premises utilizing worms to dispose of manure and septic tank sludge. He found that the worms would eat the sludge material and excrete the same, resulting in worm "castings" or material which resembles potting soil with no residual odor. He had also placed worms in clogged septic tank drain fields and found that they later became unclogged, thus resulting in his conclusion that worms had disposed of the septic tank material in the tank. He further discovered that odors associated with septic tank sludge dissipated in a very short time when worms were present in the material, and observed that one pound of worms would "digest" or dispose of one pound of sludge in approximately twenty-four hours. Therefore, prior to receiving the county permit, he deposited the 12,000 pounds of worms in a trench located at the Greens Dairy location. After receiving the permit, Respondent dumped septic tank sludge in the trench approximately three times a week. The trench was about four feet wide, one foot deep, and 200 feet long. A screen was placed over the top of the ditch. However, it did not prevent access to files. (Testimony of Koan, Warnock, Petitioner's Exhibits 8-9) On December 12, 978, the owner of a skating rink adjacent to Respondent's Green Dairy property complained to the County Health Department concerning the presence of odors and flies at her establishment which had been the subject of customer complaints. A county sanitarian inspected the sludge operation on that date and found that there was some odor and a few flies in the immediate vicinity, but no fly larvae was observed. The ditch was full of sludge at the time. Some spillage has occurred in the driveway on the property. The location is approximately two to three hundred feet from the rear of the skating rink. A further inspection by the county Director of the Environmental Health Section was made on December 27. As a result, he wrote Respondent on December 28 that, although the inspection showed that flies and odors were minimal at the time, he could foresee an escalation of the same during certain periods, together with increased complaints from local businessmen. The letter further stated that the use of septic tank sludge for enriching a "worm bed" was in violation of Chapter 10D6.29, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 386 Florida Statutes, and was a sanitary nuisance which must be abated. A further complaint in January, 1979, followed by another county inspection revealed essentially the same conditions that existed at the time of the prior inspection, and prompted a second letter from the Environmental Health Section director to Respondent on January 31, 1979, wherein he was advised to cease dumping septic tank sludge at the Greens Dairy location within fourteen days and commence using the county sanitary landfill for such purposes. As a result of this letter, Respondent stopped dumping at the location on or about February 2. On February 15, another county letter was sent to Respondent which advised that its permit for disposal of septic tank sludge was revoked, subject to a request for hearing, as being in violation of Chapter 10D6.29(1) and (3)(c), Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 386.041(1)(e), Florida Statutes. The stated grounds for proposed revocation were that Respondent was employing an unsatisfactory and unacceptable method and place for disposal of waste, and was maintaining a condition capable of breeding flies, mosquitoes and other insects capable of transmitting diseases. The letter further stated that Respondent was not tilling the sludge as had been stated on the permit application and that the potential for breeding flies was evident due to concentration and lack of covering with soil. (Testimony of Tyndall, Van Ulzer, Page, Camp, Koan, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-7) During the approximate three-month period from November 1978 through January 1979 when Respondent was dumping sludge, a strong and distinctive odor and an unusually large number of flies were experienced on the skating rink premises nearby. After the dumping stopped in early February, both problems disappeared. However, other odors incident to the presence of hogs and chickens at farms in the area also produced a noxious odor in and around the skating rink. The odor produced by the dumping of sludge dissipates rapidly after dumping. The absence of fly larvae in and around the ditch shows that flies were not breeding there during the period of dumping operations, but does not rule out the potential for such breeding in the future. (Testimony of Munshower, Tyndall, Coffin, Branton, Tontone, Warnock, Hunt, Stipulation) The Volusia County Health Department issues permits involving the disposal of sludge only when a treatment method of burial, incineration, or sanitary landfill is used in the operation, as prescribed by Respondent's Rule 10D-6.29, Florida Administrative Code. However, long-standing policy permits disposal by mechanical tilling of the sludge into soil as a "modified" method of burial. This method cuts the sludge with a disc and harrow and mixes it into the soil to a depth of approximately four inches. It also produces a temporary odor when the sludge is first spread on the soil. The county has no policies concerning the use of worms to dispose of sludge and does not consider it to be an acceptable method of disposal. The County Health Department has not conducted any scientific tests to determine the presence of pathogens in soil which has been mechanically tilled with sludge. (Testimony of Page) When sludge is placed over a "worm bed" and has settled, the material begins moving as the worms eat the sludge. The residue of the digestive process is sold as a soil conditioner which meets State Department of Agriculture requirements and which contains plant nutrients. Earth worms multiply rapidly when feeding on sludge. Respondent had approximately 50,000 pounds of worms in its trench when it ceased operations in February 1979. This method of sludge disposal has not been accepted generally by health authorities as a recognized and acceptable procedure. (Testimony of Koan, Warnock, Hunt, Tontone, Nemeyer, supplemented by Respondent's Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That Respondent's Permit No. 18362 be permitted to remain in effect until its expiration date provided that it disposes of sludge and/or contents from septic tanks in an acceptable method, as provided in Rule 10D-6.29, F.A.C. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Eisenberg, Esquire Department of HRS District IV Counsel 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2050 Jacksonville, Florida Craig James, Esquire Post Office Drawer DD Deland, Florida 32720 Department of HRS Attn: Eric J. Haugdahl 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether CJC Properties, Ltd. (CJC), is eligible for state restoration funding assistance under the Petroleum Contamination Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program for one or more discharges of gasoline at DEP Facility No. 378943938 (“the facility”).
Findings Of Fact The Facility CJC is a Florida Limited Partnership. It is the current owner of property located at 5691 U.S. Highway 27 North, in Tallahassee. Prior to CJC’s acquisition of the property, the property was owned by Carolyn J. Chapman, John W. Chapman, Jane Chapman Latina, and Carolyn Chapman Landrum (“the Chapmans”). The property was leased to various entities and operated as a gas station. The tanks and dispensers remained in service until November, 1995. The last operator of the facility was Lake Jackson 76, Inc. There were five underground petroleum storage tanks at the facility. Before 1991, one of the tanks at the facility was used for regular, leaded, gasoline. When leaded gasoline was phased out, the tank was used for unleaded gasoline. Site Assessments and Sampling Data On November 30, 1995, the Chapmans employed Petroleum Contractors, Inc., to remove the five storage tanks. During the tank removal, Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists, Inc. (“EGS”) performed an assessment to determine whether the facility was contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. The Underground Storage Tank Removal Report prepared by EGS noted that all five tanks appeared to be intact. Soils in the tank pit wall and bottom were not discolored. No significant contamination was observed directly below the tanks. Soil from the tank pit was stockpiled on the site. EGS observed no significant signs of contamination of this soil. The soil stockpile was also screened with a Flame Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). No organic vapors were detected. An OVA detects any organic vapor, but is used as a screening tool to find petroleum vapors. Department rules require that an OVA reading be performed both unfiltered and filtered. The filtered reading screens out everything but methane and is “subtracted” from the unfiltered reading to determine the presence of petroleum vapors. Twenty-four soil samples were taken from various depths at nine locations in the tank pit. These samples were tested using an OVA. Nine of the soil samples, taken from four locations, had corrected OVA readings indicative of petroleum contamination. EGS concluded that “soil contamination detected in the tank pit is likely the result of a leak in the piping” between the dispensers and the tanks. Soil samples were also taken from three borings in the vicinity of the dispenser island and OVA-tested. In boring D-2, organic vapors were detected from the surface to a depth of approximately seven feet. The OVA readings from D-2 declined with depth. EGS reported that “some contamination was detected beneath a dispenser; however, it does not ‘appear’ to significantly extend below six (6) feet.” EGS did not report both filtered and unfiltered OVA readings for the soil samples taken from the dispenser area, as it had done for soil samples taken from the tank pit and the stockpile. For the dispenser area soil samples, EGS reported a single OVA reading for each sample, without indicating whether the reading was “corrected” after filtering. For this reason, the Department contends that these data are unreliable. CJC points out that EGS stated in the text of its report that the soil samples were filtered. CJC also argues that, because the filtered OVA readings for soil samples taken from the tank pit area were not different from their unfiltered readings, the OVA readings for the soil samples from the dispenser area would not have changed after filtering. The preponderance of the evidence is that the contamination in the dispenser area was petroleum. Based on EGS’ findings during the tank removal in November 1995, Petroleum Contractors, Inc., filed a Discharge Reporting Form on December 1, 1995, stating that there had been a discharge of unleaded gasoline at the facility. In January 1996, the Chapmans applied to participate in FPLRIP based on the discharge reported on December 1, 1995. By order dated January 26, 1996, the Department determined that the reported discharge was eligible for state-funded remediation assistance under FPLRIP. In 1997, another consultant, Levine Fricke Recon (LFR) conducted a site assessment at the facility and submitted its Interim Site Assessment Report to the Department. As part of its own soil sampling at the site, LFR collected a “direct push” soil boring in the dispenser island area, near the place where EGS had reported organic vapors. The boring data showed no petroleum vapors until the interval 16-to-20 feet below ground surface. LFR also collected and analyzed groundwater samples from the site. It reported that a sample taken from beneath the former diesel dispenser contained lead. Because lead occurs naturally in soils, its presence in a water sample does not confirm that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. In 1998, LFR conducted a second assessment of the facility site. It installed and sampled four shallow monitoring wells, designated MW-1S through MW-4S, and three deep monitoring wells, designated MW-2D through MW-4D. Groundwater samples from MW-3S and MW-3D were analyzed for lead, ethylene dibromide (EDB), and 1,2-Dichloroethane. All three substances are usually detected in a groundwater sample contaminated with leaded gasoline. On August 28, 1998, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment II to the Department, which shows lead and EDB were found in a sample taken from MW-3S, but not 1,2-Dichloroethane. LFR did not conclude or express a suspicion in either of its two assessment reports that leaded gasoline had been discharged at the facility. The deadline for submitting a Discharge Reporting Form or written report of contamination was December 31, 1998. A site assessment report received by the Department before January 1, 1999, which contained evidence of a petroleum discharge, was accepted by the Department as a “report of contamination.” The petroleum discharge information received by the Department before January 1, 1999, consisted of the Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, the FPLRIP claim, the Interim Site Assessment Report, and the Interim Site Assessment Report II. Post Deadline Site Assessment Data After the statutory deadline, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment III. This report includes January 1999 groundwater sampling data from four monitoring wells which show the presence of low levels of EDB. When EDB is found in a groundwater sample, it is a common practice to re-sample the well from which the sample was taken. Of the wells that showed the presence of EDB, only MW- 10D was re-sampled, after January 1, 1999. There was no EDB present in the groundwater when MS-10D was re-sampled. In June 2000, as part of the remediation of the contamination at the facility, an area of contaminated soil was removed to a depth of 14 feet. The area of soil removed included the former dispenser area. In January 2003, the Department notified CJC that the $300,000 FPLRIP funding cap would soon be reached. In March 2003, CJC signed a Funding Cap Transition Agreement, acknowledging that “At no time will the DEP be obligated to pay for cleanup of this discharge any amount that exceeds the funding cap.” CJC further acknowledged that it “is responsible for completing the remediation of the discharge in accordance with Chapter 62-770, F.A.C.” In 2005, CJC re-sampled one of the monitoring wells for lead and EDB. Neither substance was present. The site is not currently being actively remediated. Periodic groundwater sampling indicates that concentrations of contaminants are dropping. No further active remediation has been proposed. The cost to complete remediation is a matter of speculation. The record evidence is insufficient to make a finding about future remediation costs. Eligibility Determinations On September 2, 2003, CJC submitted a PCPP Affidavit to the Department, seeking state funding under PCPP. On October 30, 2003, the Department denied CJC eligibility for PCPP funding on the basis that the contamination was covered under FPLRIP and, therefore, was excluded from funding under PCPP. The Department has never granted PCPP eligibility for the cleanup of a discharge previously being funded under FPLRIP. Apparently, in 2005, CJC hired Glenn R. MacGraw, an expert in the assessment of petroleum-contaminated sites, to review the EGS and LFR assessments. In a letter to CJC’s attorney dated August 19, 2005, MacGraw expressed the opinion that “at least 2 discharges have occurred on this site, one in the former tank area, and one in the former dispenser area.” MacGraw’s opinion that there had been a discharge of leaded gasoline was based on the detection of EDB and lead in the groundwater. He also thought the presence of methyl tetra-butyl ether (MTBE) in groundwater samples taken from the tank pit area showed a tank leak of unleaded gasoline. CJC requested FPLRIP funding for the other alleged discharges at the facility. On March 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter formally stating its disagreement that there were other reported discharges and denying eligibility for FPLRIP funding. On March 30, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Ineligibility under PCPP. The amended order added a second ground for denial, that the reported discharge was not shown to have occurred before January 1, 1995. Whether There Was A Second Discharge Eligible for Funding CJC argues that the presence of lead and EDB in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3S shows that there was a discharge of leaded gasoline at the facility. However, LFR reported that the well screen for MW-3S had probably been damaged during installation, because a significant amount of filter sand was observed in the purge water. The Department contends, therefore, that the source of the lead detected in the groundwater sample from MW-3S could have been (naturally) in the soil that entered the well. The Department also discounts the detection of EDB in the groundwater sample because EDB is an ingredient of some pesticides and can show up in groundwater when pesticide has been applied to the overlying land. Furthermore, EDB was not detected in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3D, a deeper well located near MW-3S. MacGraw does not think the EDB came from a pesticide application, because the EDB contamination at the site occurs in an elongated “plume,” in the former dispenser area, whereas one would expect to see EDB distributed evenly over the site if the source was a pesticide application. MacGraw mapped the plume of EDB by using data obtained after the discharge reporting deadline. Michael J. Bland, a Department employee and expert in geology and petroleum site assessment, believes the data from the facility are insufficient to confirm the presence of EDB or its distribution. LFR reported in its Interim Site Assessment that no significant soil contamination was found near the dispenser island. Groundwater samples from MW-3D, a deep monitoring well near MW-S3, showed no EDB, lead, or 1,2-dichlorothane. Bland opined that, if the detection of EDB in the shallow well was reliable, EDB would have been detected in the deep well, too, because EDB is a “sinker.” EDB is persistent in groundwater, so when it is not detected when a well is re-sampled, reasonable doubt arises about the detection in the first sample. Of all the wells sampled in 1999 that showed EDB, only MW-10D was re-sampled in 2003. When the well was re-sampled, there was no EDB. CJC contends that EDB was not found in the re-sampling of MW-10D because of the soil removal in 2000, but the Department contends that the soil removal would not have affected the presence of EDB in MW-10D, because the well is significantly down-gradient of the area of soil removal. It was undisputed that the presence of 1,2- dichoroethane in MW-S3 was not reliably determined. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the contamination reported in the dispenser area is the source of contamination which persists at the facility. The reported contamination only affected the top six feet of soil. The soil removal to a depth of 14 feet in that area in 2000 should have fully remediated the reported contamination. The data upon which CJC relies in claiming eligibility under FPLRIP or PCPP for a second discharge are, at best, incomplete and ambiguous. CJC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. CJC also failed to prove that the reported contamination in the dispenser is associated with a discharge that still exists to be remediated with state assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that CJC is ineligible to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program for the discharge reported to the Department on December 1, 1995, and that CJC has not demonstrated eligibility to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program for any other discharges. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2008.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether sufficient grounds exists for the Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, to terminate Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr.'s employment with the Authority because of the matters alleged in the Letter of Termination dated February 15, 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Authority, was a governmental agency with membership held by Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco Counties and the cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. It is charged with the responsibility of providing water resource management for its members. In November, 1994, the Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr., then employed for 9 1/2 years by the Authority as a maintenance technician, was under the supervision of Ben Nevel, lead supervisor for his crew and Harry Vogel, the facilities maintenance supervisor at Cypress Creek pump station. Just before Thanksgiving that year, his crew was given the responsibility of removing certain supposedly above ground aluminum pipe belonging to Pinellas County and replacing it with buried PVC pipe on the county's well field on Cross Bar Ranch, owned by Pinellas County. On the last day of the project Respondent was working by himself at the job site doing those things necessary to complete the project. This included removing three aluminum pipes and replacing them with three PVC pipes. In the course of the removal of the aluminum pipe, two pipes were damaged by Respondent because they were buried and he could not see them. When Respondent attempted to bury the three pieces of PVC pipe, he found that he needed some pipe lubricant in order to get them joined and called the pump station to have someone bring it. The lubricant was brought to the site by Mr. Vogel about noon, and the two men talked about the project. According to Mr. Vogel, Respondent made no mention of any damaged pipe nor did Vogel see any damaged pipe while he was at the site. Vogel adamantly denies that he ever, either that day or at any other time, told Respondent that he could throw away damaged pipe. The instructions that Vogel had left with Mr. Nevel for transmittal to the crew was that the removed pipe was to be placed in storage at the north end of the ranch because it belonged to Pinellas County, not to the Authority, and even if the pipe was damaged, the ends might be used for fittings. It is not clear whether Respondent knew the pipe belonged to the county or to the cattle company which had originally owned the ranch. Notwithstanding, Respondent took the two damaged pipes back to the Cypress Creek pumping station where, without speaking to anyone about what he proposed to do, he placed them in the trash dumpster for disposal. The following day, after completing his day's work, Respondent noted that the pipe was still in the dumpster and, without seeking approval from anyone, removed it from the dumpster, placed it in his truck, and that same day, sold it to All American Metal Recycling in Land O'Lakes, Florida, for $29.00 which he kept for his personal use. He collects scrap aluminum and copper in order to sell them. Respondent admits that as an Authority employee, he did not have the authority to take property owned by the Authority or its members for his own use. Ordinarily, he admits, the disposal of Authority-owned property had to be approved. The authority for approval, as contained in the agency's standard operating procedure for disposal of Authority assets, dated February 14, 1994, was the Cypress Creek storekeeper. Though it is not written, the Authority has a policy against employees taking material out of the dumpsters at the Cypress Creek facility. It was Toler's understanding, however, that old, unusable pieces of piping and wood could be thrown away, but equipment and property that had value had to be turned into Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, who would evaluate it for disposal or repair. At no time did Respondent have the authority to make that determination. Mr. Toler admits he was aware of the Authority's policy on the disposal of property as noted in the February 14 SOP, as it had been outlined at no lees than two safety meetings he had attended. He understood that if he threw property away without authority, he could be fired. In fact, he admits, Mr. Vogel had so advised him of that. In the instant case, however, he contends, Mr. Vogel told him on the last day of the project in issue, in response to his inquiry, that he should throw the damaged pipe away. This was, as stated earlier, categorically denied by Mr. Vogel. Respondent also indicates that on the second day of the project, pipe being removed was damaged. That pipe was taken to the north pasture and stacked near other, undamaged pipe. The total amount of aluminum pipe removed in this project consisted of approximate one hundred twenty foot long "sticks". Respondent well knew he could not take and sell the stacked pipe, even that which was damaged. Respondent claims that no one saw him put the damaged pipe into the dumpster. He did not think about the opportunity to salvage the pipe when Mr. Vogel told him to throw it away or even when he brought it back and threw it into the dumpster. It was not until the next day when, after work, he saw the pipe still in the dumpster, that it occurred to him to take it, he claims. Respondent admits he has taken scrap metal and sold it before and claims others have done so, too. When he put this pipe in the dumpster he realized that others might take it, so he was somewhat surprised when it was still there the next day. Respondent also admits he did not tell Mr. Vogel how he had disposed of the pipe at first. Once the situation came under investigation, however, as a result of an inquiry regarding missing pipe from the Cross Bar Ranch project, he did so. He admits that sometime after the day he took and sold the pipe as scrap, but before the investigation was commenced, Mr. Vogel asked him what he had done with the pipe, and Respondent replied he had thrown it away. A few days later, in Vogel's office, when the investigation had begun, Mr. Vogel again asked Respondent what he had done with the pipe, and this time Respondent admitted to scrapping it. In the course of the investigation, Respondent spoke with Mr. Capp, a Cypress Creek engineer, about the allegation. In that conversation, held in Mr. Capp's office while no one else was present, Respondent admitted selling the broken pipe for scrap and advised that Mr. Vogel had told him to throw it away. At that time, he offered to replace the pipe, but his offer was not accepted. Some time later, and prior to the pre-disciplinary hearing, he was given a letter by Mr. Capp placing him on administrative leave pending investigation. At that time, Mr. Capp denied knowing what was in the letter. On February 8, 1995 a pre-disciplinary hearing was held with Respondent and counsel present at which time Respondent was given an opportunity to tell his side of the story. At that time, he did not mention any other individuals who had taken scrap from the dumpster, nor had he ever told Mr. Vogel, Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy about that. He claims he does not know of any cases where either Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy knew of others taking scrap but not being disciplined. However, Respondent is of the opinion Mr. Vogel knows what is going on but he cannot be sure. As was stated previously, Respondent has taken scrap from the dumpster before and claims Mr. Vogel knew it. Vogel, predictably, denies that. Some time after the pre-disciplinary hearing, after Kennedy received the information regarding the incident as determined therein, he discharged Respondent for several violations of the Authority's personnel rules. These included the removal and sale of the scrap pipe owned by Pinellas County, committing a breach of public trust, and committing a breach of member government trust which was deleterious to the Authority in that, in Kennedy's opinion, it undermined the public's faith and confidence in the Authority's public service responsibilities. Kennedy asserts that the relationship between the Authority and its member governments requires that each cooperate with the other in the mission to supply water to the public. Trust and confidence are essential elements of that relationship. Employees of the Authority and its member governments frequently are in and out of each others' facilities. If a member government loses trust in an Authority employee, the Authority's ability to efficiently perform its function would be hampered. This is a reasonable and supportable position and it is so found. In the past, the Authority has discharged employees for violating employee rules which reflect adversely on Authority integrity. One was discharged for the improper use of an Authority vehicle, and others have been discharged for violations of the property disposal policy. It would appear that Mr. Toler has not been treated differently than any others who were found to have violated similar policies. Since February, 1944, when the Authority adopted its policy regarding disposal of property, three employees, including Respondent, have removed materials from the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility for their own use. Among these are Mr. Nevel who admits to taking electric wire and three discarded printers. Nothing taken by the others included aluminum pipe, however. Capp, Kennedy and Vogel all deny knowing that employees were taking scrap. Respondent cannot say that any of them did know. Consistent with that philosophy, Mr. Kennedy indicates he would have discharged Respondent for placing the scrap in the dumpster whether or not he sold it. By the same token, he would have discharged Respondent had he taken and sold the pipe, even if he had not placed it in the dumpster. Another incident arose in June, 1995, just prior to the hearing, involving the potential disposal of scrap pipe. Mr. Kennedy learned that a stick of aluminum pipe was in the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility. The pipe, owned by the Authority, had been placed there by Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, after Mr. Nevel used the ends to retrofit some piping at the Cross Bar Ranch. When this was discovered, Mr. Kennedy directed the pipe be recovered and held for possible future use or sale. Whereas Respondent contends this action was an attempt at a cover-up, it is more likely the result of an unintentional discard of potentially useful pipe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the East Coast Regional Water Supply Authority deny Respondent's Petition for Relief and Enter a Final Order discharging him effective February 15, 1995. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted but irrelevant to any disputed issue of fact. Accepted. - 8. Accepted. 9. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. Accepted. 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's counsel has identified his Proposed Findings of Fact by letter rather than number. For the sake of consistency in this Order they will be re- identified herein with numbers. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not a proper Finding of Fact but more a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Hearing, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 109 North brush Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Michael S. Edenfield, Esquire Battle & Edenfield, P.A. 206 Mason Street Brandon, Florida 33511 General Manager West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Donald D. Conn General Counsel West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621
The Issue Schofield Corporation of Orlando has applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit to construct and operate a Class III trash/yard trash landfill in Orange County, Florida. The issues are whether the applicant is entitled to the permit and, if so, what conditions should attach. Also at issue is Schofield Corporation's motion for attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Section 403.412(2)(f), F.S.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Schofield Corporation of Orlando (Schofield), owns the proposed landfill site and existing permits for the site. The proposed site is located in West Orange County, southwest of the intersection of State Road 545 and Schofield Road on the west half of the northwest quarter of section 32, township 23 south, range 27 east, comprising approximately sixty acres within a larger eighty-acre parcel. In some undetermined distant past the site was cultivated in citrus. It is currently being excavated as a borrow pit. The materials proposed to be placed in the landfill include trash, yard trash, construction and demolition debris and clean debris, as defined in DER Rule 17-701.020, F.A.C. The northern half of the site is flat and will be used first for the composting operation. The southern excavated portion of the site will receive the permitted fill material until it is flattened. Then, the two functions will alternate; the composting will occur on the south, and the north end will be excavated to receive fill. The proposed facility will be operated by Chambers Corporation, a nationally recognized waste management company with approximately 20 years of experience in solid waste management. The landfill site will be completely fenced, with a gate entrance mid-site between the landfill and compost area. The gate will be locked when the facility is not in operation, and will be patrolled by security personnel 24 hours a day. "Spotters", or inspectors will be employed to examine incoming waste loads at the gate, from a high gantry, and at the place where the waste is deposited. The loads will be monitored by a television camera, and all haulers will be under contract. The landfill will not accept loads from trucks coming off the road looking for a place to dump. Receptacles will be maintained on site to receive errant non-permitted waste that is found in a load, and that waste will be properly disposed of elsewhere. Schofield has several permits related to its proposed operation. These include a type III landfill permit from Orange County, a compost facility permit from DER, a general construction and demolition debris landfill permit from DER, a surface water management permit from the South Florida Water Management District, and a permit to excavate or mine from the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Schofield also has a contract to receive yard waste from Orange County. The initial term of contract requires at least ten percent of the yard waste to be composted or recycled, with the percentage amount to be renegotiated in subsequent contract renewals. In the hierarchy of landfills, DER considers Class III the least environmentally sensitive. Problems with unauthorized waste and with water quality occur more frequently with Class I landfills, defined as accommodating more than twenty tons a day of residential garbage. In this case DER has proposed to grant Schofield its Class III permit without the requirement of a bottom liner or a leachate or gas control system because of the nature of the waste that will be accepted and because of the rigorous controls, described above, to avoid receiving unauthorized or hazardous waste. The Petitioners are an individual and a homeowners' association representing a residential area approximately a half mile south of the proposed site. Petitioners contend that the applicant's data is insufficient to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Petitioners contend that the landfill, if approved, should be required to have a liner to prevent leachate from polluting the groundwater. They further contend that the groundwater monitoring plan submitted by the applicant is inadequate to detect vertical movement of contaminated leachate into the Floridan aquifer, a major source of water supply in Orange County. Hydrogeology The site of the proposed landfill is within a high recharge area. Water percolates rapidly though the soil, moving downward into the aquifer, and laterally off site. The site is considered Karst terrain, underlined with limerock. There is evidence of relic sinkholes, thousands of years old, but there is a low probability of future open sinkhole development. The geology in the area of the site provides adequate structural support for the proposed facility. An aquifer is generally defined as a unit of material which contains water and can give up a sufficient amount of yield to provide some productive flow for pumpage. Below the site there are two aquifers: the shallow water table, or surficial aquifer, containing clean well-drained fine sands, about 70 feet down; and the Floridan, primarily limestone, encountered at a depth of approximately 115 feet. The two are separated by a confining layer of less permeable sands and clay. Flow in the Floridan at the site is primarily from the west to east. Flow in the surficial is also generally from west to east, but the Petitioners theorize, and have presented competent supporting evidence, that there are fissures in the confining layer, allowing some internal drainage within the site, causing surficial water to flow vertically into the Floridan, rather than laterally off-site in an eastward direction. Based on recent data taken from two piezometers installed near the middle of the site, the applicant's hydrogeologist, James Golden, concedes that "mounding" exists along the eastern boundary of the site, reflecting some flow westerly back into the interior of the site. Petitioners' theory regarding internal draining of the site is based in part on data as to groundwater elevation. Groundwater elevation or high groundwater table is the elevation at which water stands on a continuous surface under the site. Jammal and Associates is a consultant firm which has done field studies of this and neighboring sites in the past, for various purposes. Some open bore readings taken by Jammal and Associates in a 1983 study for the Orange County Rapid Infiltration Basin project indicate groundwater table levels on site up to 126 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Data (NGVD). Open bore readings are less reliable than cased hole readings; due to collapses within the hole, artificially high readings are sometimes obtained. Data from the applicant's consultants reveals groundwater tables at 96-98 NGVD. This data was most recently obtained in December 1991 from sealed and surveyed piezometer casings, but not from the area of the site where Jammal's higher readings were obtained. Although it may be conjectured that Jammal's high readings are anomalous, additional sealed borings need to be obtained before the anomaly is confirmed. Groundwater elevations are significant also to determine the depth to which the landfill may be excavated. Based on its December 1991 readings, obtained after the application for permit was filed, the applicant agreed to raise the proposed bottom of the landfill to approximately five feet above the level of the estimated high (wet weather) groundwater table in the area. Water Quality and Monitoring Specific conditions of the proposed permit include DER's requirements that Class GII water quality standards be met at the boundary of the zone of discharge, in accordance with Rule 17-3, F.A.C. The zone of discharge for this facility is a three-dimensional volume defined in the vertical plane as the top of the ground to the base of the most surficial aquifer, and horizontally 100 feet from the edge of the waste-filled area, or the property boundary, whichever is less. The groundwater monitoring plan proposed by the applicant includes one upstream monitoring well on the west side of the site and five wells along the east side of the site, with an additional well at the south, between the project and the Petitioners' residential area. The wells extend down into the upper zone of the surficial aquifer, but not into the deeper limestone Floridan. The downstream wells should detect any contamination in the surficial aquifer flowing from west to east at the zone of discharge. However, they will not pick up contamination draining internally within the site and into the Floridan. Such contamination is possible, even though leachate from Class III- type wastes is expected to be relatively benign. Volatile organic carbons (VOCs) have not typically been a problem in Class III landfills, unless those landfills were previously operated as Class I sites. Secondary drinking water standards for certain metals have been violated at some Class III sites, but such violations are often related to the problem of sampling newly-installed wells. From DER records, Petitioners presented evidence of consistent drinking water quality standard violations in Class III landfills. That such violations can occur in Class III landfills is clearly established. It is not so clear that such violations will occur in this facility, given the proposed controls on load content. However, even acceptable materials will not avoid the production of leachate or gas. Within demolition waste there are chemically bound components which are inseparable, for example, creosote and other preservatives, glues, paints, resins, varnishes and stains. The lignin, tannins and volatile organic acids which are produced when wood decomposes alter the pH of the groundwater. As the water becomes more acidic, heavy metals that were typically bound up in the waste or in the soil, are released in soluble form and travel with the water. The decomposition process occurring in the construction and demolition waste is enhanced by the addition of yard trash which becomes the food source for the biodegradation. Summary of Findings and Proposed Permit Conditions If, as applicant suggests, all groundwater moves primarily from west to east within the site, given the proposed operational controls and the proposed monitoring plan, reasonable assurances have been provided that water quality standards will not be violated beyond the zone of discharge. That is, any contamination likely to occur will be contained within the surficial aquifer and within the 100 feet or property line horizontal boundary. Transmissivity of the surficial aquifer is low enough to allow mixing of the leachate before it reaches the zone of discharge. The Petitioners, however, have presented credible evidence sufficient to question the groundwater flow premise and sufficient to require additional conditions on the permit. If leachate reaches the Floridan through fissures in the confining layer, it will move rapidly off site. In its proposed recommended order DER has suggested additional permit conditions and in its adoption of the proposed recommended order, the applicant has accepted those additional permit conditions. Those permit conditions recognize the fact that data presently provided by the applicant is insufficient to overcome the evidence by Petitioners as to the hydrogeological characteristics of the site with the possibility of internal drainage and vertical intrusion of contaminated water into the Floridan aquifer. The proposed recommended order provides this finding: ...that the ground water monitoring plan as proposed in this proceeding is adequate, provided that there be added to the permit conditions that the permittee conduct appropriate water table testing with cased piezometers during the next wet season to determine whether ground water flow is internal within the site and therefore not intercepted by the present ground water monitoring wells. The permittee shall consult with DER and get approval for the location and construction of these wells prior to their installation. The results shall be immediately submitted to the DER. The ground water monitoring requirements should be modified if necessary at that time pursuant to Rule 17-28.700(5) to assure proper monitoring at this site. (DER proposed Recommended Order, p. 17) The ground water monitoring plan modification suggested by DER is that deeper monitoring wells, into the Floridan aquifer, be required if the additional testing reveals the likelihood of internal on-site ground water drainage. These conditions are still inadequate since they lack specificity with regard to the extent of testing, the location and construction of the wells, and the amendments to the monitoring program to be required if internal drainage is confirmed. Moreover, the proposed conditions fail to address the possibility that the permit should require a liner for the landfill if the data to be obtained reveals the likelihood that contaminates will penetrate into the groundwater of the Floridan. Monitoring programs, however effective, only predict or detect problems; they do not remediate them. Groundwater contamination by landfills is not quickly and easily reversed. Unlike discharges from other facilities such as spray application or deep well injection, the leachate from a landfill is not "turned off". Without the additional data which all parties agree is needed, it is impossible to determine what additional conditions, if any, should be required or what amendments, if any, need to be made to the applicant's proposed monitoring plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue its Final Order denying the application for Class III land fill permit. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 17th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 3.-11. Rejected as unnecessary. 12.-23. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. 24. Rejected as unnecessary. 25.-30. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. 31. Rejected as unnecessary. 32.-41. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance throughout the recommended findings. 44.-50. Adopted in Preliminary Statement and paragraph 4. 51. Rejected as unnecessary. 52.-53. Adopted in paragraph 2. 54.-55. Rejected as statement of testimony rather than finding of fact. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as unnecessary. 58.-97. Rejected as argument or statement of testimony, rather than findings of fact. Subparts a), b), c) and e) are rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. The evidence suggests that violations might occur and that insufficient data has been produced. Subpart d) is adopted, by implication in paragraph 18. 99.-101. Adopted in summary in paragraph 20. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5. 3.-4. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in summary in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 13. Rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant, given the stipulation related to Section 403.412, F.S. standing. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 12.-13. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. If internal drainage is shown to exist, conditions other than additional monitoring wells may be required. Adopted in paragraph 17. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19.-21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 12. 24.-26. Adopted in general in paragraph 14. 27. The unlikelihood that unauthorized waste will be dumped is adopted in paragraph 3. Whether there will be a violation of ground water quality standards at the zone of discharge was not established, given the need for additional data on internal draining. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas B. Drage, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 87 Orlando, FL 32802 Irby G. Pugh, Esquire 218 Annie Street Orlando, FL 32806 Douglas H. MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Mr. Decker had an improperly maintained septic system on his property. Whether Mr. Decker illegally repaired his on-site sewage treatment and disposal system. Whether the Department of Health properly issued a citation to Mr. Decker for violation of Sections 381.0065(4) and 386.041(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 25, 1997, an employee of the Department of Health, Volusia County Health Department, David Stark, inspected Mr. Decker's property known as Bulow Creek Farm. Mr. Decker provides low-cost rental housing on this property which utilizes an onsite well to provide drinking water. Mr. Stark observed a wet area in the ground with the smell of sewage near the building identified as Apartment Building C, which houses seven (7) apartments. Mr. Stark identified this area as a sewage leak. On May 28, 1997, Mr. Stark returned to Mr. Decker's property with another Volusia County Health Department employee, Ed Williams. They both observed a wet area in the ground with the smell of sewage in the vicinity of the septic tank serving Apartment Building C. Mr. Stark identified this area as a sewage leak. Mr. Stark issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Mr. Decker which stated the raw sewage leak was a sanitary nuisance and provided that Mr. Decker should have his drainfield repaired in accordance with the repair permit Mr. Decker had previously obtained from the Department. The NOV stated the repair should be completed no later than June 11, 1997. A repair permit is valid for a period of eighteen (18) months. Mr. Decker's permit expired on April 20, 1997. Repairs must be inspected by the Department as they are made. On June 13, 1997, Mr. Stark mailed Mr. Decker a letter reiterating the need for repair of his septic system and enclosed a Notice of Intended Action giving Mr. Decker a deadline of June 20, 1997 to make the needed repairs. Mr. Stark received a letter dated June 29, 1997, from Mr. Decker, informing him that Mr. Decker, himself, had repaired the drainfield for Apartment Building C. The letter described the new tank and drainfield which Mr. Decker had installed, and Mr. Decker stated his repair was a "cheaper version of what you wanted me to do in the first place." Mr. Decker had not sought the required inspections for the repairs which he had made to the septic system, and the repairs were not inspected and approved by the Department. The Department cited Mr. Decker for having an improperly built or maintained septic system, and for failing to repair the system in accordance with the terms of the permit. The citation levied a $500 civil fine for Mr. Decker's violation.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue a final order affirming the civil penalty against Mr. Decker and requiring Mr. Decker to repair his septic system according to permit. If Mr. Decker fails to effect the repairs, the Department should initiate action to abate this public health hazard. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1998.
