93-005517 Department Of Environmental Protection vs. All-States Auto Salvage, Inc.
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, March 29, 1994.


View Dockets  
Summary: Evidence proves resp operated a polluting solid waste facility w/o a permit but not that ground water was polluted.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

12PROTECTION, )

14)

15Petitioner, )

17)

18vs. ) CASE NO. 93-5517

23)

24ALL-STATES AUTO SALVAGE, INC., )

29)

30Respondent. )

32_________________________________)

33RECOMMENDED ORDER

35A hearing was held in this case in St. Petersburg, Florida on February 2,

491994, before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of

61Administrative Hearings.

63APPEARANCES

64For the Petitioner: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire

71Department of Environmental Protection

752600 Blair Stone Road

79Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

82For the Respondent: Carl H. J. Kristensen, pro se

91All-States Auto Salvage, Inc.

951331 22nd Street North

99St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

103STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

107The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of

120the violations alleged in the Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective

132Action issued by the Director of the Department's Southwest District on May 5,

1451992.

146PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

148On May 5, 1992, Dr. Richard D. Garrity, the Director of the Department of

162Environmental Protection's Southwest District, issued a Notice of Violations and

172Order for Corrective Action to the Respondent herein, All-States Auto Salvage,

183Inc., citing various alleged violations of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes,

193dealing with alleged ongoing contamination of air, soil, and water by Respondent

205at its site in St. Petersburg, Florida.

212Respondent subsequently demanded a hearing on the matter and this hearing

223followed. It appears from comments made at the hearing that Respondent, by its

236request for hearing dated January 25, 1993, was seeking informal hearing. The

248matter was, however, referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for

259appointment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing under section

271120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and Respondent concurred with that action at the

282time of hearing.

285At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Stephanie S. Hinson,

296an investigator for the Solid Waste Management Division in the Department's

307Southwest District, and Margaret Cangro, an investigator with the Air and

318Resources Division of the Department. It also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits

3281 - 4. Mr. Kristensen testified on behalf of the company and introduced

341Respondent's Exhibits A - D.

346A transcript was provided. Thereafter, Petitioner presented Proposed

354Findings of Fact which have been ruled upon in the Appendix to this Recommended

368Order.

369FINDINGS OF FACT

3721. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent conducted

384an auto salvage operation under the name, All-States Auto Salvage, Inc., at its

397site located at 1331 22nd Street North in St. Petersburg. Petitioner,

408Department of Environmental Protection, was the state agency responsible for

418enforcing the terms of the rules and statutes of this state dealing with

431pollution of the land, air and waters of Florida.

4402. As a part of Respondent's salvage operation, it dismantled derelict

451automobiles to salvage parts for further use, if possible, and to obtain scrap

464metal for processing. This operation is carried out at its business site

476located on a roughly triangular piece of land in St. Petersburg bordered on one

490side by 13th Avenue North, by 22nd Avenue North on another side, and on the

505third side by a water filled ditch which ultimately empties into Booker Lake,

518classified as an Outstanding Florida Water.

5243. On June 9, 1991, Investigator Weeks, of the Department's Southwest

535District office, conducted an inspection of the Respondent's business site on

546the land in question, which was rented from someone else, based on a complaint

560filed with the Department on December 19, 1990. That complaint was that

572Respondent's salvage operation was discharging various types of polluting fluids

582from the vehicles being dismantled at the site. Mr. Weeks found that car fluids

596were being discharged onto the ground during engine removal. He was told by

609Respondent's employees that the entire site was paved with concrete under the

621surface dirt. Respondent confirmed that at hearing, indicating further that the

632eight inch concrete slab was underlaid by a non-porous plastic sheet designed to

645act as a barrier against seepage. Though neither Mr. Weeks or subsequent

657investigators who visited the site confirmed the presence of the barrier,

668neither was its presence disproved, and it is found such a plastic sheet indeed

682exists.

6834. Mr. Weeks noticed, however, that no berms existed to control and

695contain fluids for later collection and disposal. When Ms. Hinson, also a

707Department investigator, visited the site again on April 29, 1992, she did not

720notice any berms surrounding the property, and saw puddles of standing water

732which had a sheen on them indicating the presence of petroleum products.

7445. Mr. Weeks report indicates that storm water falling on the site has

757been washing these polluting fluids off the property and into the adjacent ditch

770which ultimately empties into a jurisdictional water. This ditch had distressed

781vegetation on the side adjoining Respondent's property. This same situation was

792observed by Ms. Hinson during her April, 1992 visit to the site. Ms. Hinson has

807an undergraduate degree in biology with minors in chemistry and physics. She is

820but one semester from completing her Master's degree in environmental health.

831Based on her education and experience, she concluded the ditch vegetation was

843damaged because of the contamination of petroleum products from Respondent's

853yard. If a concrete pad exists and is not properly pitched and sloped, it would

868increase wastewater runoff into the ditch, and since concrete is somewhat

879permeable, contaminants could leach through it into the soil beneath unless

890stopped and rerouted by any existing barrier. She took no water or soil samples

904from either the site yard or the ditch, however.

9136. No direct evidence was presented as to whether the polluted water

925runoff actually went into the ditch, and no direct evidence was introduced to

938show that the water in the ditch was ever tested for pollutants at the time of

954either visit. Mr. Kristensen indicated the distress to the vegetation was

965caused by weed control spraying by the county or the city. A check with the

980city office responsible for spraying in the area revealed the last spraying at

993that site was in October, 1993, and the only one before that was 18 months

1008previously, in June, 1992, after Ms. Hinson's first visit. It is found,

1020therefore, that the vegetative distress was caused by runoff from Respondent's

1031salvage yard though no evidence of pollution was identified in the ditch water.

10447. On April 29, 1992, Ms. Hinson was asked by a member of the St.

1059Petersburg Police Department to accompany a team on a joint inspection of

1071Respondent's operation. This is not unusual as she receives similar requests

1082from law enforcement agencies in the several counties which make up the

1094Department's Southwest District. In this case, the police were going to look

1106for stolen vehicles and wanted Ms. Hinson to look for possible environmental

1118violations.

11198. When she went through Respondent's site on that occasion, she saw

1131automobiles being dismantled on what appeared to her to be the bare ground to

1145the left of the entrance to the yard. Autos awaiting dismantling were being

1158stored to the right of the entrance. Also on the right side, progressing toward

1172the back of the site, beyond the autos, was a large pile of tires which, she

1188estimated to number between 1,200 and 1,800, lying against the building toward

1202the back of the property and against the side fence. There were no fire lanes

1217provided as the pile extended against the side of the building and the fence.

12319. Ms. Hinson saw auto parts lying on the ground all over the site. It

1246appeared to her, from the appearance of the ground, that it was made up of a

1262black, sticky substance smelling of petroleum, whereas regular soil in that area

1274of town was grey and sandy. She did not dig into this covering and does not

1290know how deep it was or whether it overlaid a concrete pad, as Mr. Kristensen

1305asserts. She did notice puddles of fluid on the ground which had a sheen on

1320them, and she did not see any containment efforts being made. There were

1333barrels available for waste fluids, but it was clear to her that not all fluid

1348was getting into them. In fact, she saw an employee removing gasoline tanks

1361from vehicles, and this process was dripping fluid, presumably gasoline, right

1372onto the ground. Admittedly, not much leakage occurred at any one time, but

1385from the condition she observed on the ground, it was evident to her the

1399practice had been going on for a long time.

140810. Ms. Hinson asked Mr. Kristensen about how fluids were accumulated,

1419stored, and disposed of. In response, he showed her receipts indicating he had

1432sold reclaimed oil to a processor. Receipts from 1989 - 1993, introduced at the

1446hearing, indicate that waste oil and diesel was periodically sold to processors

1458and in January, 1991, some 20 gallons of waste water was delivered to a recovery

1473firm.

147411. Ms. Hinson again visited the site shortly before the hearing but did

1487not go in. She noted, however, that the yard had far fewer vehicles on it, and

1503the dismantled pieces are now neatly stacked. The soil still appears black,

1515however, and the ditch still appears the same as on her previous visit. In her

1530professional opinion, a need exists for a contamination assessment. Though the

1541volume has been substantially reduced since her initial inspection, the

1551contamination she observed then does not appear to have been corrected. There

1563is a need to prevent contamination, and if some occurs, to contain it. She did

1578not observe any control measures in progress.

158512. Sometime after Ms. Hinson's visit in April, 1992, Mr. Kristensen

1596received a Final Order from the District Director requiring him to make certain

1609corrections to his place of business and its operation. This Final Order was

1622issued by mistake, however, but at no time until late in 1993 did anyone from

1637the Department notify Mr. Kristensen of that fact or of his responsibilities in

1650light of that mistake. Upon receipt of the Order, Mr. Kristensen set upon a

1664course of corrective action designed to rectify the identified violations. The

1675tire pile was reduced; a suction pump was purchased to collect standing water;

1688an expensive piece of equipment to drain fluids from vehicles was purchased and

1701put into operation; berms were constructed which, with the existing pitch and

1713slope of the slab, should keep all fluids on site for mechanical removal; and

1727all hazardous waste is now stored in a manner approved by the fire department.

1741In addition to the above, since 1986 or before, a standing written procedure has

1755been in existence regarding the handling of hazardous waste. Though this

1766directive is required reading for all employees, it is obvious it was honored

1779more in the breach than in the compliance.

178713. According to Mr. Kristensen, the soil which overlays the concrete slab

1799is no more than one quarter of an inch thick. This would appear to be a rather

1816conservative estimate, however. Review of the photographs introduced by both

1826parties reveals the thickness of the mixture to be much greater. Regardless,

1838Mr. Kristensen asserts this soil is periodically collected and dried to remove

1850the petroleum before being put down again and used as an absorbent. This

1863process, however, is not likely to remove more than the odor of petroleum as a

1878result of evaporation. The actual contaminants remain. This absorbent was

1888present as late as October 26, 1993, when the site was visited by Ms. Cangro.

1903At the time of her visit it was raining and the ground was covered with a wet,

1920black substance which gave off an odor of petroleum.

192914. Ms. Hinson spent between six and eight hours on this case. She earns

1943approximately $120.00 per hour. Other expenses incurred on the matter include

1954attorney and clerical time. No figures were provided to establish actual or

1966estimated costs in this regard.

197115. Taken together, the evidence indicates Respondent is a person within

1982the meaning of the pertinent statutes; automobile fluids and tires constitute

1993solid waste within the meaning of the pertinent statutes; and Respondent's

2004operation at the property constitutes a solid waste management facility within

2015the meaning of the appropriate statutes.

2021CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

202416. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

2034parties and the subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida

2045Statutes.

204617. Petitioner has charged the Respondent with several counts of violating

2057Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which, in pertinent part, makes it a

2068violation:

2069To fail to obtain any permit required by this

2078chapter or by rule or regulation, or to violate

2087of fail to comply with any rule, regulation,

2095order, permit or certification adopted or issued

2102by the department pursuant to its lawful authority.

211018. The pertinent statutes alleged to be violated include:

2119(a) Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, which

2125provides:

2126No stationary installation which will

2131reasonably be expected to be a source of air

2140or water pollution shall be operated,

2146maintained, constructed, expanded, or modified

2151without an appropriate and currently valid permit

2158issued by the department, ....

2163(b) Section 403.707(1), Florida Statutes,

2168which provides:

2170No solid waste management facility may be

2177operated, maintained, constructed, expanded,

2181modified, or closed without an appropriate and

2188currently valid permit issued by the

2194department,....

2196(c) Section 403.717(3)(a) and (b), Florida

2202Statutes, which provides:

2205(a) A person may not maintain a waste tire

2214site unless such site is:

22191. An integral part of the person's

2226permitted waste tire processing facility; or

22322. Used for the storage of waste tires prior

2241to processing and is located at a permitted

2249solid waste management facility.

2253and

2254(b) It is unlawful for any person to

2262dispose of waste tires or processed tires in

2270this state except at a permitted solid waste

2278management facility.

228019. Petitioner also alleges a violation of

2287Section 403.161(a), Florida Statutes, which, in

2293pertinent part, provides:

2296(1) It shall be a violation of this chapter,

2305and it shall be prohibited for any person:

2313(a) To cause pollution, except as otherwise

2320provided in this chapter, so as to harm or

2329injure human health or welfare, animal, plant,

2336or aquatic life, or property.

234120. Section 403.031(4), Florida Statutes, defines an installation as any

2351structure, equipment, facility, or operation which may emit water contaminants

2361in quantities prohibited by rules of the department. Under the circumstances of

2373this case, Respondents's facility in issue here is an installation as recognized

2385by the statute. In addition, Respondent is, and has admitted being, a person

2398within the meaning of the pertinent statutes.

240521. The burden in this case is upon the Petitioner to establish, by a

2419preponderance of the evidence, that its allegations contained in the Notice are

2431true and correct. Clearly, Respondent is conducting an automobile salvage

2441operation at its facility in St. Petersburg. As a part of that operation,

2454Respondent accumulated and stored on the premises used and discarded automobile

2465tires in a number far in excess of 1,000 pieces, which, under the conditions

2480shown to exist, constituted the operation of a waste tire site as prohibited by

2494statute.

249522. The evidence also clearly established that as a part of the

2507dismantling operation, motor vehicle fluids, shown to include petroleum

2516products, were released onto the ground. Notwithstanding the showing that

2526corrective measures may have been implemented to reduce that discharge, the

2537evidence is overwhelming that at the time of the earlier inspections by the

2550department investigators, the fluids were not being collected or in any way

2562being prevented from escaping into the ground water. This is found

2573notwithstanding the possibility that underlying the surface substance, a

2582concrete pad and vinyl sheeting may have diverted the direct downward seepage of

2595the fluids. Even with those purported barriers, it is clear that without berms,

2608rainwater runoff, presumably contaminated by the substances on the ground, was

2619being allowed to run off the property, onto the side of the adjacent ditch. It

2634must be noted that in the process, according to the best evidence of record, it

2649did considerable damage to the plant life on the side of the ditch contiguous to

2664Respondent's property.

266623. It is accepted that since the relevant inspections by the Department,

2678Respondent has made an effort to clean up its operation and its facility. That

2692effort, however, has not been shown to be more than cosmetic. At the time of

2707the pertinent inspections, Respondent was shown to be operating a polluting

2718operation without a permit; operating a waste management facility without a

2729permit; and maintaining a waste tire site without a permit. The department did

2742not establish that tires were being disposed of at the site. By the same token,

2757while the department's evidence clearly showed that the runoff pollution did

2768damage to the plant life on the Respondent's side of the ditch, it did not

2783establish, by any direct evidence, that the water in the ditch or the

2796jurisdictional lake, was polluted by Respondent's operation.

280324. Petitioner seeks to assess the costs of investigation and prosecution

2814against the Respondent. Costs are assessable if properly proven when a

2825violation of the statutes or rules are shown to have occurred. However, in

2838support of its effort, Petitioner has introduced only the testimony of one

2850investigator who indicated she expended between six and eight hours in

2861furtherance of the investigation, and that her salary is approximately $120.00

2872per hour. No evidence was introduced as to any ancillary costs of other

2885personnel involved. Under the circumstances, it is impossible to reasonably

2895assess costs at this time.

290025. In the Proposed Recommended Order submitted to the undersigned

2910subsequent to the receipt of the transcript of proceedings, Petitioner has

2921outlined several conditions under which Respondent should be permitted to

2931continue its operation. These suggestions, detailed in application as they are,

2942are not within the purview of the Hearing Officer but are better left for

2956incorporation within the Final Order to be issued by the Department as they are

2970within the Department's area of particular expertise and were not treated during

2982the hearing on the violations.

2987RECOMMENDATION

2988Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is,

3001therefore:

3002RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent has

3013violated those provisions of Florida Statutes cited on the Department's Notice

3024of Violation and Order for Corrective Action, and imposing such restrictions and

3036conditions upon Respondent's continued operation as are lawful, necessary and

3046proper under the circumstance. Costs are not assessed.

3054RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida.

3064__________________________________

3065ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer

3070Division of Administrative Hearings

3074The DeSoto Building

30771230 Apalachee Parkway

3080Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

3083(904) 488-9675

3085Filed with the Clerk of the

3091Division of Administrative Hearings

3095this 29th day of March, 1994.

3101APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-5517

3109The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section

3118120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted

3130by the parties to this case.

3136FOR THE PETITIONER:

31391. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein.

31464. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein.

31536. - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein.

316021. Presumed correct but not proven.

316622. - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein.

317326. Accepted as likely but not proven to have occurred.

318327. Accepted and incorporated herein.

318828. - 31. Accepted and incorporated herein.

319532. & 33. Accepted.

319934. Accepted.

320135. & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein.

320837. - 39. Accepted and incorporated herein.

3215FOR THE RESPONDENT:

3218None submitted.

3220COPIES FURNISHED:

3222Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire

3226Department of Environmental Protection

32302600 Blair Stone Road

3234Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

3237Carl H. J. Kristensen, Jr.

3242Qualified Representative

3244All-States Auto Salvage Incorporated

32481331 22nd Street North

3252St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

3256Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary

3260Department of Environmental Protection

32642600 Blair Stone Road

3268Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

3271Kenneth Plante

3273General Counsel

3275Department of Environmental Protection

32792600 Blair Stone Road

3283Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

3286NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3292All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended

3304Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit

3318written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit

3330written exceptions. You should consult with the agency which will issue the

3342Final Order in this case concerning its rules on the deadline for filing

3355exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order

3366should be filed with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
Date: 06/10/1994
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/08/1994
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 06/08/1994
Proceedings: Recommended Order
Date: 04/22/1994
Proceedings: Consulting Agreement; Letter to AHP from C. Kristensen (RE: response to recommended order) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/1994
Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held February 2, 1994.
Date: 02/25/1994
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 02/10/1994
Proceedings: Transcript filed.
Date: 02/02/1994
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 01/31/1994
Proceedings: (Petitioner) Motion to Deem Matters Admitted filed.
Date: 12/20/1993
Proceedings: Petitioner's First Request for Admissions to Respondent filed.
Date: 12/16/1993
Proceedings: Petitioner's First Requet for Production of Documents From Respondent, All-States Auto Salvage, Inc.; Petitioner's Certificate of Serving Interrogatories to Respondent, All-States Auto Salvage, Inc. w/Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories to Responden
Date: 11/02/1993
Proceedings: Plaintiff's First Request for Admissions to Defendant filed.
Date: 10/20/1993
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 2/2/94; 9:00am; St. Pete)
Date: 10/12/1993
Proceedings: Letter to AHP from Carl H. Kristensen (re: response to initial order)filed.
Date: 10/08/1993
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Response to Initial Order filed.
Date: 09/28/1993
Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
Date: 09/23/1993
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Hearing Officer and Notice of Preservation of Record; Request For Hearing, Letter Form; Notice Of Violation And Orders For Corrective Action filed.

Case Information

Judge:
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
Date Filed:
09/23/1993
Date Assignment:
09/28/1993
Last Docket Entry:
06/10/1994
Location:
St. Petersburg, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (6):