Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of the site known as Union 76 #702 or as Taylor's 76, Inc., located at 9700 East Indigo Street, Perrine, Dade County, Florida. The prior owner of that site was Lawrence Oil Company. There appears to be a commonality of principals between Petitioner TYU, Inc., and its predecessor in title, Lawrence Oil Company. In 1986 the Legislature created the Early Detection Incentive Program (hereinafter "EDI") to encourage early detection, reporting, and cleanup of contamination from leaking petroleum storage systems. Essentially, the Legislature created a 30-month grace period ending on December 31, 1988, for owners of sites with contamination from petroleum storage systems to apply for reimbursement for cleanup expenses due to the contamination, without retribution from the State. The statute also provided several bases for which an applicant would be deemed ineligible. Prior to the December 31, 1988, deadline Petitioner checked the various sites owned by it, including the site which is the subject of this proceeding, to determine whether contamination was present. The subject site had been a service station, selling gasoline for 30 to 35 years. From 1986 forward, however, gasoline was no longer being dispensed at the site although the underground gasoline tanks were still present. It is unknown whether the tanks were emptied at the time that they were taken out of service. Automobile repairs were still performed at the site. By 1989, the site was also occupied by a lawn maintenance company and a pool company. In 1988 and 1989 a 55-gallon drum of used oil was located on the site. The lawn company employees used that oil to lubricate their chain saws. The remainder of the used oil and the solvents from the small parts washer were picked up from that site for recycling. In November or December of 1988, Harry Barkett, president of Lawrence Oil Company, personally visited the site. He sampled the monitoring wells. Because he smelled gasoline in the monitoring wells, he retained Seyfried & Associates, Inc., an environmental consultant, to prepare a report to be submitted to the Department. That report is dated December 15, 1988. Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program, together with the report of Seyfried & Associates, Inc., was submitted to the Department prior to the December 31, 1988, deadline. At the time, Metropolitan Dade County's Department of Environmental Resources Management (hereinafter "DERM") was performing EDI inspections for the Department pursuant to a contract. On March 22, 1989, a DERM employee who performed only industrial waste inspections went to the subject site. He specifically was not there to inspect the petroleum storage systems, and he did not do so. That employee went into the service bays where the routine auto repair and maintenance services were performed. He noticed the floor drains going from the service bays to the oil/water separator. He then inspected the oil/water separator. He noted that a hole had been cut at the top of the effluent pipe, which breached the system and which might allow oil to flow into either a drain field or a septic tank system. He did not check further to ascertain which. He took three samples from inside the oil/water separator, one for oil and grease, one for phenols, and one for metals, specifically cadmium, chromium, and lead. Not surprisingly, the laboratory analysis of those samples indicated the presence of phenols, oil, and grease. The only sampling done by that employee was of the contents of the oil/water separator. No investigation was made of, and no samples were taken from, the soil or groundwater anywhere on the site. Such sampling was not part of that employee's authority or responsibility. On October 11, 1989, Dade County DERM sent a different employee to perform the EDI inspection at the subject site. To determine the presence of contamination from petroleum or petroleum products, that employee dipped an acrylic bailer into each of the monitoring wells and then "sniffed the bailer" to ascertain if the odor of gasoline could be detected. He did not dip the bailer lower than the top foot of water since he did not wish to bring the bailer up through a column of water before sniffing. Dade County DERM employees no longer "sniff the bailer" due to the health risk involved in such a procedure. In 1989, however, it was the common practice for DERM employees to "sniff the bailer," albeit cautiously. That employee failed to detect the odor of gasoline and did not see any petroleum contamination in the monitoring wells. He issued a report to that effect. He took no samples from the soil or groundwater to determine if there were contamination from petroleum or petroleum products at the site. Based upon the second report indicating the absence of gasoline odor and based upon the first report indicating the presence of oil, grease, and phenols inside the oil/water separator, Dade County DERM recommended to the Department that Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program be denied. Based upon that recommendation, the Department sent Petitioner a letter dated May 23, 1990, denying Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program. That letter stated as the two reasons for denial the following: Contamination is not the result of a discharge from a petroleum storage facility as defined in Section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes. Waste oil contamination found on the ground and groundwater was the result of poor maintenance practices by site owner/ operator. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is restricted to contamination from such storage facilities pursuant to 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. Contamination is a mixture of waste oil, grease and phenolic compounds. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is limited to petroleum or petroleum products as defined in Section 37.301 [sic] (9) and (10), Florida Statutes. That letter further advised Petitioner of its right to request a hearing regarding that determination and advised Petitioner that its failure to timely request an administrative hearing would render that correspondence to be a final Order of Determination of Ineligibility. When Petitioner received that correspondence, one of its employees interpreted the letter to mean that the Department had determined that the site did not have contamination from petroleum or a petroleum product. Viewing that as good news, that employee merely put the letter in a file. No request for an administrative hearing was made by Petitioner, and the correspondence became a final Order of Determination of Ineligibility by its own terms. In 1990 the Legislature determined that all sites which had been declared ineligible by the Department would be re-determined for eligibility. The Legislature established March 31, 1991, as the new deadline by which owners or operators could request the Department to reevaluate eligibility for sites for which a timely EDI application had been filed but which had been deemed ineligible by the Department. The new legislation set forth several circumstances under which the Department would not redetermine the eligibility of a previously denied site. One of those exceptions related to the reason for which a site had initially been denied. Petitioner had remained convinced that the subject site was contaminated by petroleum or petroleum products prior to the original deadline for filing EDI applications. Petitioner was aware of the new legislation and new deadline by which sites determined ineligible could have their eligibility redetermined. Petitioner therefore retained Kiefer-Block Environmental Services, Inc., to do a site analysis to verify Petitioner's belief that the site had a petroleum contamination. That company issued a report indicating that was the case. Petitioner timely filed its application for redetermination before the March 31, 1991, deadline and submitted to the Department the information obtained from Kiefer-Block, the second environmental consultant to verify the presence of petroleum contamination. In reviewing applications for redetermination, the Department established a procedure whereby it simply looked at its original letter denying eligibility to ascertain the reason for denial. If that reason matched one of the exclusions under the new legislation, the Department advised the applicant that it was not eligible to have its site redetermined. The Department did not review the Department's files relating to a site and did no additional inspection. In 1991 the Legislature again amended the statute, this time carving out an exception to those sites excluded from redetermination of eligibility by directing that sites excluded due to an absence of contamination be redetermined for eligibility if contamination had in fact existed. That amendment went into effect July 1, 1991. Accordingly, that amendment was part of the law in effect when the Department made its decision as to whether it would redetermine Petitioner's eligibility. By letter dated September 3, 1991, the Department advised Petitioner that it was not eligible to participate in the redetermination process. That letter specifically provided as follows: This Order is to inform you that this site is not eligible to participate in the eligibility redetermination process pursuant to Section 376.3071(9)(b), F.S., because the original reasons for ineligibility were: Contamination is not the result of a discharge from a petroleum storage facility as defined in Section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes [definition in Section 376.301(15), F.S., current revision]. Waste oil contamination found on the ground and groundwater was the result of poor maintenance practices by site owner/ operator. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is restricted to contamination from such storage facilities pursuant to 376.3071(9), F.S. Contamination is a mixture of waste oil, grease and phenolic compounds. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is limited to petroleum or petroleum products as defined in Section 376.301(9) and (10), Florida Statutes [definitions in Section 376.301(13) and (14), F.S., current revision]. Section 376.3071(9)(b)3.c., F.S., states that redetermination of eligibility is not available to facilities that were denied eligibility due to contamination from substances that were not petroleum or a petroleum product, or contamination that was not from a petroleum storage system. Petitioner timely filed its request for an administrative hearing regarding that letter, contesting the Department's refusal to redetermine Petitioner's eligibility to participate in the EDI program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: (1) granting Petitioner's application for redetermination of eligibility and (2) finding Petitioner ineligible to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-0678 Petitioner's three unnumbered paragraphs contained in its post-hearing submittal have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5-18, and 20 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Vittorino Special Projects Manager TYU, Inc. 1601 McCloskey Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33605-6710 Brigette A. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether or not the agency may, pursuant to Section 525.06, F.S. enter an assessment for sale of substandard product due to a violation of the petroleum inspection laws and also set off that amount against Respondent's bond.
Findings Of Fact Frank Hampton, d/b/a Hampton's Gulf Station, has operated at 2610 North Myrtle Avenue, Jacksonville, for many years and has had no prior complaints against it by the Petitioner. Respondent is in the business of selling kerosene, among other petroleum products. The facts in this case are largely undisputed. On November 28, 1990, Bill Ford, an inspector employed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, visited the Respondent's premises to conduct an inspection of the petroleum products being offered for sale to the public. Ford drew a sample of "1-K" kerosene being offered for sale, sealed it, and forwarded it to the agency laboratory in Tallahassee where John Anderson, under the supervision of Nancy Fischer, an agency chemist, tested it to determine whether the sample met agency standards. The testing revealed that the sampled kerosene contained .21% by weight of sulfur. This in excess of the percentage by weight permitted by Rule 5F- 2.001(2) F.A.C. for this product, but it would qualify as "2-K" kerosene. A "Stop Sale Notice" was issued, and on the date of that notice (November 30, 1990) the tank from which the test sample had been drawn contained 3887 gallons of product. It was determined from Respondent's records that 4392 gallons had been sold to the public since the last delivery of 5500 gallons on November 16, 1990. The product was sold at $1.58 per gallon. The calculated retail value of the product sold was determined to be in excess of $1,000.00, and the agency permitted the seller to post a bond for $1,000.00 (the maximum legal penalty/bond) on December 3, 1990. The assessment is reasonable and conforms to the amount of assessments imposed in similar cases. On this occasion, Respondent had purchased the kerosene in question from a supplier which is not its usual wholesale supplier. This was the first time Respondent had ever ordered from this supplier and it is possible there was some miscommunication in the order, but Respondent intended to order pure "1-K" kerosene. Respondent only purchased from this supplier due to the desperate need in the community for kerosene during the unusually cold weather that occurred during the fall of 1990. Respondent ordered "1-K" kerosene and believed that "1-K" had been delivered to it by the new wholesale supplier up until the agency inspector sampled Respondent's tank. After posting bond, Respondent originally intended to send the unused portion of "2-K" kerosene back to its supplier, but instead was granted permission by the agency to relabel the remaining product so that the label would correctly reflect that the product was "2-K." Respondent accordingly charged only the lesser rate appropriate to "2-K" kerosene for sale of the remaining 3887 gallons.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Cnsumer Services enter a final order approving the $1,000.00 maximum penalty and offsetting the bond against it. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: FRANK HAMPTON HAMPTON VILLA APARTMENTS 3190 WEST EDGEWOOD AVENUE JACKSONVILLE, FL 32209 CLINTON COULTER, JR. ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES (LEGAL) MAYO BUILDING, ROOM 510 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicant, Kanter Real Estate, LLC (Kanter), is entitled to issuance of an Oil and Gas Drilling Permit, No. OG 1366 (the Permit).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Kanter is a foreign limited liability company registered to do business in the State of Florida. Kanter owns 20,000 acres of property in western Broward County, on which it seeks authorization for the drilling of a vertical exploratory well. The exploratory well is to be located on a five-acre site that is subject to an ERP (the Well Site). The Department is the state agency with the power and duty to regulate activities related to the management and storage of surface waters pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and to regulate oil and gas resources, including the permitting of activities related to the exploration for and extraction of such resources, pursuant to chapter 377, Florida Statutes. Miramar is a Florida municipal corporation located in Broward County, Florida. Broward County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with jurisdiction extending to the Kanter property and the Well Site. The Application On July 2, 2015, Kanter submitted its Application for Permit to Drill (Application) to the Department. The proposed Well Site is on land to which Kanter owns the surface rights and subsurface mineral rights. The Application contemplates the drilling of an exploratory well to a depth of approximately 11,800 feet. The Application is not for a production well. The well is to be drilled, and ancillary activities are to be performed on a fill pad of approximately five acres, surrounded by a three-foot high perimeter berm on three sides and the L67-A levee on the fourth. The pad is the subject of an ERP which, as set forth in the Preliminary Statement, is not being challenged. The pad is designed to contain the 100-year, three-day storm. The engineering design incorporates a graded area, berm, and containment with a water control structure and a gated culvert to manipulate the water if necessary. The entire pad is to be covered by a 20 mil PVC liner, is sloped to the center, and includes a steel and concrete sump for the collection of any incidental spills. The pad was designed to contain the full volume of all liquids, including drilling fluid, fuel, and lubricating oil, that are in tanks and containers on the facility. The Application includes technical reports, seismic data, and information regarding the geology and existing producing oil wells of the Upper Sunniland Formation, which Kanter filed for the purpose of demonstrating an indicated likelihood of the presence of oil at the proposed site. The third Request for Additional Information (RAI) did not request additional information regarding the indicated likelihood of the presence of oil at the proposed site. After it submitted its response to the third RAI, Kanter notified the Department of its belief that additional requests were not authorized by law. As a result, the Department completed the processing of the Application without additional RAI’s. On November 16, 2016, the Department entered its Notice of Denial of the Oil and Gas Drilling Permit. The sole basis for denial was that Kanter failed to provide information showing a balance of considerations in favor of issuance pursuant to section 377.241.1/ There was no assertion that the Application failed to meet any standard established by applicable Department rules, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30. In particular, the parties included the following stipulations of fact in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation which are, for purposes of this proceeding, deemed as established: The structure intended for the drilling or production of Kanter’s exploratory oil well is not located in any of the following: a municipality; in tidal waters within 3 miles of a municipality; on an improved beach; on any submerged land within a bay, estuary, or offshore waters; within one mile seaward of the coastline of the state; within one mile seaward of the boundary of a local, state or federal park or an aquatic or wildlife preserve; on the surface of a freshwater lake, river or stream; within one mile inland from the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean or any bay or estuary; or within one mile of any freshwater lake, river or stream. The location of Kanter’s proposed oil well is not: within the corporate limits of any municipality; in the tidal waters of the state, abutting or immediately adjacent to the corporate limits of a municipality or within 3 miles of such corporate limits extending from the line of mean high tide into such waters; on any improved beach, located outside of an incorporated town or municipality, or at a location in the tidal waters of the state abutting or immediately adjacent to an improved beach, or within 3 miles of an improved beach extending from the line of mean high tide into such tidal waters; south of 26°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s west coast and south of 27°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s east coast, within the boundaries of Florida’s territorial seas as defined in 43 U.S.C. 1301; north of 26°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s west coast to the western boundary of the state bordering Alabama as set forth in s. 1, Art. II of the State Constitution; or north of 27°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s east coast to the northern boundary of the state bordering Georgia as set forth in s. 1, Art. II of the State Constitution, within the boundaries of Florida’s territorial seas as defined in 43 U.S.C. 1301. 19. The proposed oil well site does not contain Florida panther habitat and is located outside of the primary and secondary habitat zones for the Florida panther. 21. There are no recorded archaeological sites or other historic resources recorded within the area of the proposed oil well site. Kanter submitted a payment of $8,972.00 for its oil and gas permit application on June 30, 2016 pursuant to Rule 62C- 26.002(5)(c), F.A.C. Kanter’s application includes sufficient information and commitments for performance bonds and securities. DEP and Intervenors do not claim that the application lacks the information required in rule 62C-26.002, F.A.C. Kanter’s application includes an organization report that satisfies the requirements of rule 62C-26.003(3), F.A.C. Kanter’s engineering aspects of the site plan for the proposed project site, are appropriate. Kanter’s survey submitted to DEP in support of its application includes a suitable location plat which meets the minimum technical standards for land surveys. Kanter’s application includes an appropriate description of the planned well completion. DEP and Intervenors do not claim that the drilling application lacks the information required by rule 62C-26.003, F.A.C. Kanter’s Application proposes using existing levees to provide access to the proposed Kanter well site. Kanter did not propose to construct additional roads for access. Kanter’s proposed well site is located 332 feet from the L67-A levee, which serves as a roadway for trucks used to perform operations and maintenance on the levees and canals in the area. Kanter’s application does not lack any information required by DEP with respect to the location of roads, pads, or other facilities; nor does it lack any information regarding the minimization of impacts with respect to the location of roads. DEP and Intervenors do not contend that the permit should be denied based upon the proposed “spacing” of the well, or drilling unit, as that term is used in rule 62C-26.004, F.A.C. Kanter’s application includes appropriate plans for the construction of mud tanks, reserve pits, and dikes. Kanter agrees to a reasonable permit condition requiring that if water is to be transported on-site, that it will add additional tanks for the purpose of meeting water needs that would arise during the drilling process. Kanter’s design of the integrated casing, cementing, drilling mud, and blowout prevention programs is based upon sound engineering principles, and takes into account all relevant geologic and engineering data and information. Kanter’s proposed casing plan includes an additional casing string proposed in its response to DEP’s Third Request for Additional Information. This casing plan meets or exceeds the requirements of 62C-27.005, F.A.C. Kanter’s proposed casing and cementing program, as modified, meets or exceeds all applicable statutory and rule criteria.[2/] Kanter’s response and documents provided in response to DEP’s 3rd RAI satisfactorily resolved DEP’s concern regarding the risk of passage of water between different confining layers and aquifers resulting from the physical act of drilling through the layers of water and the intervening soil or earth. Kanter’s application includes a sufficient lost circulation plan. Kanter’s application is not deficient with respect to specific construction requirements which are intended to prevent subsurface discharges. Kanter’s drilling fluids plan is appropriate and is not deficient. Kanter’s blowout prevention equipment and procedures are appropriate and are not deficient. Kanter’s plans for blowout prevention are not insufficient. Kanter’s proposed oil pad is above the 100 year flood elevation and under normally expected circumstances would not be inundated by water if constructed as proposed in Kanter’s application. Kanter’s application includes a Hydrogen Sulfide Safety Plan that includes standards which are consistent with the onshore oil and gas industry standards set forth in the American Petroleum Institutes’ Recommended Practice. DEP and Intervenors do not claim any insufficiencies with respect to Kanter’s Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Contingency Plan, the sufficiency of secondary containment, its construction plans for a protective berm around the drilling site and storage tank areas of sufficient height and impermeability to prevent the escape of pad fluid, its pollution prevention plan, its safety manual, or its spill prevention and cleanup plan. DEP and Intervenors do not contend that the permitting of the well would violate section 377.242(1), F.S., regarding permits for the drilling for, exploring for, or production of oil, gas, or other petroleum products which are to be extracted from below the surface of the land only through the well hole(s). DEP and Intervenors do not contend that Kanter’s application violates the applicable rule criteria for oil and gas permitting set forth in Chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30, Florida Administrative Code. In addition to the foregoing, Kanter is not seeking or requesting authorization to perform “fracking,” and has agreed to a permit condition that would prohibit fracking. As a result of the foregoing, the parties have agreed that the Application meets or exceeds all criteria for an exploratory oil well permit under chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30. The Property Kanter owns two parcels of land totaling 20,000 acres in the area of the proposed Well Site: a northern parcel consisting of approximately 11,000 acres and a southern parcel consisting of approximately 9,000 acres. Kanter assembled its holdings through a series of acquisitions by deeds from 1975 to 1996. The Well Site is to be located within the southern parcel. On August 7, 1944, Kanter’s predecessor in title, Dallas Investment Co., acquired by tax deed all interests in a parcel within the 9,000-acre southern parcel described as “All Section 23 Township 51 South, Range 38 East, 640 Acres,” including, without reservation, the oil, gas, minerals, and phosphate. The evidence of title submitted as part of the Application indicates that a “Kanter” entity first became possessed of rights in Section 23 in 1975. By virtue of a series of transactions extending into 1996, Kanter currently holds fee title to all surface rights, and title to all mineral rights, including rights to oil, gas, and other mineral interests, within Section 23 Township 51 South, Range 38 East. The Well Site specified in the Application is within Section 23, Township 51 South, Range 38 East. Kanter’s property is encumbered by a Flowage Easement that was granted to the Central and Southern Flood Control District in 1950, and is presently held by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The Flowage Easement guarantees Kanter access to the entire easement property “for the exploration or drilling for, or the developing, producing, storing or removing of oil, gas or other . . . in accordance with sound engineering principles.” Kanter has the legal property right to locate and drill the well, and the exploratory well is consistent with Kanter’s ownership interest. The Well Site is located in a 160-acre (quarter section) portion of the 640-acre tract described above, and is within a “routine drilling unit,” which is the block of land surrounding and assigned to a well. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62C-25.002(20) and 62C-25.002(40). The Kanter property, including the Well Site, is in the historic Everglades. Before efforts to drain portions of the Everglades for development and agricultural uses, water flowed naturally in a southerly direction through land dominated by sawgrass and scattered tree islands. The tree islands were generally shaped by the direction of the water flow. Beginning as early as the late 1800s, dramatically increasing after the hurricane of 1947, and extending well into the 1960s, canals, levees, dikes, and channels were constructed to drain, impound, or reroute the historic flows. Those efforts have led to the vast system of water control structures and features that presently exist in south Florida. The Well Site, and the Kanter property as a whole, is located in Water Conservation Area (WCA)-3. WCA-3 is located in western Broward County and northwestern Miami-Dade County. It was constructed as part of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project authorized by Congress in 1948, and was created primarily for flood control and water supply. In the early 1960s, two levees, L67-A and L67-C, were constructed on a line running in a northeast to southwest direction. When constructed, the levees separated WCA-3 into WCA-3A to the west and WCA-3B to the southeast. The Well Site is in WCA-3A.3/ The area between L67-A and L67-C, along with a levee along the Miami Canal, is known as the “Pocket.” There is no water control in the Pocket. Although there is a structure at the south end of the Pocket, it is in disrepair, is rarely -- if ever -- operated, and may, in fact, be inoperable. The Well Site is located within the Pocket, on the southern side of L67-A. L67-A and L67-C, and their associated internal and external canals, have dramatically disrupted sheet flow, altered hydrology, and degraded the natural habitat in the Pocket. Water inputs and outputs are entirely driven by rainfall into the Pocket, and evaporation and transpiration from the Pocket. From a hydrologic perspective, the Pocket is entirely isolated from WCA-3A and WCA-3B. The Pocket is impacted by invasive species, which have overrun the native species endemic to the area and transformed the area into a monoculture of cattails. Vegetation that grows in the Pocket dies in the Pocket. Therefore, there is a layer of decomposing vegetative muck, ooze, and sediment from knee deep to waist deep in the Pocket, which is atypical of a functioning Everglades system. L67-A and L67-C, and their associated internal and external canals, impede wildlife movement, interfering with or preventing life functions of many native wildlife species. The proposed Well Site, and the surrounding Kanter property, is in a rural area where future residential or business development is highly unlikely. The property is removed from urban and industrial areas and is not known to have been used for agriculture. The Department has previously permitted oil wells within the greater Everglades, in areas of a more pristine environmental nature, character, and location than the Pocket. The Raccoon Point wellfield is located 24 miles west of the Proposed Project Site within the Big Cypress National Preserve. It is within a more natural system and has not undergone significant hydrologic changes such as the construction of canals, levees, ditches, and dikes and, therefore, continues to experience a normal hydrologic flow. Mr. Gottfried testified that at Raccoon Point, “you can see the vegetation is maintaining itself because the fact that we don’t have levees, ditches canals, dikes, impacting the area. So you have a diversity of plant life. You have tree islands still. You have the normal flow going down.” The greater weight of evidence shows that the Kanter Well Site is far less ecologically sensitive than property at Raccoon Point on which the Department has previously permitted both exploration and production wells. The Biscayne Aquifer The Biscayne Aquifer exists in almost all of Miami- Dade County, most of Broward County and a portion of the southern end of Palm Beach County. It is thickest along the coast, and thinnest and shallowest on the west side of those counties. The western limit of the Biscayne Aquifer lies beneath the Well Site. The Biscayne Aquifer is a sole-source aquifer and primary drinking water source for southeast Florida. A network of drainage canals, including the L-30, L-31, L-33, and Miami Canals, lie to the east of WCA-3B, and east of the Well Site. Those canals penetrate into the substratum and form a hydrologic buffer for wellfields east of the Well Site, including that operated by Miramar, and isolate the portions of the Biscayne Aquifer near public wellfields from potential impacts originating from areas to their west. The canals provide a “much more hydraulically available source” of water for public wellfields than water from western zones of the Biscayne Aquifer, and in that way create a buffer between areas on either side of the canals. The Pocket is not a significant recharge zone for the Biscayne Aquifer. There is a confining unit comprised of organic soils, muck, and Lake Flint Marl separating the Pocket and the Well Site from the Fort Thompson formation of the Biscayne Aquifer. There is a layer of at least five feet of confining muck under the L67-A levee in the area of the Well Site, a layer that is thicker in the Pocket. The Well Site is not within any 30-day or 120-day protection zones in place for local water supply wells. The fact that the proposed well will penetrate the Biscayne Aquifer does not create a significant risk of contamination of the Biscayne Aquifer. The drilling itself is no different than that done for municipal disposal wells that penetrate through the aquifer much closer to areas of water production than is the Well Site. The extensive casing and cementing program to be undertaken by Kanter provides greater protection for the well, and thus for the aquifer, than is required by the Department’s rules. A question as to the “possibility” that oil could get into the groundwater was answered truthfully in the affirmative “in the definition of possible.” However, given the nature of the aquifer at the Well Site, the hydrological separation of the Well Site and well from the Biscayne Aquifer, both due to the on-site confining layer and to the intervening canals, the degree of casing and cementing, and the full containment provided by the pad, the testimony of Mr. Howard that “it would be very difficult to put even a fairly small amount of risk to the likelihood that oil leaking at that site might possibly actually end up in a well at Miramar” is accepted. The Sunniland Formation The Sunniland Formation is a geologic formation which exists in a region of South Florida known as the South Florida Basin. It is characterized by alternating series of hydrocarbon-containing source rock, dolomite, and limestone of varying porosity and permeability and evaporite anhydrite or mudstone seal deposits. It has Upper Sunniland and Lower Sunniland strata, and generally exists at a depth of up to 12,000 feet below land surface (bls) in the area of the Well Site. Underlying the Sunniland Formation is a formation generally referred to as the “basement.” The basement exists at a depth of 17,000-18,000 feet bls. Oil is produced from organic rich carbonate units within the Lower Cretaceous Sunniland Formation, also known as the Dark Shale Unit of the Sunniland Formation. The oil produced in the Sunniland Formation is generally a product of prehistoric deposits of algae. Over millennia, and under the right conditions of time and pressure, organic material is converted to hydrocarbon oil. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that active generating source rock capable of producing hydrocarbons exists in the Sunniland Formation beneath the Kanter property. The preponderance of the evidence also indicates that the oil generated in the Sunniland Formation is at a sufficient depth that it is preserved from microbial degradation, which generally occurs in shallower reservoirs. The Upper Sunniland Formation was formed in the Cretaceous geological period, between 106 and 100 million years ago. Over that period, sea levels rose and fell dramatically, allowing colonies of rudists (a now extinct reef-building clam) and oysters to repeatedly form and die off. Over time, the colonies formed bioherms, which are reef-like buildups of shell elevated off of the base of the sea floor. Over millennia, the bioherms were exposed to conditions, including wave action and exposure to air and rainwater, that enhanced the porosity of the component rudist and oyster shell. Those “patch reefs” were subsequently buried by other materials that formed an impermeable layer over the porous rudist and oyster mounds, and allowed those mounds to become “traps” for oil migrating up from lower layers. A trap is a geological feature that consists of a porous layer overlain by an impervious layer of rock that forms a seal. A trap was described, simplistically, as an upside down bowl. Oil, being lighter than water, floats. As oil is generated in source rock, it migrates up through subterranean water until it encounters a trapping formation with the ability to create a reservoir, and with an impervious layer above the porous layer to seal the trap and prevent further migration, thus allowing the “bowl” to fill. The reservoir is the layer or structure with sufficient porosity and permeability to allow oil to accumulate with its pores. The thickness of the layer determines the volume of oil that the reservoir is capable of retaining. Although rudist mounds are generally considered to be more favorable as traps due to typically higher porosity, oyster mound traps are correlated to producing wells in the Sunniland Formation and are primary producers in the Felda field and the Seminole field. The Lower Sunniland Formation is a fractured carbonate stratum, described by Mr. Aldrich as a rubble zone. It is not a traditional structural trap. Rather, it consists of fractured and crumbling rock thought to be created by basement shear zones or deep-seated fault zones. It has the same source rock as the Upper Sunniland. There is little information on traps in the Lower Sunniland, though there are two fields that produce from that formation. A “play” is a group of prospects or potential prospects that have the same source rock, the same reservoir rock, the same trap style, and the same seal rock to hold in the hydrocarbons. The producing oil fields in the Sunniland Formation, including Raccoon Point, Sunniland, Felda, West Felda, and Lake Trafford are part of a common play known as the Sunniland Trend. The Sunniland Trend is an area of limestone of greater porosity within the Sunniland Formation, and provides a reasonable extrapolation of areas that may be conducive to oil traps. The Sunniland Trend extends generally from Manatee County on the west coast of Florida southeasterly into Broward County and the northwestern portion of Miami-Dade County on the east coast of Florida. The trend corresponds to the ancient Cretaceous shoreline where rudist and oyster bioherms formed as described above. In 2003, the “Mitchell-Tapping” report, named after the husband and wife team, identified two separate trends within the Sunniland Trend, the rudist-dominant West Felda Trend, and the more oyster-based Felda Trend. Both are oil-producing strata. The Felda Trend is more applicable to the Kanter property. Throughout the Sunniland Trend, hydrocarbon reservoirs exist within brown dolomite deposits and rudist and oyster mounds. Dolomite is a porous limestone, and is the reservoir rock found at the productive Raccoon Point oil wellfield. The evidence indicates that a brown dolomite layer of approximately 20 feet underlies the Well Site, and extends in all directions from the Well Site. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Kanter property, including the Well Site, is within the Sunniland Trend and its Felda Trend subset.4/ Oil produced from wells in the Sunniland Trend is typically thick, and is not under pressure. The oil does not rise through a bore hole to the surface, but must be pumped. The Raccoon Point Field, which is the closest productive and producing wellfield to the proposed Well Site, is located approximately 24 miles to the west of the Well Site, within the Sunniland Trend. Raccoon Point contains numerous well sites, of which four or five are currently producing, and has produced in the range of 20 million barrels of oil since it began operation in the late 1970s. Cumulative production of oil from proven fields in the South Florida Basin, including fields in the Sunniland Formation, is estimated to be in excess of 160 million barrels. Estimates from the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) indicate that 25 new fields capable of producing five million barrels of oil each are expected to be found within the Lower Cretaceous Shoal Reef Oil Assessment Unit, which extends into the Kanter property. Estimates of the potential reserves reach as high as an additional 200 million barrels of oil. The Dollar Bay Formation Another formation that has potential for oil production is the Lower Cretaceous Dollar Bay Formation, also in the South Florida Basin. The Dollar Bay Formation exists beneath the Kanter property at a shallower depth than the Sunniland Formation, generally at a depth of 10,000 feet in the vicinity of the Well Site. Most of the Dollar Bay prospects are on the east side of the South Florida Basin. Most of the wells in the South Florida Basin are on the west side. Thus, there has not been much in the way of exploration in the Dollar Bay Formation, so there is a lack of data on traps. Dollar Bay has been identified as a known oil-bearing play by the USGS. It is a self-source play, so the source comes from the Dollar Bay Formation itself. Dollar Bay exists both as potential and mature rock. It has known areas of very high total organic content (TOC) source rock; logged reservoir in the formation; and seal rock. There have been three oil finds in the Dollar Bay formation, with at least one commercial production well. Kanter will have to drill through the Dollar Bay Formation to get to the Upper Sunniland formation, thus allowing for the collection of information as to the production potential of the prospect. Although Dollar Bay is not generally the main “target” of the Permit, its potential is not zero. Thus, consideration of the Dollar Bay Formation as a factor in the calculation of risk/success that goes into the decision to drill an exploratory well is appropriate. Initial Exploratory Activities In 1989, Shell Western E&P, Inc. (Shell), conducted extensive seismic exploration in south Florida. Among the areas subject to seismic mapping were two lines -- one line of 36,000 feet mapped along the L67-A levee, directly alongside the Well Site, and the other of approximately 10 miles in length along the Miami Canal levee. The lines intersect on the Kanter property just north of the Well Site. The proposed exploration well is proposed to extend less than 12,000 feet deep. The seismic mapping performed by Shell was capable of producing useful data to that depth. The seismic methodology utilized by Shell produced data with a high degree of vertical and spatial resolution. Given its quality, the Shell data is very reliable. Shell did not use the seismic data generated in the 1980s, and ultimately abandoned activity in the area in favor of larger prospects, leaving the smaller fields typical of south Florida for smaller independent oil companies. The Shell seismic data was purchased by Seismic Exchange, a data brokerage company. In 2014, Kanter purchased the seismic data from Seismic Exchange for the lines that ran through its property. With the purchase, Kanter received the original field tapes, the support data, including surveyors’ notes and observer sheets which describe how the data was acquired, and the recorded data. As a result of advances in computer analysis since the data was collected, the seismic data can be more easily and accurately evaluated. It is not unusual for companies to make decisions on whether to proceed with exploration wells with two lines of seismic data. Mr. Lakin reviewed the data, and concluded that it showed a very promising area in the vicinity of the L67-A levee that was, in his opinion, sufficient to continue with permitting an exploratory oil well. Mr. Lakin described the seismic information in support of the Application as “excellent data,” an assessment that is well-supported and accepted. Mr. Pollister reviewed the two lines of seismic data and opined that the information supports a conclusion that the site is a “great prospect” for producing oil in such quantities as to warrant the exploration and extraction of such products on a commercially profitable basis. Seismic Data Analysis The seismic lines purchased by Kanter consist of line 970, which runs southwest to northeast along the L67-A levee, and a portion of line 998, which runs from northwest to southeast along the Miami Canal levee. The lines intersect at the intersection of the two levees. The data depicts, among others, the seismic reflection from the strata of the Sunniland Trend, and the seismic reflection from the basement. The depiction of the Sunniland Trend shows a discernable rise in the level of the strata, underlain by a corresponding rise in the basement strata. This rise is known as an anticline. An anticline is a location along a geologic strata at which there is an upheaval that tends to form one of the simplest oil traps that one can find using seismic data. In the South Florida Basin, anticlines are typically associated with mounded bioherms. A “closed structure” is an anticline, or structural high, with a syncline, or dip, in every direction. A closed structure, though preferable, is not required in order for there to be an effective trap. Most of the Sunniland oil fields do not have complete closure. They are, instead, stratigraphic traps, in which the formation continues to dip up and does not “roll over.” Where the rock type changes from nonporous to porous and back to nonporous, oil can become trapped in the porous portion of the interval even without “closure.” Thus, even if the “bowl” is tilted, it can still act as a trap. Complete closure is not necessary in much of the Sunniland Trend given the presence of an effective anhydrite layer to form an effective seal.5/ The seismic data of the Kanter property depicts an anticline in the Sunniland Formation that is centered beneath the Well Site at a depth in the range of 12,000 feet bls. Coming off of the anticline is a discernable syncline, or dip in the underlying rock. Applying the analogies used by various witnesses, the anticline would represent the top of the inverted bowl, and the syncline would represent the lip of the bowl. The evidence of the syncline appears in both seismic lines. The Shell seismic data also shows an anhydrite layer above the Sunniland Formation anticline. The same anticline exists at the basement level at a depth of 17,000 to 18,000 feet bls. The existence of the Sunniland formation anticline supported by the basement anticline, along with a thinning of the interval between those formations at the center point, provides support for the data reliably depicting the existence of a valid anticline. A basement-supported anticline is a key indicator of an oil trap, and is a feature commonly relied upon by geophysicists as being indicative of a structure that is favorable for oil production. The seismic data shows approximately 65 feet of total relief from the bottom to the top of the anticline structure, with 50 feet being closed on the back side. The 50 feet of closed anticline appears to extend over approximately 900 acres. There is evidence of other anticlines as one moves northeast along line 970. However, that data is not as strong as that for the structure beneath the Well Site. Though it would constitute a “lead,” that more incomplete data would generally not itself support a current recommendation to drill and, in any event, those other areas are not the subject of the permit at issue. The anticline beneath the well site is a “prospect,” which is an area with geological characteristics that are reasonably predicted to be commercially profitable. In the opinion of Mr. Lakin, the prospect at the location of the proposed Well Site has “everything that I would want to have to recommend drilling the well,” without a need for additional seismic data. His opinion is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and is credited. Confirmation of the geology and thickness of the reservoir is the purpose of the exploratory well, with the expectation that well logs will provide such confirmation. Risk Analysis Beginning in the 1970s, the oil and gas industry began to develop a business technique for assessing the risk, i.e., the chance of failure, to apply to decisions being made on drilling exploration wells. Since the seminal work by Bob McGill, a systematic science has developed. In 1992, a manual was published with works from several authors. The 1992 manual included a methodology developed by Rose & Associates for assessing risk on prospects. The original author, Pete Rose,6/ is one of the foremost authorities on exploration risk. The Rose assessment method is a very strong mathematical methodology to fairly evaluate a prospect. The Rose method takes aspects that could contribute to finding an oil prospect, evaluates each element, and places it in its perspective. The Rose prospect analysis has been refined over the years, and is generally accepted as an industry standard. The 1992 manual also included a methodology for assessing both plays and prospects developed by David White. The following year, Mr. White published a separate manual on play and prospect analysis. The play and prospect analysis is similar to the Rose method in that both apply mathematical formulas to factors shown to be indicative of the presence of oil. Play and prospect analysis has been applied by much of the oil and gas industry, is used by the USGS in combining play and prospect analysis, and is being incorporated by Rose & Associates in its classes. The evidence is convincing that the White play and prospect analysis taught by Mr. Aldrich is a reasonable and accepted methodology capable of assessing the risk inherent in exploratory drilling. Risk analysis for plays and prospects consists of four primary factors: the trap; the reservoir; the source; and preservation and recovery. Each of the four factors has three separate characteristics. Numeric scores are assigned to each of the factors based on seismic data; published maps and materials; well data, subsurface data, and evidence from other plays and prospects; and other available information. Chance of success is calculated based on the quantity and quality of the data supporting the various factors to determine the likelihood that the prospect will produce flowable hydrocarbons. The analysis and scoring performed by Mr. Aldrich is found to be a reasonable and factually supported assessment of the risk associated with each of the prospects that exist beneath the proposed Well Site and that are the subject of the Application.7/ However, Mr. Aldrich included in his calculation an assessment of the Lower Sunniland Formation. The proposed well is to terminate at a depth of 11,800 feet bls, which is within the Upper Sunniland, but above the Lower Sunniland. Thus, although the Lower Sunniland would share the same source rock, the exploration well will not provide confirmation of the presence of oil. Therefore, it is more appropriate to perform the mathematical calculation to determine the likelihood of success without consideration of the Lower Sunniland prospect. To summarize Mr. Aldrich’s calculation, he assigned a four-percent chance of success at the Well Site for the Dollar Bay prospect. The assignment of the numeric scores for the Dollar Bay factors was reasonable and supported by the evidence. Mr. Aldrich assigned a 20-percent chance of success at the Well Site for the Upper Sunniland play. The assignment of the numeric scores for the Upper Sunniland factors was reasonable and supported by the evidence. In order to calculate the overall chance of success for the proposed Kanter exploratory well, the assessment method requires consideration of the “flip side” of the calculated chances of success, i.e., the chance of failure for each of the prospects. A four-percent chance of success for Dollar Bay means there is a 96-percent (0.96) chance of failure, i.e., that a commercial zone will not be discovered; and with a 20-percent chance of success for the Upper Sunniland, there is an 80-percent (0.80) chance of failure. Multiplying those factors, i.e., .96 x .80, results in a product of .77, or 77 percent, which is the chance that the well will be completely dry in all three zones. Thus, under the industry-accepted means of risk assessment, the 77-percent chance of failure means that there is a 23-percent chance of success, i.e., that at least one zone will be productive. A 23-percent chance that an exploratory well will be productive, though lower than the figure calculated by Mr. Aldrich,8/ is, in the field of oil exploration and production, a very high chance of success, well above the seven-percent average for prospecting wells previously permitted by the Department (as testified to by Mr. Linero) and exceeding the 10- to 15-percent chance of success that most large oil companies are looking for in order to proceed with an exploratory well drilling project (as testified to by Mr. Preston). Thus, the data for the Kanter Well Site demonstrates that there is a strong indication of a likelihood of the presence of oil at the Well Site. Commercial Profitability Commercial profitability takes into account all of the costs involved in a project, including transportation and development costs. Mr. Aldrich testified that the Kanter project would be commercially self-supporting if it produced 100,000 barrels at $50.00 per barrel. His testimony was unrebutted, and is accepted. The evidence in this case supports a finding that reserves could range from an optimistic estimate of 3 to 10 million barrels, to a very (perhaps unreasonably) conservative estimate of 200 barrels per acre over 900 acres, or 180,000 barrels. In either event, the preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing establishes an indicated likelihood of the presence of oil in such quantities as to warrant its exploration and extraction on a commercially profitable basis.9/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: Approving the Application for Oil and Gas Drilling Permit No. OG 1366 with the conditions agreed upon and stipulated to by Petitioner, including a condition requiring that if water is to be transported on-site, it will add additional tanks for the purpose of meeting water needs that would arise during the drilling process, and a condition prohibiting fracking; and Approving the application for Environmental Resource Permit No. 06-0336409-001. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 10th day of October, 2017.
The Issue In this proceeding, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) seeks approval to construct and operate 470 MW of natural gas-fired advanced design combined cycle (NGCC) generating capacity at its proposed Polk County Site. Additionally, FPC seeks a determination that the Polk County Site has the environmental resources necessary to support an ultimate capacity of 3,000 MW of combined cycle generating capacity fueled by a combination of natural gas, coal-derived gas and distillate fuel oil. Such an ultimate site capacity certification may be granted pursuant to Section 403.517, Florida Statutes and Rule 17-17.231, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Project Site and Vicinity FPC's proposed Polk County Site is located on approximately 8,200 acres in southwest Polk County, Florida, in an area dominated by phosphate mining activities. The Polk County Site is approximately 40 miles east of Tampa, 3 miles south of Bartow and 3.5 miles northwest of Fort Meade. Homeland, the nearest unincorporated community, lies about one mile to the northeast of the site boundary. The Polk County Site is bounded on the north by County Road (CR) 640 and along the southeast and south by a U.S. Agri-Chemical Corporation (USAC) mine. CR 555 runs north-south through the site. The Polk County Site is comprised of land in four different phases of mining activity: mine pits, clay settling ponds associated with phosphate mining, land which has been mined and reclaimed, and land which has yet to be mined. Approximately one-half of the Polk County Site is subject to mandatory reclamation. Land uses adjacent to the Polk County Site consist almost entirely of phosphate mining activities. One mobile home is located at the intersection of CR 640 and CR 555 approximately 2 miles from the proposed location of the principal generating facilities. General Project Description The initial generating capacity at the Polk County Site will be NGCC units. Under what has been designated as the Case A' scenario, ultimate site development will consist of 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity, for a total of 3,000 MW. Under the alternative Case C scenario, the ultimate site capacity would consist of 3,000 MW of all NGCC capacity. The Case C scenario was initially developed as the worst case scenario for the socioeconomic impact analysis (i.e., the one that would produce the least amount of economic benefit.) The combined cycle units which initially burn natural gas can be modified to burn coal gas if necessary to meet changes in fuel supply or pricing. However, under the proposed ultimate site capacity, CGCC generating capacity will be limited to a maximum of 2,000 MW out of the total of 3,000 MW. At ultimate buildout the major facilities at the Polk County Site will include the plant island, cooling pond, solid waste disposal areas, and brine pond. The plant island will be located on mining parcels SA-11, SA-13 and the northerly portion of SA-12. The plant island ultimately will contain the combined cycle power block, oil storage tanks, water and sewage treatment facilities, coal gasification facilities, coal pile and rail loop, and coal handling facilities. The cooling pond at ultimate buildout will be located in mining parcels N-16, N-15 and N-11B, with a channel through N-11C. Mining parcels N-11C, P-3, Phosphoria, Triangle Lakes and P-2, if not used as a solid waste disposal area, will be used as water crop areas to collect rainfall for supplying the cooling pond. The brine pond will receive wastewater reject from the reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment system and will be located on mining parcel SA-9. Two solid waste disposal areas (SWDA) are planned for ultimate development of the Polk County Site. The SWDAs will be mining parcel SA-8 initially and mining parcel P-2 in later phases, if necessary. Coal gasification slag will be the predominant solid waste to be disposed of in the SWDAs. Other areas included within the Polk County Site are mine parcels N- 11A, N-13, N-9B, Tiger Bay East, Tiger Bay, the northerly 80 acres of N-9, SA-10 and the southerly 225 acres of SA-12. Along with providing a buffer for the Polk County Site facilities, these parcels also will provide drainage to Camp Branch and McCullough Creek. Linear facilities associated with the initial 470 MW of generating capacity at the Polk County Site will include a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line upgrade, a reclaimed water pipeline, and a backup natural gas pipeline. Site Selection A comprehensive process was used to select the Polk County Site. The goal of that process was to identify a site which could accommodate 3,000 MW of generating capacity and offer characteristics including: (1) multi-unit and clean coal capability; (2) technology and fuel flexibility; (3) cost effectiveness; (4) compatibility with FPC's commitment to environmental protection; (5) ability to comply with all government regulations; and (6) consistency with state land use objectives. The site selection process included the entire State of Florida. Participants in the site selection process included a variety of FPC departments, environmental and engineering consultants, and an eight-member Environmental Advisory Group (EAG) composed of environmental, educational, and community leaders. In October, 1990, with the concurrence of the EAG, the Polk County Site was selected. The ultimate basis for the selection of the Polk County Site was the disturbed nature of the site as a result of extensive phosphate mining activities. The Polk County Site also is compatible with FPC's load center and transmission line network, and is accessible to rail and highway transportation systems. PSC Need Determination On February 25, 1992, the PSC issued Order No. 25805 determining the need for the first 470 MW of generating capacity at the Polk County Site. The PSC concluded in its order that the first two combined cycle units (470 MW) at the Polk County Site will contribute to FPC's electric system reliability and integrity. It also concluded that the first two units would enable FPC to meet winter reserve margin criteria and to withstand an outage of its largest unit at the time of system peak demand. The PSC stated that it was important for FPC to secure a site to meet future needs and that the first two units would contribute toward this goal. Basis for Ultimate Site Capacity The Site Certification Application (SCA), including the Sufficiency Responses, addressed the impacts associated with 3,000 to 3,200 MW of generating capacity under several scenarios. FPC eliminated or modified several of the scenarios by filing a Notice of Limitations which addressed the capacity and environmental effects of 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity at the Polk County Site. Throughout the SCA, Sufficiency Responses and Notice of Limitations, the capacity constraints and environmental effects were analyzed under a worst case scenario, i.e., the maximum environmental effects that could be expected at ultimate site capacity. An ultimate site capacity determination will significantly reduce the time and expense associated with processing supplemental applications for future units at the Polk County Site under the expedited statutory procedures of the Power Plant Siting Act. This will allow FPC to respond more quickly to changes in growth and demand. An ultimate site capacity determination also provides FPC the assurance that the Polk County Site has the land, air and water resources to support future coal gas-fired generating capacity. Project Schedule and Costs Construction of the initial 470 MW of NGCC generating capacity is scheduled to begin in 1994. These units will go into operation in 1998 and 1999. Based on current load forecasts, it is expected that approximately one 250 MW unit will be added every other year to the Polk County Site. Under this schedule, ultimate site development of 3,000 MW would occur about 2018. Capital investment for the Polk County Site is expected to be approximately $3.4 billion for the 1,000 MW NGCC/2000 MW CGCC Case A' scenario and approximately $1.7 billion for the all NGCC Case C scenario. Project Design Generating units for the Polk County Site will be advanced design combined cycle units firing natural gas and/or coal gas, with low sulfur fuel oil as backup. Each combined cycle unit will consist of one or two combustion turbines (CT), a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) for each CT and one or two steam turbines (ST). The first 470 MW of generating capacity will consist of two CTs firing natural gas, two HRSGs and one or two STs. At ultimate site capacity, the Polk County Site will consist of 12 CTs, 12 HRSGs, and 6 to 12 STs. A combined cycle unit is a generating system that consists of two sequential generating stages. In the first stage, the natural gas, coal gas or fuel oil is burned to operate the CT. Hot exhaust gas from the CT is passed through the HRSG to produce steam to operate the ST. The CT and steam from the HRSG can be arranged to drive individual generators or a single generator. In later phases of the Polk County Site, up to 2,000 MW of combined cycle generation may be fired on coal gas. The combined cycle units that were initially constructed to operate on natural gas can be modified to operate on coal gas. Under the Case A' scenario, two coal gasification plants would be built to produce coal gas for the combined cycle units. Associated with the coal gasification phase of the project will be the expansion of the plant island to accommodate the storage and handling of coal. Coal will be transported onsite by railroad. A rail loop for coal trains will be constructed on the plant island. It will be sized to accommodate a 100-car coal train. The coal storage area and limestone stockout will be located within the coal loop. Limestone is used in the coal gasification process as a fluxing agent to improve the viscosity of the coal slag, a by-product of the coal gasification process. The coal storage area, including the coal piles and emergency coal stockout system, will be lined with an impervious liner, and runoff from the coal storage area will be recycled to the coal gasification plants. The cooling pond for the Polk County Site will be located north and east of the plant island. Water from the cooling pond will be used for producing steam and condenser cooling. The cooling pond will be constructed initially in mining parcel N-16 and then in parcels N-15 and N-11B for later phases. These areas are mined-out pits which are surrounded by earthen dams. These dams will be upgraded where required to provide stability equivalent to the requirements of Chapter 17-672, Florida Administrative Code, for phosphate dams. Soil and Foundation Stability To evaluate the existing soil conditions at the Polk County Site, more than 165 test borings were made. The plant island is an existing mine pit which has been partially filled with sand tailings from phosphate mining operations. Underlying the sand is the Hawthorn formation which is often used as the base for deep load bearing foundations. Foundations for the heavier loads of power plant facilities will require pile foundations or similar types of deep foundations that will extend into the Hawthorn formation. The potential for sinkhole development at the Polk County Site was investigated by reviewing historic sinkhole records, aerial photographs, well drillers' logs, and by drilling three deep borings at the site. The investigation demonstrated that the potential for sinkhole development at the Polk County Site is low and acceptable for this type of construction. Construction Activities Construction of the Polk County Site will be phased over an approximately 25-year period beginning in 1994. The development of the Polk County Site is expected to take place in seven phases. Changes in the scope or sequence of the individual phases may occur depending on capacity needs over time. During Phase I, the initial earthwork and dewatering activities required for the construction of the plant island and cooling pond will take place. The initial cooling pond and plant island area will be dewatered and fill will be placed in SA-11 and SA-13 for the initial power plant construction. Water from the dewatering activities will be conserved by storage in mining parcels SA-8, SA-9, SA-10, N-15 and the northerly part of SA-12, except for quantities used in IMC's recirculation system. Clay consolidation will commence for other parcels, such as N-11A, N-11B, N-11C, N-13 and N-9B. Phosphate mining and related operations will still function in parcels P-2, P-3, Phosphoria, Triangle Lakes, and N-9. The initial vertical power plant construction for the first 470 MW of generating capacity will take place in Phase II. Water stored in Phase I, along with reclaimed water from the City of Bartow, will be used to fill the cooling pond in parcel N-16. Any excess reclaimed water from the City of Bartow, if necessary, will be stored in the eastern portion of N-16. Mining parcels SA-10, the southerly part of SA-12, and a portion of the offsite Estech Silver City plant site will be configured for drainage enhancement to McCullough Creek. Mining parcel SA-8 will be prepared to receive solid waste and parcel SA-9 will be prepared to receive wastewater from the RO system and neutralization basin. Wildlife habitat creation and enhancement will begin in parcels N-9B and N-13. Phase III of the Polk County Site represents the operation of the power plant from 235 MW to 1,500 MW, currently projected as NGCC capacity. The plant island, which will contain the generating units, will be located on mining parcels SA-11 and SA-13. The cooling pond will be located in N-16 and will receive reclaimed water from the City of Bartow and water crop from mining parcels P-3, Phosphoria, P-2, Triangle Lakes, N-15, N-11B, N-11C, the northerly end of SA-12 and the east end of N-16. Phase IV will encompass the development of the Polk County Site from 1,500 MW to 2,000 MW, currently projected as NGCC capacity. In conjunction with the additional generating units onsite, the cooling pond in N-16 will be enlarged to 1,219 acres. Other portions of the Polk County Site would remain the same as in Phase III. During Phase V, coal gasification is projected to be introduced to the Polk County Site. Generating capacity will be increased to 2,250 MW of which 1,000 MW are projected to be NGCC and the remaining 1,250 MW will be CGCC. To accommodate the coal gasification facilities, the northerly portion of SA-12 would be filled. The balance of the site would remain as described in Phase IV. During Phase VI, the generating capacity at the Polk County Site is projected to increase from 2,250 MW to 3,000 MW. This generating capacity will be a combination of 1,000 MW on NGCC and 2,000 MW on CGCC. During this phase, the cooling pond will be enlarged to 2,260 acres and will include parcels N-16, N-15 and N-11B, and a channel through N-11C. Earthwork will be required in N-15 and N-11B to repair and improve dams, and add slope protection on the dam inner faces and seeding on the exterior faces. Phase VII will be the final phase of the Polk County Site. During this phase, if the solid waste disposal area in mining parcel SA-8 were to become full it would be closed and mining parcel P-2 would be prepared to receive solid waste from the power plant operations. Parcels P-3 and Phosphoria will be available for mitigation, if necessary, as a result of activities in parcel P-2. This phase might not occur if coal slag is successfully recycled. Fuel Supply Fuel for the initial 470 MW of combined cycle generation will consist primarily of natural gas, with light distillate fuel oil as backup. Natural gas will be delivered by pipeline to the Polk County Site at a rate of 3.75 million cubic feet per hour. FPC currently plans to receive natural gas from the proposed Sunshine Pipeline for which certification is being sought in a separate proceeding. The Application for the Sunshine Pipeline was filed with DEP in August 1993. The other source for natural gas will be the backup natural gas pipeline which is being certified in this proceeding as an associated linear facility. Fuel oil will be delivered to the site by tanker truck, and enough fuel oil will be stored onsite for three days of operation for each combined cycle unit. At ultimate development, three 4-million gallon oil tanks will be located on the Polk County Site. All fuel handling and storage facilities, including unloading areas, pump areas, piping system, storage tanks, and tank containment areas will meet the requirements of DEP Chapter 17-762, Florida Administrative Code, and applicable National Fire Prevention Association Codes. At ultimate site development, the combined cycle units would use both natural gas and coal gas as primary fuels, and fuel oil as a backup fuel. As with the initial phase of operation, natural gas will be supplied by pipeline. At 1,000 MW of NGCC capacity, six to eight million cubic feet per hour of natural gas will be required. Coal for the coal gasification units will be delivered by railroad. For 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity, approximately 15,000 to 20,000 tons of coal a day will be required. Linear Facilities The initial 470 MW of NGCC generation includes three associated linear facilities: a 230-kV transmission line upgrade, a reclaimed water pipeline, and a backup natural gas pipeline. 230-kV Transmission Line The 230-kV transmission line will be routed from the existing FPC Barcola Substation within the Polk County Site to the FPC Ft. Meade Substation adjacent to CR 630. The transmission line corridor is approximately 1,000 feet wide within the Polk County Site boundary and narrows to 500 feet as the corridor leaves the site. The transmission line corridor follows several linear facilities including an existing transmission line right-of-way, CR 555 and CR 630. Land uses along the corridor are primarily phosphate mining, agricultural and industrial. Wetlands within the transmission line corridor are minimal and are associated primarily with roadside ditches. Where the transmission line crosses McCullough Creek, the creek will be spanned. The 230-kV transmission line will be constructed using single shaft tubular steel poles with a double circuit configuration for two 230-kV circuits. The transmission line structures will range in height from 110 feet to 145 feet. The conductor for the transmission line is a 1590 ACSR conductor that is approximately 1.54 inches in diameter. Conductor span lengths between structures will range from 500 to 900 feet. The transmission line will be constructed in six phases. During the first phase, the right-of-way will be cleared. Clearing in upland areas will be done using mowers and other power equipment. Clearing in wetlands, if necessary, will be accomplished by restrictive clearing techniques. After the right-of-way has been cleared, existing structures which will be replaced with new transmission line structures will be removed by unbolting them from their foundations and removing the structures with a crane. Foundations for new transmission line structures will be vibrated into the ground using a vibratory hammer or placed into an augured hole and backfilled. After the foundations are in place, new structures will be assembled on the foundations using a crane. Insulation and pole hardware will be mounted on the structures after erection. In the fifth phase of construction, conductors will be placed on a structure by pulling the conductors through a stringing block attached to the structure. During the final phase of construction, the structures will be grounded and any construction debris will be removed from the right-of-way. The construction of the 230-kV transmission line is estimated to require approximately 17 weeks. Construction of the transmission line will meet or exceed standards of the National Electrical Safety Code; FPC transmission design standards; Chapter 17- 814, Florida Administrative Code; and the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide, where applicable. Electric and magnetic fields from the 230-kV transmission line will comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 17-814, Florida Administrative Code. Audible noise from the transmission line should occur only during rainy weather and will not exceed 39.1 dBA at the edge of the right-of-way. Since the transmission line is not located near many residences, interference to television and AM radio reception should be minimal. If interference does occur, it can be identified easily and corrected on an individual basis. Backup Natural Gas Pipeline The backup natural gas pipeline will originate at the Florida Gas Transmission pipeline in Hillsborough County at CR 39. The backup pipeline corridor runs generally east for 18 miles until it enters the Polk County Site at the western boundary of the plant island. The pipeline corridor is 1,000 feet wide and it generally follows linear facilities such as Jameson Road, a Tampa Electric Company transmission line, the CSX Railroad, Durrance Road, and Agricola Road. Several subalternate corridors are proposed in Polk County where the backup natural gas pipeline crosses phosphate mining land. The subalternate corridors, all of which are proposed for certification, are necessary to maintain flexibility in routing the backup natural gas pipeline around active mining operations. The uses of land crossed by the backup natural gas pipeline corridor consist primarily of phosphate mining and some agriculture. There are only two areas of residential land use along the corridor, one along Jameson Road in Hillsborough County, and the other near Bradley Junction along Old Highway 37 in Polk County. Ecological areas crossed by the natural gas pipeline corridor include a portion of Hookers Prairie in Polk County, some isolated wetlands associated with phosphate mining activities, and the South Prong Alafia River near CR 39 in Hillsborough County. The backup natural gas pipeline will consist of a metering facility, a scraper trap for pipeline cleaning, a maximum 30-inch buried pipeline made of high strength steel, a pressure regulating station, a cathodic protection system for corrosion control, and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to monitor and operate the pipeline. The pipe to be used for the natural gas pipeline will be manufactured in accordance with standards specified in 49 CFR 192 and the industrial standards referenced therein. Pipe thickness will vary depending on the population of the area crossed. External corrosion control for the pipe will be provided by an external coating around the pipe and a cathodic protection system designed to prevent electrochemical corrosion of the pipe. Pipeline sections will be hydrostatically tested before leaving the factory to 125 percent of the design pressure. Activities associated with the construction of the backup natural gas pipeline will include survey and staking of the right-of-way, right-of-way preparation, stringing of the pipe, bending, lineup welding and nondestructive testing, ditching, lowering in of pipeline sections, backfilling, tying in pipeline sections, testing and right-of-way restoration. Construction of the pipeline will take place typically within a 75 foot-wide right-of-way. A wider right-of-way may be required where specialized construction activities, such as jack and bore methods, are used. After construction, the natural gas pipeline will have a permanent 50-foot right-of-way. Where the pipeline crosses federal and state highways or water courses, directional drilling or jack and bore construction methods will be used to minimize disturbance. Where the pipeline crosses the South Prong Alafia River, directional drilling will be used to locate the pipeline underneath the river bed. Pipeline welding will be done by highly skilled personnel who have been qualified in accordance with 49 CFR 192. Pipeline welds will be visually inspected and a percentage of the welds will be x-rayed for analysis. Once the pipeline is constructed, buried and tie-in welds completed, the pipeline will be hydrostatically tested. Hydrostatic testing will use water with a minimum test pressure of 125 percent of maximum operating pressure. Water for hydrostatic testing will be pumped from and returned to the Polk County Site cooling pond. Construction of the pipeline will comply with Title 49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipelines: Minimum Federal Safety Standards; Chapter 25-12, Florida Administrative Code; Safety of Gas Transportation by Pipeline; and the FDOT Utility Accommodation Guide. After construction of the backup natural gas pipeline, the right-of- way will be restored and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way will be maintained. Line markers will be located along the pipeline at regular intervals and warning signs will be posted where the pipeline crosses roads, railroads, or stream crossings. The estimated cost for the pipeline construction is $611,100 per mile, or $11.2 million for the 18.2 mile pipeline route. Reclaimed Water Pipeline The reclaimed water pipeline will run from the City of Bartow to the cooling pond near the eastern side of the Polk County Site. The reclaimed water pipeline corridor follows the CSX Railroad and U.S. Highway 17/98 south from the southerly Bartow city limit turning west toward the Polk County Site just south of Homeland. Land uses along the corridor include phosphate mining, commercial sites, rural residences and recreation. The corridor does not cross any environmentally sensitive habitats. The reclaimed water pipeline consists of a buried pipe, 24 to 36 inches in diameter, butterfly valves about every mile along the pipeline, and a flow meter. Pumping of reclaimed water will be provided by the Bartow Sewage Treatment Plant. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline is similar to that of the natural gas pipeline and includes the following activities: survey and staking of the right-of-way, right-of-way preparation, ditching or trenching construction, stringing of the pipe and pipe installation, back filling, hydrostatic testing, and right-of-way restoration. Where the pipeline crosses state or federal highways or railroads, the pipe will be installed by using jack and bore construction. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline is estimated to cost $500,000 per mile or $5,000,000 for the total length of the pipeline. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline will comply with the standards in Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code, the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide, and the EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse Manual. The pipeline will be hydrostatically tested prior to operation. Corrosion control of the pipeline will depend on the material used for the pipeline and the soil conditions. If a polyethylene or a polyvinylchloride material is used, no corrosion control will be necessary. If ductile iron is used, the soil will be tested for corrosive properties and, if necessary, the pipeline will be protected from corrosion with a poly wrap material. Solid Waste Disposal Various types of solid waste will be generated by the operation of the Polk County Site. Depending upon the type of solid waste, disposal may be made in the onsite solid waste disposal areas or it may be disposed of offsite. Waste inlet air filters from the combustion turbines and general waste, such as office waste, yard waste and circulating water system screenings, will be recycled or disposed of offsite at the Polk County North Central Landfill. Solid waste from the well water pretreatment and blowdown pretreatment will be disposed of onsite in the solid waste disposal area to be constructed in mining parcel SA-8. Sulfur, a by-product of coal gasification, will be of marketable grade and will be stored in a molten state onsite and delivered to buyers by rail car or tanker truck. Slag, a by-product of coal gasification, will be the largest volume of solid waste generated at the Polk County Site. Slag is potentially marketable and FPC will make efforts to recycle this by-product as construction aggregate. If slag is not marketable, it will be disposed of in the onsite solid waste disposal areas initially in mining parcel SA-8 and later, if necessary, in parcel P-2. Low volume spent acidic and basic solutions produced in the regeneration of demineralizer resin bed ion exchanges during operation of the facility will be treated in an elementary neutralization unit to render them non-hazardous. Other potentially hazardous waste will be tested and if determined hazardous will be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws. Onsite disposal of slag, and well water and blowdown pretreatment solids will be made in the solid waste disposal areas to be constructed in parcels SA-8 and later, if necessary, P-2. These parcels are clay lined impoundments that have clays generally 20 to 40 feet thick. Prior to disposal of any solid waste in a clay settling area, that area will be drained and the clays consolidated. The clays will be probed and if the clay thickness is less than 10 feet it will be refurbished or patched with a synthetic liner. Additionally, a geotextile net will be installed to provide tensile strength to the upper layer of clay. Perimeter leachate collection piping will be installed. Leachate in the interior of the solid waste disposal areas will be monitored and collected by the use of well points to maintain the leachate head at no greater than 4 feet. The solid waste disposal area in parcel SA-8 will be closed by installing a two-foot thick soil cover which will be seeded and graded to provide water crop to parcel N-16. At closure, the leachate level will be pumped down to minimize the residual leachate head. The clay which lines the base of the solid waste disposal areas decreases in permeability as it consolidates and the solids content of the clay increases. In the first 20 to 50 years of consolidation, the hydraulic gradient of the clay is reversed and water will drain upward. Analysis of the clay shows that it would take 60 to 100 years for leachate to seep through the clay liner. After closure and capping of the solid waste disposal area occurs and the leachate residual head is pumped out, leachate is not expected to break through the liner. Based on the design of the solid waste disposal areas and the analysis of the clay, the solid waste disposal areas in parcels SA-8, and later P-2, should provide equivalent or superior protection to that of a Class I landfill under Chapter 17-7.01, Florida Administrative Code. Industrial Wastewater The Polk County Site is designed to be a zero discharge facility. There will be no offsite surface water discharge of contaminated stormwater or cooling pond blowdown. Cooling pond blowdown will be treated first by a lime/soda ash softening pretreatment system. A portion of the softened effluent will be routed to the cooling pond and a portion will be treated further by reverse osmosis (RO). High quality water from the RO system will be reused in the power plant as process water. The reject wastewater from the RO system will be sent to the brine pond for evaporation. In later stages of the Polk County Site operation, the RO reject wastewater will be concentrated prior to disposal in the brine pond. The brine pond will be constructed in parcel SA-9, a waste clay settling pond. Parcel SA-9 has thick waste clay deposits which will act as a liner. A synthetic liner will be placed along the interior perimeter of the brine pond out to a point where the clay is at least 10 feet thick. The synthetic liner will prevent seepage of the brine through the embankment of the brine pond and will provide added protection near the perimeter of the brine pond where the clay liner is thinner. Groundwater Impacts/Zone of Discharge The brine pond and solid waste disposal areas will be located in waste clay settling ponds with thick clay liners. They will be constructed to minimize, if not eliminate, seepage of brine and leachate to groundwater. If brine or leachate should seep through the clay liner, dispersion and dilution will reduce chemical concentrations so that neither primary nor secondary groundwater quality standards will be exceeded at the boundary of the zone of discharge. A zone of discharge has been established for the solid waste disposal area in parcel SA-8, the brine pond in parcel SA-9, and the cooling pond in parcels N-11B, N-15 and N-16. The zone of discharge will extend horizontally 100 feet out from the outside toe of the earthen dam along a consolidated boundary surrounding these facilities and vertically downward to the top of the Tampa member of the Hawthorn Group. A groundwater monitoring plan will be implemented to monitor compliance with groundwater standards at the boundary of the zone of discharge. Surficial Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts The Polk County Site is located along the divide between the Peace River Drainage Basin and the Alafia River Drainage Basin. Water bodies near the site include McCullough Creek, Camp Branch, Six Mile Creek, Barber Branch, and South Prong Alafia River. Mining has disrupted or eliminated natural drainage patterns from the Polk County Site to these water bodies. Currently the only drainage from the Polk County Site to these water bodies is through federally permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfalls to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch. To assess the impact to the surficial hydrology of the Polk County Site and surrounding water bodies, the baseline condition was assumed to be the surficial hydrology which would be present under current mandatory reclamation plans for the mining parcels onsite and offsite. The baseline for non-mandatory parcels was assumed to be the minimum reclamation standards under the DEP/Bureau of Mine Reclamation (BOMR) (formerly within the Department of Natural Resources) Old Lands Program and the baseline for non-mandatory offsite parcels was considered to be the existing condition. The one water body onsite for which the baseline condition presently exists is Tiger Bay, which has been reclaimed and released. The baseline condition for the Polk County Site ultimately would include elimination of seepage from N-16 to Tiger Bay and removal of the NPDES outfall weir from Tiger Bay to Camp Branch. These conditions will result in a lowering of the water table in Tiger Bay and the drying out of wetlands in that area. Under current reclamation plans, water bodies also will be created in parcels SA-12 and SA-11. Other than the reclaimed Tiger Bay and Tiger Bay East, DEP, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and Polk County have not claimed jurisdiction over any of the water bodies onsite within areas in which phosphate mining activities have been or will be conducted. The major construction activities which may impact offsite surface water bodies are the dewatering activities associated with the initial phase of construction. During this period, parcels SA-11, SA-13 and N-16 will be dewatered to allow earth-moving activities to take place. Dewatering effluent will be stored onsite, reused in IMC's recirculation system, or discharged in the event of above-average rainfall. After the earthwork is complete, the water will be returned to N-16. Based on this construction scenario, no adverse impact to offsite surface water bodies is expected from the construction activities associated with the Polk County Site. The Polk County Site has been designed to function as a "zero discharge" facility. No surface water will be withdrawn from or discharged to any offsite surface water body as a result of plant operations. Certain non- industrial areas within the Polk County Site will be designed, however, to provide offsite drainage to enhance flows to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch. Flow to McCullough Creek will be enhanced by drainage from parcel SA-10, an offsite portion of the Estech Silver City Plant Site, and the southerly portion of parcel SA-12. Drainage from parcels N-11A, N-13, N-9B, Tiger Bay East and Tiger Bay will enhance flows to Camp Branch. Additionally, FPC has agreed to explore the possibility of restoring drainage to Six Mile Creek if onsite water cropping produces more water than FPC needs for power plant operations and if such drainage can be accomplished without additional permits. The net effect of the drainage enhancement plans will be to equal or improve flows to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch over the baseline condition for the site. There are several types of surface water systems to be developed on the Polk County Site. Surface water runoff from the plant island, other than that from the coal and limestone storage areas, will be routed to the site runoff pond and then used in the cooling pond as makeup water. Surface water runoff from the coal and limestone storage areas, as well as runoff from the active solid waste disposal area, will be routed to a lined recycle basin and will be used as process makeup water for the coal gasification plant. Surface water runoff from mining parcels N-11C, Triangle Lakes, N-11B and N-15 prior to its use as part of the cooling pond, P-3, Phosphoria, P-2 prior to its use as a solid waste disposal area, and SA-8 after it has been closed as a solid waste disposal area, will be directed to the cooling pond as makeup water. All of the surface water management systems will meet the requirements of the SWFWMD Management and Storage of Surface Water rules. Subsurface Hydrology and Impacts from Water Withdrawal The Polk County Site will use a cooling pond for process water and for cooling water for the combined cycle units and the coal gasification facilities. For the initial 940 MW of generating capacity, makeup water for the cooling pond will come from onsite water cropping and reclaimed water from the City of Bartow. FPC has negotiated an agreement with the City of Bartow for 3.5 or more million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed water from its wastewater treatment facility. At ultimate site capacity, the Polk County Site will require up to 23.6 mgd from a combination of offsite sources and groundwater for the operation of the power plant. FPC has agreed with the SWFWMD to obtain at least 6.1 mgd from reclaimed water and other offsite non-potable water sources, including the City of Bartow, for use as makeup water for the cooling pond. The additional 17.5 mgd of water may be withdrawn from the Upper Floridan Aquifer if additional sources of reclaimed water are not available. FPC has identified substantial amounts of reclaimed water that may be available. A limited quantity of potable water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will be needed to supply drinking water and other potable water needs for power plant employees. Well water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will be treated, filtered and chlorinated in an onsite potable water treatment system prior to consumption. At ultimate site development, potable water consumption is estimated to average 19,000 gallons per day, with a peak consumption of 36,000 gallons per day. As an alternative, FPC may connect with the City of Bartow or the City of Fort Meade potable water system. The subsurface hydrology of the Polk County Site consists of three aquifer systems. The uppermost system is the surficial aquifer which is located in the upper 20 to 30 feet of soil. Due to mining operations, the surficial aquifer has been removed from the site except beneath highway rights-of-way and portions of some dams. Below the surficial aquifer lies the intermediate aquifer which is comprised of an upper confining layer approximately 120 feet thick, a middle water bearing unit about 60 feet thick, and a lower confining unit about 80 to 100 feet thick. This aquifer system provides potable water to some small quantity users in the area. Below the intermediate aquifer is the Floridan Aquifer, which consists of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, a discontinuous intermediate confining unit, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Upper Floridan Aquifer provides a larger source of potable water for the area. The Lower Floridan Aquifer is characterized by poorer quality water and has not been used generally for water supply. The principal impact to groundwater from construction of the Polk County Site will be from the dewatering activities in parcels N-16, SA-11 and SA-13. This impact, if not mitigated, could result in the lowering of groundwater levels in the surficial aquifer in adjacent wetlands. During construction, recharge trenches will be constructed in certain locations near wetlands. Modeling analysis demonstrates that the recharge trenches will adequately mitigate any offsite groundwater impacts that otherwise would be caused by construction dewatering. The principal groundwater impact from the operation of the Polk County Site will be the withdrawal of water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer for process water and cooling pond makeup. Water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is the lowest quality of groundwater that can be used for the Polk County Site while maintaining the cooling pond as a zero discharge facility. The withdrawal of 17.5 mgd from the Upper Floridan Aquifer at ultimate site development will not adversely impact offsite legal users of groundwater and will comply with the SWFWMD consumptive use criteria for groundwater withdrawal. Ecological Resources The baseline for the ecological resources at the Polk County Site was established as the site condition that would exist following (i) mandatory reclamation under reclamation plans approved by the DEP/BOMR, and (ii) non- mandatory reclamation normally carried out by the mining companies. In the cases of Tiger Bay, which has been reclaimed and released by DEP/BOMR, and Tiger Bay East, which has revegetated naturally without reclamation, the ecological baseline was represented by the current condition of these parcels. This baseline methodology was proposed by FPC in a Plan of Study which was accepted by DEP in a Binding Written Agreement. The predominant land cover that would occur under the baseline condition at the Polk County Site would be agriculture. Approximately 70 percent of the Polk County Site, or approximately 5,678 acres, would be developed as crop land, citrus or pasture. The remaining 30 percent of the site would be reclaimed as non-agricultural uplands, wetlands and open water bodies. Tiger Bay already has been reclaimed and released by DEP/BOMR and Tiger Bay East has revegetated naturally. These two parcels represent one-fourth (524 acres) of the natural habitat under the ecological baseline condition. The quality of the baseline land cover and vegetation was established by surveying several onsite and offsite areas which have been reclaimed and released. Baseline aquatic resources at the Polk County Site consist of Tiger Bay and the aquatic resources which would have been developed under existing reclamation plans. This baseline would include open water bodies and forested wetlands in parcels SA- 11 and SA-12, and forested and herbaceous wetlands in parcel N-16. Both Estech and IMC have exceeded their mine-wide wetlands mitigation obligations even without those wetlands. The quality of the baseline open water bodies on the Polk County Site was evaluated by surveying parcel N- 16, which currently consists of open water habitat. The quality of wetlands was determined by surveying Tiger Bay, which contains wetlands that have been reclaimed and released. The baseline aquatic resources were found to have significant fluctuations of dissolved oxygen, and were characterized by encroachment of cattail, water hyacinth and other nuisance species. All of the aquatic areas sampled as representative of baseline conditions showed significant eutrophication. No DEP or SWFWMD jurisdictional wetlands currently exist onsite, within areas in which phosphate mining activities have been or will be conducted, except in the reclaimed Tiger Bay and Tiger Bay East. Baseline evaluation of threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern (listed species) was conducted by collecting information regarding regional habitat descriptions; plant species lists and ecological reports for the area; lists and ecological reports of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians common to the area; species checklists; reports of sightings or abundance estimates; interspecific relationships and food chains of important species; location of rare, threatened or endangered species or critical habitat for these species in the region; and occurrence of potential preexisting stresses. Information from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and approved mine reclamation plans was reviewed. Visits were made to nearby reclaimed sites by land and low-flying helicopters. No listed plant species were found at the site or offsite study areas. Existing reclamation plans, and consequently the ecological baseline condition, do not require the planting of such species. Listed animal species which were observed at the Polk County Site and are expected under the baseline conditions include the American alligator, woodstork, southeastern kestrel, osprey, little blue heron, snowy egret and tricolored heron. The baseline conditions would provide suitable feeding habitat for these species, but only limited areas of suitable nesting habitat. Both the current condition of the site and baseline condition provide feeding habitat for the American bald eagle, however, the nesting potential for this species will be greater after the implementation of the baseline condition. Impacts to the baseline ecological resources from the construction and operation of the Polk County Site will be more than compensated by habitat creation and enhancement programs proposed by FPC. The primary impacts to the baseline ecological resources will occur when power plant facilities, such as the plant island, cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal area are constructed, eliminating these parcels from the baseline ecological resources. Without development of the Polk County Site, these parcels would represent approximately 2,268 acres of viable lakes and upland and wetland habitats. FPC has proposed a total of 3,713 acres of viable wildlife habitat as part of the ultimate development of the Polk County Site. Accordingly, the available wildlife habitat after construction of the Polk County Site represents a net increase of 1,445 acres over the baseline ecological resource conditions. This increase in habitat, particularly in the buffer area, will be a net benefit for protected species. In providing more wildlife habitat than baseline conditions, FPC has agreed to certain enhancement activities that will specifically offset any impact to baseline ecological resources. These enhancement programs include habitat and wetland creation in parcels N-9B and N-13; habitat creation and offsite drainage enhancement in parcel SA-10; implementation of a wildlife habitat management plan and exotic vegetation control in parcels SA-10, N-9B and N-13; drainage enhancement to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch; and funding the acquisition of a 425 acre offsite area to serve as part of a wildlife corridor. Air Pollution Control Polk County has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEP as an attainment area for all six criteria air pollutants. Federal and state Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations provide that the project will be subject to "new source review." This review generally requires that the project comply with all applicable state and federal emission limiting standards, including New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) be applied to control emissions of PSD pollutants emitted in excess of applicable PSD significant emission rates. The project will limit emission rates to levels far below NSPS requirements. For the initial 470 MW phase of the Project, BACT must be applied for the following pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates (PM and PM10), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), beryllium, inorganic arsenic, and benzene. For the ultimate site capacity, BACT is required for each of these pollutants, and sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4), mercury, and lead as well. BACT is defined in DEP Rule 17-212.200(16), Florida Administrative Code, as: An emission limitation, including a visible emission standard, based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts, and other costs, determines is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems and techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques) for control of each such pollutant. The primary purpose of a BACT analysis is to minimize the allowable increases in air pollutants and thereby increase the potential for future economic growth without significantly degrading air quality. Such an analysis is intended to insure that the air emissions control systems for the project reflect the latest control technologies used in a particular industry and is to take into consideration existing and future air quality in the vicinity of the project. The BACT analysis for the project therefore evaluated technical, economic, and environmental considerations of available control technologies and examined BACT determinations for other similar facilities across the United States. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, BACT for SO2 emissions from the CTs is the use of natural gas as the primary fuel and the use of low sulfur oil for a limited number of hours per year. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, BACT for CO, VOCs, PM, beryllium, arsenic, and benzene emissions from the CTs is efficient design and operation of the CTs, the inherent quality of natural gas (the primary fuel), and a limitation on the annual use of fuel oil. For the first 470 MW of combined cycle units, BACT for NOx emissions from the CTs is the use of advanced dry low NOx combustors capable of achieving emissions of 12 parts per million by volume dry (ppmvd) at 15 percent oxygen when burning natural gas, water/steam injection to achieve 42 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen when burning fuel oil, and limited annual fuel oil use. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, the DEP staff initially proposed BACT for NOx emissions from the CTs as 9 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen when burning natural gas, using dry low NOx combustor technology. However, after careful consideration, it was determined that, because of the lack of proven technology to achieve such emission rate, it would be more appropriate to establish BACT at 73 lb/hour/CT (24-hour average, based on 12 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen and 59o F) using dry low NOx combustor technology and to require FPC to make every practicable effort to achieve the lowest possible NOx emission rate with those CTs when firing natural gas. FPC also is required to conduct an engineering study to determine the lowest emission rate consistently achievable with a reasonable operating margin taking into account long-term performance expectations and assuming good operating and maintenance practices. Based on the results of that study, DEP may adjust the NOx emission limit downward, but not lower than 55 lb/hour/CT (24-hour average, based on 9 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen and 59o F.). For the 99 MBtu/hour auxiliary boiler that is part of the initial phase of the project, BACT for NOx emissions is low NOx burners, limited annual fuel oil use, and limited hours of annual operation. BACT for NOx emissions from the 1300 kW diesel generator is combustion timing retardation with limited hours of annual operation. For the 99 MBtu/hour auxiliary boiler and the diesel generator as part of the initial phase of the project, BACT for CO, VOC, SO2, PM, benzene, beryllium, and arsenic emissions consists of good combustion controls, the inherent quality of the fuels burned, the use of low-sulfur fuel oil, and limited hours of operation. For the fuel oil storage tank as part of the initial phase of the project, BACT is submerged filling of the tank. For the coal gasification and other facilities to be built during later phases of the project, a preliminary BACT review was undertaken by FPC to support the demonstration that the Polk County Site has the ultimate capacity and resources available to support the full phased project. Air Quality Impact Analysis Air emissions from the project also must comply with Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria pollutants and Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments for three pollutants. Polk County and the contiguous counties are classified as Class II areas for PSD purposes; the nearest Class I area is the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, located approximately 120 km. from the Site. An air quality analysis, undertaken in accordance with monitoring and computer modeling procedures approved in advance by EPA and DEP, demonstrated that the project at ultimate capacity utilizing worst-case assumptions will comply with all state and federal ambient air quality standards as well as PSD Class I and II increments. For nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, air quality modeling was based on conservative assumptions, including background concentrations based upon the highest long- term and second highest short-term measured values (established through an onsite one-year air quality monitoring program and regional data), existing major sources at their maximum emissions, the estimated maximum emissions from certain other proposed projects, and the impacts of the proposed FPC project at ultimate site capacity. For other pollutants, detailed analyses were not performed because offsite impacts were predicted to be insignificant. Impacts of the project's estimated emissions of certain hazardous air pollutants (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, benzene, boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, formaldehyde, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc) at ultimate capacity were compared to the DEP draft no-threat levels under DEP's draft "Air Toxics Permitting Strategy." All pollutants except arsenic were projected to be below the corresponding draft no- threat level. Because of the conservatism of DEP's draft no-threat levels, it was concluded that arsenic impacts would not pose a significant health risk to the population in the surrounding area. Impacts on vegetation, soils, and wildlife in both the site area and the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, the nearest PSD Class I area, will be minimal. Visibility in the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area will not be impaired significantly by the project's emissions. Air quality impacts from commercial, industrial, and residential growth induced by the project are expected to be small and well-distributed throughout the area. Impacts from the initial phase of the Project (470 MW) will comply with all State and federal ambient air quality standards as well as PSD Class I and II increments. The impacts from the initial phase of the Project are also well below the draft no-threat levels. The initial phase of the Project will not significantly impair visibility in the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, and the impact on vegetation, soils, and wildlife in both the site area and the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area will be minimal. The air quality impacts due to commercial, industrial, and residential growth from the initial phase of the Project will be small, and are not expected to impact air quality. Land Use Planning/Socioeconomic Impacts of Construction and Operation The proposed site is an appropriate location for the Polk County Site project. The Polk County Site has adequate access to highway and rail networks, including CR 555, a major collector road, and the CSX railroad. The Polk County Site is located away from major residential areas in a location already heavily disturbed by mining activity. The site is located in reasonable proximity to major metropolitan areas that can supply an adequate work force for construction. Development of the Polk County Site in a mined-out phosphate area is a beneficial use of land and will provide an economic benefit for Polk County. The Polk County Site also is close to existing facilities, such as existing transmission line corridors and reclaimed water facilities, which will benefit the operation of the site while minimizing the impact of the project. The linear facilities associated with the Polk County Site are sited in appropriate locations. The 230-kV transmission line upgrade, reclaimed water pipeline and backup natural gas pipeline corridors: (i) are located adjacent to other linear facilities, such as existing roads and transmission lines, (ii) avoid major residential areas, and (iii) minimally disrupt existing land uses. The Polk County Site is compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan, the CFRPC Regional Policy Plan, and will meet the requirements of the Polk County Conditional Use Permit. The portion of the backup natural gas pipeline located in Hillsborough County is consistent with the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan and the policies of the TBRPC Regional Policy Plan. Construction of the Polk County Site will occur over an approximately 25-year period beginning in 1994. If the Polk County Site is developed only for NGCC capacity, construction employment will average 153 jobs per year with a peak employment of 350. The average annual payroll for construction of the Polk County Site on all NGCC is expected to be $7.1 million per year. If 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC units are built at the Polk County Site, peak construction employment will be 1,000 with an average annual construction employment of 315 over the approximate 25-year period. Average annual payroll under this scenario would be $14.6 million per year. Indirect jobs created as a result of buildout of the Polk County Site will average 231 jobs for all NGCC and 477 jobs if 2,000 MW of CGCC is added to the Polk County Site. After completion of the construction of the Polk County Site at ultimate capacity, 110 permanent direct jobs will be created if the site uses all NGCC and 410 jobs will be created if coal gasification is added to the Polk County Site. The operation of the Polk County Site will have a multiplier effect on the Polk County economy. The all NGCC scenario will create 272 indirect jobs and the Case A' scenario with CGCC will create 1,013 indirect jobs. After buildout, property taxes generated by the Polk County Site are estimated to be $24.3 million per year for the all NGCC scenario and $37.4 million per year if CGCC capacity is constructed at the site. Noise Impacts The ambient noise, or baseline noise condition at the Polk County Site was measured in five locations. These measurements show that the baseline noise condition for the site ranges between 30 dBA and 65 dBA at the nearest residential location. The higher noise levels are caused by truck traffic associated with the phosphate mining industry. Noise impacts from construction will be loudest during initial site preparation and steel erection stages. Earth moving equipment will produce noise levels of 45 to 50 dBA at the nearest residence in Homeland. During final phases of construction, steam blowout activity to clean steam lines will produce short duration noise levels of 69 dBA at the nearest residence. This activity will take place only during daylight hours. Noise levels from the operation of the Polk County Site were calculated using a computer program specifically designed for assessing noise impacts associated with power plant operation. The highest predicted continuous noise level will be 41 dBA at several houses 2.9 miles south of the site and 47 dBA at the nearest church. Noise impacts from fuel delivery trucks and coal trains will not significantly increase the noise levels over existing conditions. The continuous noise level from the operation of the Polk County Site at the nearest residence or church will be below the 55 dBA level recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Traffic Traffic analyses were made for impacts to highway traffic which will result from the construction and operation of the Polk County Site. These analyses included impacts at rail crossings caused by the delivery of coal to the Polk County Site under the Case A' scenario. A highway traffic analysis was made to determine if the existing roadway network in the vicinity of the Polk County Site would operate at acceptable levels of service based upon increased volumes of traffic associated with the construction and operation employment at the Polk County Site. Methodologies for evaluating traffic impact complied with Polk County, FDOT and CFRPC criteria. County roads were evaluated using Polk County criteria and state roads were evaluated using both Polk County and FDOT criteria. Traffic volumes were evaluated for peak construction traffic in 2010 and full plant operations, estimated in 2018. The traffic evaluation included analysis of existing traffic conditions, increased traffic volume associated with growth in the area not associated with the Polk County Site, and increased traffic associated with construction and operation employment at the Polk County Site. During peak construction employment under the Case A' scenario, 1,000 employees are expected at the Polk County Site. Under this scenario, the expected trip generation of the Polk County Site is expected to be 1,792 trips per day, with a morning peak of 717 trips and an afternoon peak of 717 trips. Based on this analysis, all roadways are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with currently planned improvements to the roadways. Intersection levels of service were found acceptable for 7 out of 11 intersections. FPC has recommended improvements to four intersections at U.S. 98 and SR 60A, SR 60 and CR 555, SR 37 and CR 640, and CR 555 and CR 640 at specified traffic levels. Peak operation employment under the Case A' scenario is expected to be 410 employees in 2018. Based upon this employment figure, the expected trip generation of the Polk County Site is 964 trips per day with a morning peak of 195 trips and an afternoon peak of 154 trips. At peak operation employment, all roadways evaluated were found to operate at acceptable levels of service. All intersections, except the intersection at SR 60 and CR 555, were found to operate at acceptable levels. FPC has recommended a protected/permissive westbound left turn lane at this intersection. With FPC's recommended improvements, which have been incorporated as conditions of certification, and those improvements currently planned by FDOT, the existing roadway network will meet Polk County and FDOT approved levels of service at peak employment during the construction and operation of the Polk County Site to its ultimate capacity. In addition to the highway traffic impact analysis, FPC evaluated the impact on rail/highway crossings from the transportation of coal by rail under the Case A' scenario. It was assumed that all coal for the Polk County Site will be delivered by rail over existing CSX transportation lines. It is expected that at full operation two 90-car trains per day will be required for the delivery of coal, resulting in four train trips per day. It was also assumed that trains will travel at speeds averaging 35 to 45 miles per hour. Evaluation of the impacts at rail crossings found an increase of .5 second per vehicle per day at urban rail crossings and .3 second per vehicle per day at rural rail crossings. Based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, the total delay at rail crossing intersections caused by the increased train traffic to and from the Polk County Site will not cause a significant delay and the rail crossing intersections will maintain level of service A. Archaeological and Historic Sites The Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, has stated that because of the location of the Polk County Site, it is unlikely that any significant archaeological or historical sites will be affected. Mandatory Reclamation of Mining Parcels The Polk County Site is comprised of phosphate mining parcels, portions of which are subject to mandatory reclamation under the jurisdiction of DEP/BOMR. The mandatory mining parcels are currently owned by Estech, IMC, and USAC. FPC has entered into stipulations with each mining company agreeing to reclamation of the mandatory mining parcels in accordance with the conditions of certification proposed by DEP/BOMR. In those conditions, DEP has proposed to incorporate the reclamation conceptual plan modifications included in Appendix 10.9 of the SCA into the certification proceeding for the Polk County Site and has redesignated those conceptual plan modifications as EST-SC-CPH and IMC-NP- FPC. The portions of the site which will be developed by FPC will be released from mandatory reclamation requirements when FPC purchases the Polk County Site. Variances FPC has requested variances from certain reclamation standards set forth in Rule 16C-16.0051, Florida Administrative Code, which will be necessary until the affected mining parcels on the Polk County Site are released from reclamation. FPC has requested a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(5)(a), which requires artificial water bodies to have an annual zone of fluctuation, and Rule 16C-16.0051(5)(b), which requires submerged vegetation and fish bedding in artificially-created water bodies. The criteria in these rules are inappropriate for a cooling pond, because it is an industrial wastewater treatment facility which cannot be efficiently or safely operated with fluctuating water levels and aquatic vegetation zones. With regard to the construction of dams for the cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal areas, FPC will need a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(2)(a), which requires a 4:1 slope for dam embankments and Rule 16C-16.0051(9)(b) and (c), which requires vegetation of upland areas, which may include dam embankments. Dams for the cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal areas will have steeper slopes and the interiors of the dams will be concrete blanket revetments, synthetic liners or solid waste consistent with the industrial purposes for which these facilities have been constructed. Access to these areas will be controlled to prevent any potential safety hazard. Finally, FPC will need a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(11)(b)(4), which requires reclamation to be completed within two years after mining operations are completed. Construction of the Polk County Site requires extensive dewatering and earthwork which cannot be completed within this timeframe. Applications for variances from mining reclamation criteria were included in Appendix 10.9 of the SCA and have been incorporated into the certification proceeding for the Polk County Site. DEP has redesignated these variance applications as EST-SC-FPC-V and IMC-NP-FPC-V. These variances are appropriate and should be granted. Agency Positions and Stipulations The Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Polk County have recommended certification for the construction and operation of the initial 470 MW of natural gas combined cycle generating capacity and have recommended the determination that the Polk County Site has the ultimate capacity for 3,000 MW of natural gas and coal gas combined cycle generating capacity, subject to appropriate conditions of certification. No other state, regional or local agency that is a party to the certification proceeding has recommended denial of the certification for the construction of the initial 470 MW of generating capacity or determination of ultimate site capacity. Several agencies which expressed initial concern regarding certification of the Polk County Site have resolved those concerns with FPC and have entered into stipulations with FPC as discussed below. The Florida Department of Transportation, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Department of Community Affairs have entered into stipulations with FPC recommending certification of the Polk County Site and a determination that the Polk County Site has the ultimate site capacity to support 3,000 MW of NGCC and CGCC generating capacity subject to proposed conditions of certification. Hillsborough County, the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, and the Tampa Port Authority have entered into a stipulation and agreement with FPC recommending certification of the backup natural gas pipeline corridor subject to proposed conditions of certification. FPC and the agency parties have agreed on a set of conditions of certification for the Polk County Site. Those conditions are attached as Appendix A to this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Florida Power Corporation be granted certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction and operation of 470 MW of combined cycle generating capacity as proposed in the Site Certification Application and in accordance with the attached Conditions of Certification. Florida Power Corporation's Polk County Site be certified for an ultimate site capacity of 3,000 MW fueled by coal gas, natural gas, and fuel oil subject to supplemental application review pursuant to 403.517, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-17.231, Florida Administrative Code, and the attached Conditions of Certification. A zone of discharge be granted in accordance with the attached Conditions of Certification. The conceptual plan modifications (EST-SC-CPH and IMC-NP-FPC) for the mandatory phosphate mining reclamation plans be granted subject to the attached Conditions of Certification. The variances from reclamation standards (EST-SC-FPC-V and IMC-NP-FPC- V) as described herein be granted subject to the attached Conditions of Certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 3rd day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5308EPP RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION * * NOTE: 114 page Recommended Conditions of Certification plus attachments is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary P. Sams Richard W. Moore Attorneys at Law Hopping Boyd Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Representing Applicant Pamela I. Smith Corporate Counsel Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733-4042 Richard Donelan Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road, Room 654 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Representing DER Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Office of Siting Coordination Division of Air Resources Mgmt. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Lucky T. Osho Karen Brodeen Assistant General Counsels Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Representing DCA Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Representing PSC M. B. Adelson, Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing DNR Carolyn S. Holifield, Chief Chief, Administrative Law Section Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Representing DOT Doug Leonard, Executive Director Ralph Artigliere, Attorney at Law Central Florida Regional Planning Council 409 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Representing CFRPC Julia Greene, Executive Director Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Representing Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council John J. Dingfelder Assistant County Attorney Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601-1110 Representing Hillsborough County Mark Carpanini Attorney at Law Office of County Attorney Post Office Box 60 Bartow, Florida 33830-0060 Representing Polk County Martin D. Hernandez Richard Tschantz Assistant General Counsels Southwest Florida Water Management District 2370 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Representing SWFWMD James Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Sara M. Fotopulos Chief Counsel Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 1900 Ninth Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Representing EPCHC Joseph L. Valenti, Director Tampa Port Authority Post Office Box 2192 Tampa, Florida 33601 Representing Tampa Port Authority Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Don E. Duden, Acting Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing the Trustees Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, Respondent is liable for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Petitioner in an earlier proceeding. The purpose of the earlier proceeding was to determine the eligibility of Petitioner's site for state-administered cleanup of discharge from a petroleum storage system under the Early Detection Incentive program described in Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner informed Respondent of a pollutant discharge at Petitioner's gasoline station by filing a Discharge Notification Form on March 9, 1987. The form states that the discovery was made on March 5, 1987, as a result of a manual test of one or more monitoring wells. The form is marked "unknown" in response to questions concerning the estimated gallons lost, the part of storage system leaking, the type of tank, the cause of leak, and the type of pollutant discharged, although next to the last response are the typewritten words: "appears to be motor oil." A cover letter from Petitioner dated March 5, 1987, accompanied the Discharge Notification Form. The letter restates that the source of pollution is unknown, but adds that "there is a possibility that [the pollution] is the result of a septic tank, drain field discharge." The letter discloses that Blackhawk Environmental Services, Inc. ("Blackhawk") and NEPCCO/IT are investigating "to determine the extent of the contamination as well as the source." The letter provides the name and telephone number of the Blackhawk employee for further information. A separate cover letter from the Blackhawk employee to Respondent states that the notification was being submitted for consideration for Site Rehabilitation Reimbursement Costs. The letter also states that the site has been the subject of groundwater contamination from an "unknown source." Following the notification, Orlando Laboratories, Inc. submitted to Blackhawk a written analysis of the groundwater at the site. The report, which is dated March 19, 1987, contains quantitative data without any interpretation and was submitted without interpretation to Respondent on March 20, 1987. Petitioner applied to participate in the Early Detection Incentive ("EDI") Program by filing an EDI Program Notification Application dated March 23, 1987, together with a cover letter of the same date. The application supplied no more information than did the notification form. In response to the question as to the type of product discharged, Petitioner circled the choice, "used oil," but added the word, "possibility." Although the application may not have been immediately filed, Respondent received it prior to July, 1987. As part of a site inspection, an employee of Respondent prepared an Early Detection Incentive Program Compliance Verification Checklist, which was dated April 28, 1987. The checklist notes that Blackhawk "is looking into problem [and] will forward results from lab when available." The checklist also states: Odor found in E[ast] & W[est] M[onitoring] W[ells]. No other contamination found on site. Site has old waste oil tank on site that could possibly be contaminating drainfield next to tank. Also old abandoned tank (since 1967) on site. Asked owner to investigate tank's conditions. If not needed, he will remove & adjust registration accordingly. Floordrain in shop area dumps into on-site septic tank which could also contribute. The repeated mention of motor oil is due to at least two factors. First, a Blackhawk employee had mentioned to Belvin Marr, who owns and operates Petitioner, that the contaminant "looked like" motor oil. Second, Mr. Marr knew that he had, for many years, discarded used motor oil down a floordrain leading into a septic tank with an onsite drainfield. By letter dated July 22, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioner that its site was ineligible for state-administered cleanup under for the EDI program described in Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. The letter states that the decision was "based upon information given in this [Notification Application] and a compliance verification evaluation of your reported site." The July 22 letter explains that the site is ineligible because, according to the application and district inspection: the source of contamination at Marr's Exxon has been attributed to used oil. Petroleum, as defined by Section 376.301(9), Florida Statutes (F.S.), included [sic] only crude oil and other hydrocarbons in the form in which they are originally produced at the well. Petroleum product, as defined by Section 376.301(10), F.S., means fuel in its refined state which is similar in nature to fuels such as diesel fuel, kerosene, or gasoline. Used oil cannot be considered "petroleum" or "petroleum products" because it has become unsuitable for its original purpose due to the presence of impurities or loss of original properties. Therefore, your site, which is contaminated by unrefined used oil, is not eligible for participation in Early Detection Incentive (EDI) Program. The July 22 letter advises Petitioner that he could obtain administrative and judicial review of the decision by filing a petition within 21 days of the date of receipt of the letter. The letter thus provided Petitioner with a clear point of entry. By letter dated July 30, 1987, Petitioner requested a 30-day extension to allow for retesting. Additional testing took place in early August, 1987. However, there is no indication that the resulting data, which again omit textual interpretation, were submitted to Respondent until the filing of the more definite statement described in the following paragraph. The next communication between Petitioner and Respondent took place when Petitioner requested a formal hearing by filing a Petition for Hearing dated August 26, 1987. By Order for More Definite Statement entered September 14, 1987, Respondent ordered Petitioner to file a more definite statement. By Response to Order for More Definite Statement dated September 28, 1987, Petitioner filed a more definite statement. The additional test data were attached to the more definite statement, although they are not in the DOAH case file. The Response offers the following chronology with all dates being approximate dates. March 5, 1987: Respondent notified of groundwater contamination from unknown source. March 20, 1987: analysis of contamination conducted by Orlando Laboratories, Inc. and forwarded to Respondent. March 23, 1987: Petitioner applied for participation in Early Detection Incentive ("EDI") program, and the application is attached to the More Definite Statement. April 27, 1987: Compliance Verification checklist issued. July 22, 1987: Respondent denied Petitioner's application. July 30, 1987: Petitioner requested 30-day extension to conduct further testing, the results of which are attached to the More Definite Statement. August 26, 1987: Petitioner requested formal administrative hearing. Following receipt of the more definite statement, Respondent forwarded the pleadings to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing. The pleadings were received on October 9, 1987, and the file was assigned DOAH Case No. 87-4448. In a Motion for Continuance filed on January 14, 1988, Respondent asserted that the case involves the issue whether "used oil," which was what had been discharged at Petitioner's facility, is a "petroleum product." The motion refers to a pending case, Puckett Oil v. Department of Environmental Regulation, and states that this case, which had been heard in September, 1987, involves the same question. By Motion for Continuance filed on May 13, 1988, Respondent requested a continuance on the same grounds as previously cited and represented that Petitioner had no objection. An internal memorandum of Respondent dated March 17, 1988, acknowledges that Petitioner requested a review of the available data based on an "inaccurate assessment by his contractor." Reviewing the data, some of which had been provided after July 22, 1987, the memorandum notes that the majority of the contamination is from gasoline, but the involvement of the drainfield as the source of contamination "is the reason eligibility was denied." After the issuance of the final order in Puckett Oil v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 5525 (September 1, 1988), Respondent, filing a Motion to Set Hearing Date, disclosed that "[Respondent's] review of the Final Order indicates that Petitioner's site remains ineligible for SUPER Act funding." However, on July 28, 1989, the parties filed a fully executed Joint Stipulation and Motion to Dismiss. An Order Closing File, which was entered the same date, returned the matter to Respondent for final disposition consistent with the stipulation. The Joint Stipulation and Motion to Dismiss states: On July, 22, 1987, [Respondent] denied eligibility for the [EDI] Program, Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes, to [Petitioner's) site . . .. The basis for the denial was that the site was contaminated with used oil. Subsequent to [Respondent's] denial, Petitioner conducted a series of ground water tests to more accurately determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The results of that testing indicate that the site was contaminated with significant amounts of gasoline constituents and minor amounts of used oil constituents emanating possibly from a septic tank drainfield and a used oil storage facility. The gasoline constituents exist at levels many times that of the other constituents. Based upon the overwhelming contribution to the overall contamination presented by the gasoline constituents, [Respondent] agrees that the presence of minor amounts of contaminants from something other than a tank should not preclude [Petitioner's] site from being eligible for the EDI Program. [Respondent reserves the right not to pay for the cost of cleanup of contamination not related to discharge from a tank.] WHEREFORE Petitioner . . . and Respondent request that the hearing officer adopt this stipulation . . . and retain jurisdiction for an award of attorney's fees and costs (Fla. Stat. Sect. 57.111 (1986 Supp.) and Fla. Admin. Code Rule 22I-6.035). . .. The parties stipulated that Petitioner was a small business party. The parties also stipulated to reasonable attorneys' fees of $6625 and costs of $4690. Following the final hearing, Petitioner filed supplemental affidavits showing, in connection with the prosecution of the subject case and not the earlier proceeding, additional attorneys' fees of $1875 and costs of $490.85.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's site located at 13292 N.W. 118th Avenue in Miami, Florida is eligible for reimbursement of the costs of petroleum contamination cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Rinker Material Corporation ("Rinker") owns and operates a site known as the Rinker FEC Quarry located at 13292 N.W. 118th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33127 (the "site"). At the Site, Rinker operated three (3) one thousand (1,000) gallon tanks which stored waste oil, virgin oil and hydraulic fluid. The DER Facility ID Number for the Site is 138628827. On December 2, 1988, Petitioner, as part of a tank replacement program that it was attempting to conduct in compliance with the applicable state and county regulations, began excavating the three underground storage tanks at the Site. During the excavation, a visible sheen was discovered. At the time of the excavation on December 2, 1988, Alan Gillespie of the Dade County Environmental Resource Management (DERM) was present to conduct a closure inspection of the Site. The December 2, 1988 closure inspection was conducted for Dade County DERM in its own capacity and not as an agent for DER. The purpose of the December 2, 1988 visit by Alan Gillespie was to inspect the removal and closure of the three 1,000 gallon tanks containing, respectively, waste oil, new oil and hydraulic fluid. Mr. Gillespie's inspection indicated that, while there appeared to be no holes in the tanks, free product was visible. Mr. Gillespie noted in his inspection report, dated December 2, 1988, that the contamination was not caused by a tank leak, but, instead, by overspills caused by the pouring of waste oil into the tank, spilling locally around the riser and then contaminating the soil around the tank. Rinker took samples at the Site and submitted them to a laboratory for analysis. It is not clear when the laboratory report was returned, but it generally takes two (2) weeks to obtain the laboratory analysis. Upon receipt of the laboratory report, Rinker initiated its efforts to apply for participation in the Inland Protection Trust Fund for reimbursement or site rehabilitation. In order to participate in the Inland Protection Trust Fund, an applicant was required to submit an Early Detection Incentive Program Notice (the "EDI Form") to DER prior to midnight on December 31,. 1988. The back of the EDI Form states that the form must be filed with and received by DER during the 15 month grace period beginning July 1, 1986 and ending October 1, 1987. The EDI program was; originally scheduled to end on September 30, 1987. However, the deadline for filing was extended by the legislature to December 31, 1988. The EDI Notification Form was not amended to change the dates to reflect subsequent amendments to the reporting date made by the legislature. While the back of the EDI Application Form indicates that the notification form must be filed with and received by DER on or prior to the initial deadline, DER considered as timely all applications with a postmark on or before the extended deadline of December 31, 1988. Petitioner's EDI Form for the Site was prepared by William Voshell, environmental manager for Rinker. Mr. Voshell was out of the state during the last few days of December, 1988. Petitioner's EDI Form was reviewed and signed by William Payne as Vice President of Real Estate for Rinker, on Friday, December 30, 1988. William Payne was informed by Mr. Voshell that the EDI Forms needed to be sent out before the end of the year. A cover letter accompanying the EDI Form for the Site was signed for Mr. Voshell by his secretary, Linda Vasquez on December 30, 1988. After signing the EDI Form, William Payne returned the application to Linda Vasquez to "process to mail". He reminded her that it had to be mailed that day. Ms. Vasquez placed the EDI Form and the cover letter in the Petitioner's mail system on December 30, 1988. The Certified Mail Number P 533059801 appears on the envelope containing Petitioner's EDI Form. January 3, 1989 was the first business day of 1989. The envelope containing the EDI Form was postmarked January 3, 1989. A certified mail return receipt attached to the envelope containing the EDI Form and cover letter shows that the return was stamped by the post office on January 3, 1989. The postal receipt for the EDI Form and cover letter was returned to Rinker from the post office on January 3, 1989. DER received Petitioner's EDI Form for the Site on January 9, 1989. Petitioner's normal procedure is to internally meter regular mail and affix a postmark date. However, certified or registered mail is metered and taken to the post office for processing. Registered mail received in the Petitioner's mailroom on December 30, 1988 should have been metered and taken to the post office for processing the same day or at the latest the next business day (December 31st, a Saturday). After the EDI Form was filed but prior to the eligibility determination, Petitioner was required to submit Site characterization information and documentation of the Site conditions before the initiation of cleanup. The evidence did not establish the expense or costs incurred by Rinker in gathering this information. Prior to ruling on Petitioner's EDI application, DER, through DERM, conducted an eligibility inspection at the Site. Alan Gillespie of DERM conducted the EDI eligibility inspection on April 20, 1989. During an EDI inspection, the inspector examines and reports on the existing conditions of a facility including: recordkeeping, the age of the tanks and the conditions of the monitoring wells and whether there is any negligence involved with the contamination that has occurred. During the April 20, 1989 inspection, Alan Gillespie reported that the three 1,000 gallon underground tanks had been removed and replaced with a new aboveground petroleum storage system. On the EDI inspection report, Mr. Gillespie reported evidence of soil contamination and/or recent product loss and noted that such contamination was discovered at the time of tank removal. After completion of the April 20, 1989 inspection report, Mr. Gillespie's supervisor at DERM sent the report to DER in Tallahassee. In 1989, final Early Detection Incentive Program or Reimbursement Program eligibility determinations were made in Tallahassee by DER. At the time of the EDI eligibility inspection of the Site on April 20, 1989, the role of Dade County DERM was only to conduct an EDI inspection at the site and to forward the information to Tallahassee. Prior to making an eligibility determination on the Site, Patricia Dugan, Environmental Administrator of the DER Petroleum Cleanup Reimbursement Section, reviewed the EDI application, the inspections from DERM, documentation of the site conditions prior to initiation of cleanup and the envelope that the application came in. On November 23, 1989, DER issued an order finding the Site to be ineligible for participation in the Reimbursement Program. Initially, Petitioner's reimbursement application was deemed ineligible because of mixed contamination (i.e., the Site contained used oil) and because the application was deemed untimely. Subsequent to the date of the denial, certain legal decisions made it clear that, contrary to DER's position, sites containing used oil were eligible for participation in the Reimbursement Program. Thus, the only remaining predicate for DER's denial of Rinker's application is that the application was not timely filed. Because Petitioner's EDI application was postmarked on January 3, 1989, after the December 31, 1988 statutory deadline, the Petitioner's application was deemed untimely by DER. DER's policy of relying on the postmark date for purposes of determining timeliness was informally arrived at in 1987. DER has never promulgated a rule on this matter nor conveyed its interpretation to affected parties. Petitioner could have and would have internally placed a postmark date of December 30, 1988 on the envelope containing the EDI Form had it been aware of DER's policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order approving Petitioner's application for eligibility under the state's reimbursement program. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of July, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 23rd day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3, 9 and 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17 and 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22, 36, 37 and 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37 and 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 40. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 41. Rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as argument rather than a finding of fact. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 24. Rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37, 38 and 39. 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. 23. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. 24. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 28. 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 29. 26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 30. 27. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 31. 28. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 32. 29. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 33. 30. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 34. 31. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 36. 32. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 35. 33. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37. 34. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 39. 35. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 36. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. 37. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 39. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 36, 37 and 38. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Pettigrew, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33181 Janet E. Bowman Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale W. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Reimbursement Program established under the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 for the petroleum terminal owned by Gulf Products Division of BP Oil Company at Port Everglades, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 provides for the expeditious cleanup of sites contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum products. The Reimbursement Program, found in Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, provides for reimbursement of the allowable costs of site rehabilitation contaminated as a result of a discharge related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products from a storage tank, or its integral piping or dispensing system. The Reimbursement Program does not provide for reimbursement of cleanup costs for discharges related to the transportation or disposal of petroleum or petroleum products. The site at issue in this proceeding is a terminal facility used for the storage of petroleum and petroleum product located at 1500 Southeast 26th Street, Port Everglades, Florida. This facility is referred to as Gulf Facility No. 46888 and DER Facility No. 068732278 (Gulf Terminal). The subject terminal facility is one of fourteen petroleum storage terminals located at Port Everglades, Florida. Petroleum and petroleum products come to the terminal by ship and are pumped from the ship through permanent pipelines to the large aboveground storage tanks located at the facility. The petroleum and petroleum products are stored in these large tanks until it is time for the product to be distributed to the end user. The Gulf Terminal contains eighteen storage tanks whose total capacity is 650,000 barrels of petroleum or petroleum products. These tanks vary in size, with the smallest having a capacity of 10,000 barrels and the largest having a capacity of 80,000 barrels. One barrel equals 42 gallons. The primary activity of the terminals at Port Everglades is to store petroleum or petroleum products. None of the terminals at Port Everglades, including the Gulf Terminal, refines or produces petroleum or petroleum products. Operation of this facility began in 1946. Petitioner, as the successor to the Gulf Oil Corporation, owned and operated the facility until February 1, 1985, when it sold the facility to BP Oil, Inc. As the previous owner of the facility, Petitioner performed an environmental audit which revealed petroleum hydrocarbon contamination at the site. Petitioner is responsible for the cleanup and is entitled to reimbursement of the allowable costs of the cleanup if the site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program. Any contamination of the soil and groundwater at the site was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products, water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum product or sludges which consist predominately of petroleum or petroleum product constituents. Based on hydrogeological assessment information, Petitioner determined that response action, including ground water cleanup activities, was required at the site. Petitioner hired independent contractors to conduct the response action. In 1986, Petitioner designed a recovery system for petroleum and petroleum product and a ground water treatment system at the site. Through February, 1989, the recovery system had recovered over 12,000 gallons of petroleum or petroleum products, which constitutes the recovery of between 60%- 70% of the total amount in the ground. Through November 1989, Petitioner had expended in excess of $560,000 on its response action at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner advised Respondent of its response action at the site by letter dated January 6, 1988. Petitioner submitted documentation to Respondent concerning hydrogeological assessment at the site which included field and laboratory work and investigation performed for the site from 1984 to the present. Pursuant to the requirements of SUPER Act, Petitioner notified Respondent of its intention to seek reimbursement for money spent conducting response action in accordance with Chapter 17-70, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to petroleum and petroleum product contamination at the site. Petitioner's notice to Respondent was timely and was procedurally correct. On July 13, 1989, Respondent issued its Order of Determination of Ineligibility concerning Petitioner's request for reimbursement. As stated in this order the initial basis for Respondent's denial of eligibility was: The determination is based on the fact that the contamination was not related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products. Sources of contamination at this site include tanker trucks, an oil/water separator, a holding pond, and crude oil and tank-bottom sludge disposal pit. These items are not petroleum storage systems as defined in Section 376.301 F.S. therefore (sic), this site is not eligible for reimbursement under the SUPER Act. ... Respondent clarified its Order of Ineligibility by a Notice to Amend and Clarify dated November 14, 1989, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The notice of denial provides that the site is being denied due to the fact that the disclosed sources of contamination are not petroleum storage systems. One of the criteria for being a petroleum storage system is that it be used or intended to be used for storage of petroleum or petroleum product. It is the criteria that the Department contends is not met in this case; i.e., that the discharges were not intended for storage. Section 376.3071(4), Florida Statutes, specifically limits the use of the Environmental Protection Trust Fund to incidents of inland contamination related to storage of petroleum or petroleum product. * * * The Department recently became aware that prior to 1983, contaminated water was disposed of directly from tanks at the site with no pretreatment by an oil/water separator. As with the disposal of oil and sludge to a pit, the act of intentionally disposing of contaminants to the ground is not "related to storage" as required by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. * * * Wherefore, The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation hereby requests that the Hearing Officer allow for the amendment of the notice of denial of eligibility to include the following basis for denial: Contamination at the site is related to the disposal of petroleum or petroleum product, or water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. Disposal activities including the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water and/or fuel from tanks, oil water separators and sump areas, the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water to a percolation pond, the intentional discharge and disposal of oil and sludge to a disposal pit, and the intentional discharge and disposal of fuel to the ground at the loading rack. Among the causes of contamination of the Gulf Terminal are accidental overfills of tanks and leaks from an integral pipeline. Absent any other source of contamination, the discharges that occurred at the Gulf Terminal due to these causes would be eligible for the reimbursement. Respondent has determined, however, that the following additional sources of contamination render the entire response action ineligible for reimbursement: Discharges of dissolved hydrocarbon molecules contained in water which accumulated in storage tanks; Discharges of petroleum or petroleum products at the loading rack at the terminal; and The discharge of crude oil and of crude oil tank bottoms. TANK OVERFILL During the operation of the Gulf Terminal, petroleum and petroleum products have been accidentally discharged onto the ground. In 1955, an unknown quantity of petroleum or petroleum products was accidentally discharged onto the ground in the areas of tanks 104 and 105 as a result of these tanks being over- filled. Following this massive spill, between 5,000 - 10,000 barrels of product was recovered, while an unknown quantity could not be recovered. PIPELINE LEAK Since 1955, approximately 15,000 additional barrels of petroleum or petroleum products were leaked from an underground pipeline that is integral to the storage system in an area between the loading rack and tank 101, extending toward the west to between tanks 110 and 102. This is the vicinity where the heaviest free floating petroleum contamination exists. DISCHARGE OF CONTAMINATED WATER Florida has adopted the standard code for the design of aboveground storage tanks prepared by the American Petroleum Institute (API-650). The tanks at the Gulf Terminal are in compliance with API-650. The accumulation of water in storage tanks is a problem associated with the storage of petroleum or petroleum products in the storage tanks at the Gulf Terminal and at the other terminals at Port Everglades. Water accumulates in the storage tanks from rainfall and from condensation. The records of the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Station 08063163 (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) accurately depict the rainfall levels at the terminal facility. The total annual rainfall levels are as follows: 1980, 69.67 inches; 1981, 57.9 inches; 1982, 82.92 inches; 1983 75.16 inches; 1984, 59.4 inches; 1985, 63.74 inches; 1986, 64.14 inches, 1987, 58.50 inches; 1988 40.66 inches. Because water is heavier than petroleum and petroleum products, the water accumulates at the bottom of the tanks. It is essential to the proper storage of the petroleum or petroleum products that the water be removed for at least three reasons. First, if the water is not removed, the tanks would eventually become filled with water instead of product. Second, the product contaminated by water, particularly fuel for motor vehicles and aircraft, would not meet specifications. Third, water in the tanks speeds the corrosion of the tank. In order to remove this water that accumulates at the bottom of the storage tanks, a water draw-off mechanism located at the bottom of the tank is a design feature of API-650. When water accumulates in the bottom of the tank, the water is drained out through the water draw-off mechanism. The storage tanks located at the Gulf Terminal are equipped with such a water draw-off mechanism. Throughout the existence of the facility, accumulated water in the tanks has been controlled by discharging the water through the water draw-off mechanism. From 1948 to 1980, water was drained out of the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and on to the ground. Beginning in 1980, the water was taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and piped to a catch basin where an effort was made to recover petroleum product by skimming the water before the water was discharged into the ground. Since 1985, the water taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism has been treated by an oil/water separator which effectively removes all petroleum product before the water is discharged. The purpose of the oil/water separator is to separate petroleum product from water so that the petroleum product can be returned to the storage tank and the water can be discharged. This process serves to prevent the discharge of petroleum product. Up to 1988, the discharges to the ground from the oil/water separator at the Gulf Terminal accumulated in a holding pond. In 1988, the holding pond was eliminated and the water discharges from the oil/water separator were routed to a holding tank prior to treatment by an air stripper and subsequent discharge into the canal adjacent to the property. At all times since 1983, the water drawn out of the tanks has been the subject of permits issued by Respondent which approve the use of the oil/water separator. While it is necessary for the operation of the storage tanks that water be drawn from the tanks, it is not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks for the contaminated water to be discharged onto the ground. The purpose of discharging the water was to dispose of it. There was no intent to recover the contaminated water after it was discharged. Any water coming out of a storage tank is contaminated with dissolved petroleum. It may have solids in it and floating residue or product on it. Between 1946 and 1980, when this water from the storage tanks was discharged to the ground, any contaminates in the water would be discharged along with it. Water has been drained from tanks numbered 101, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112 113, and 114 on a daily basis. The other tanks are drained after a rainfall. An average of one or two inches of water was drained off each time it rained. Following a rainfall, in excess of 30 barrels of water would be drained from the smaller tanks, while approximately 300 barrels of water would be drained from the larger tanks. The discharge of the water drawn from the storage tanks contributed to the contamination of the groundwater at the Gulf Terminal. This type contamination exists in almost all areas of the site. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the contamination to the groundwater caused by the discharge of contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks from contamination to the groundwater which resulted from other causes. Petitioner failed to establish that the contribution to this contamination to the groundwater by the discharge of the contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks was insignificant. THE LOADING RACK The loading rack at the Gulf Terminal is the apparatus by which the petroleum in the storage tanks is dispensed to tanker truck for distribution to consumers. The loading rack is a series of dispensers which operate much like at a service station except that it fuels tanker trucks rather than automobiles. The loading rack is connected by permanent integral piping to the storage tanks. The purpose of the loading rack is to load the transport trucks. Without the storage tanks at the terminal, there would be no need for a loading rack. Over the years, discharges have occurred in the loading rack, usually as the result of human error. Occasional overfills in the 10-15 gallon range have occurred while a truck was being filled. This type discharge is analogous to a spill which occurs at a service station when an automobile is being fueled and the fuel splashes back or overfills the automobile's fuel tank. The supervisor of Respondent's Reimbursement Section testified that this type discharge, absent other causes, would probably be eligible for reimbursement. This testimony conflicts with the official position taken by Respondent in this proceeding that the cleanup caused by the operation of the loading rack is ineligible for reimbursement. In other incidents, small amounts of product ranging from a teacup to less than a gallon, were occasionally discharged while a truck was being drained of one type of product so that the truck could transport another type of product. The loading rack is an integral part of the storage system because without a means of moving the product out of storage and into the distribution system, the storage tanks could not provide a meaningful function. The discharges which occurred at the loading rack during the course of both loading and unloading trucks are insignificant when compared with the other sources of contamination at the site. TANK BOTTOMS In 1956, a storage tank was emptied for the purpose of switching product from crude oil to diesel fuel. At the time the change in product was made, approximately 1000 barrels of sludge and crude oil were disposed of in a pit adjacent to tank 101. Also disposed of was the tank bottom, a hard tar residue which formed at the bottom of the tank. Oil occasionally oozes to the surface in the vicinity of the pit adjacent to tank 101, but the area around the sludge pit has not been found to be contaminated, and the tank bottom has remained a hardened mass. Each tank on the site also had a pit alongside the tank where a tank bottom was disposed. Although it was necessary to remove the sludge and the tank bottoms to be able to properly operate the storage tanks, it was not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks to dump the sludge and the tank bottoms onto the ground or into the pits. The purpose of discharging the crude oil sludge and the tank bottoms was to dispose of them. There was no intent to recover the crude oil sludge or the tank bottoms water after they were discharged. CONTAMINATION PHASES The contamination at the site exists in three phases, floating petroleum product contamination, dissolved petroleum groundwater contamination, and sludge contamination. The contamination in the form of floating petroleum was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products following the tank overfills, the pipeline leaks, and spills at the loading rack. The dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by two primary sources. First, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by floating petroleum product coming into contact with groundwater. Upon such contact, molecules from the floating petroleum would dissolve into the water, causing contamination. Second, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by the discharge of the contaminated water that had been drawn off from the storage tanks. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the dissolved groundwater contamination that was caused by accidental discharges of product from the contamination caused by the discharge of the contaminated water. Petitioner was also unable to establish that the dissolved groundwater contamination caused by the contaminated water was insignificant. The sludge contamination was caused by the discharge of crude oil and crude oil tank bottoms. CLEANUP The sludge contamination is capable of being cleaned up separately from the free floating petroleum contamination and the groundwater contamination at the site. The sludge contamination is separate and distinct from the other contamination at the site both as to the location of the contamination and as to the methods that would be employed to clean up that type of contamination. Free floating petroleum contamination is recovered by drawing down the water level in a well by use of a pump so that a cone of depression is created. The cone of depression is a funnel shaped depression that causes the surface of the underground water table to bend down towards the well in all directions. The free floating petroleum which flows on top of the underground water surface is then recovered by use of a second pump. The free floating petroleum is then pumped into a holding tank where the recovery of free floating petroleum is completed. The recovery of free floating petroleum contamination is usually more expensive to accomplish than groundwater cleanup because more equipment is required. Groundwater cleanup usually takes a longer period of time to accomplish than does free floating product cleanup. The same or a similar well used to recover the free floating petroleum can also be used for the cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The contaminated groundwater is pumped from the well into an oil/water separator where the water and dissolved petroleum is separated, water is taken off the bottom, put through an air stripper, and is returned to the ground through an infiltration unit. Respondent has previously found sites eligible for the reimbursement program even though those sites experienced discharges which alone would render a site ineligible for the reimbursement program. The basis for finding these sites eligible was that the ineligible discharges had become indistinguishable from the eligible discharges and were insignificant by comparison. Petitioner has complied with all procedural requirements for seeking eligibility contained in Section 376.3701, Florida Statutes. Respondent has not been denied access to the Gulf Terminal. Respondent has made no determination that there has been gross negligence in the maintenance of the petroleum storage system locate at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not willfully concealed the existence of a serious discharge at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not falsified any inventory records maintained with respect to the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not caused any intentional damage to the Gulf Terminal. The Gulf Terminal is not owned by the federal government. Petitioner's challenge to Respondent's order of ineligibility was filed in a timely manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that Respondent enter a final order which determines that the subject site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the free floating petroleum contamination, but that the subject site is ineligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the sludge contamination and for the cleanup of the groundwater contamination. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE 89-4521 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner in its Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 1-16, 18-25, 27-30, 33, 36-42, 44, 47-50, and 53-54 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 17, 31-32, 46, and 51-52 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being contrary to the findings made and to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 26 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 34 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as not being established by the greater weight of the evidence. The testimony cited by Petitioner in support of these proposed findings do not establish the proposed findings. The proposed findings conflict with the contents of the Report of Ground-Water Quality Assessment accepted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 35 , 43, and 45 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected to the extent the proposed findings conflict with the findings made and the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact contained in Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order and in Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5, 7-19, 23, 25-31, 33-34, 39- 52, 55-68, and 70-72 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6, 20-22, 24, 32, 35-38, and 69 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 53 and 54 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected because the testimony referred to by Respondent in support of the proposed findings relates to amounts discharged following rainfalls, not amounts discharged daily. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-14 of Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gray Early, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert W. Wells, Esquire Ignacio E. Sanchez, Esquire KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN 2400 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Florida law regulating the manner in which pesticide chemicals are to be utilized and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the duty to prosecute administrative complaints against operators, applicators, and licensed pest control businesses pursuant to Section 482.011, et seq., Florida Statutes. Respondent is at all relevant times a licensed operator and applicator, subject to Petitioner's regulatory jurisdiction. On or about February 21, 2004, Respondent was performing preconstruction termite treatment services at a job site at 7750 Okeechobee Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida, utilizing a pesticide known as Dursban TC. Label instructions for Dursban TC provide that a 0.5 percent concentration be utilized for preconstruction treatment for the prevention of subterranean termites. Baker admits he did not follow the label instruction; rather, the concentration of pesticide was less than one tenth of the 0.5 percent concentration provided for on the label instructions as regards the pre-construction soil treatment for subterranean termites. Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6) states in pertinent part: Pesticides used for treatment for the prevention of subterranean termites for new construction shall be applied at the specific amounts, concentration, and treatment areas designated by the label. Baker defends his failure to follow the label instructions on the grounds that such instructions call for a higher concentration of pesticide than is actually necessary to accomplish an effective termite treatment. Even if, as Baker contends, the label instructions suggest a higher concentration of pesticide than is actually necessary to accomplish an effective termite treatment, that is not grounds for him, or Petitioner, to disregard the Rule mandating that label instructions be followed. Pesticide usage is highly regulated due to the potential of such chemicals to impact public health, safety and welfare. § 482.011, et seq., Fla. Stat. Changes in the regulations must come from the legislature, and cannot be made on an ad hoc basis by individual operators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing a fine of $400.00 against Respondent for violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106 (6). DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 5th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard J. Hochman, Esquire Law Offices of Howard J. Hochman 7695 Southwest 104th Street Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33156 David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda D Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issues in this case concern the question of whether implementation of the consent agreement threatens the substantial interests of Petitioners in the surface waters and ground water resources at and around Seaboard's used oil facility located off Route 314A in Oklawaha, Marion County, Florida. Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, gave public notice of its intent to implement a consent agreement with Respondent. The other Petitioners opposed the agreement asserting that the waters of the State were threatened by the agreement and requested a final hearing.
Findings Of Fact On March 7, 1988, Seaboard's used oil facility located off Route 314A in Oklawaha, Marion County, Florida, on Little Lake Bryant was inspected by a DER representative. At the time of the inspection pools of used oil were observed on the ground. Four 4,000 gallon above-ground tanks were being used to store used oil. Additionally, several old tank-truck bodies were used to store petroleum produces. These tanks did not have an impervious containment area to prevent used oil from spilling directly onto the ground and to prevent free runoff of precipitation. An underground tank (made from a septic tank) was being used to temporarily store water contaminated with used oil, which was gravity drained from the bottom of the used oil transport trucks. No impervious containment existed around the opening of the underground tank to prevent any spillage during transfer from directly reaching the ground. The underground tank was plugged and has no connection to a drain field. This tank is located in a flood plain. A 2,000 gallon above-ground tank and a 3,000 gallon above-ground tank were used to store water contaminated with used oil from the pumped underground tank. DER, in response to the March 7, 1988 inspection and subsequent site visits, negotiated a consent agreement with Seaboard. The consent agreement was executed on March 30, 1989 by Seaboard and filed with DER's Clerk on April 12, 1989. A copy of the consent agreement may be found as DER's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. The consent agreement specifies corrective actions to be taken by Seaboard, subject to DER approval, in order to address the problems identified at Seaboard's used oil facility. Paragraph 10 of the consent agreement addresses protection against spills directly reaching the ground. Impervious containment is required by the agreement for all above-ground used oil storage tanks but not the old truck bodies. Impervious containment is required for product transfer areas where transport trucks, pumps and hoses would operate, but not in the vicinity of the old truck bodies. A concrete containment dike surrounding the above-ground tanks is required to control drainage of rain, snow, sleet, fog, etc., but not around the truck bodies. (DER's Exhibit 1). The concrete pads already poured by Respondent are not impervious and the sides of these containment areas are not high enough to contain a major tank failure. Paragraph 11 of the consent agreement addresses operation of the underground tank in order to prevent leaks. Seaboard is required to provide protection against spillage during product transfer between transport trucks and the underground tank and provide for cleanup of spilled material. Nothing addresses the problems of the tank lying in a flood plain. (DER's Exhibit 1). Paragraph 12 of the consent agreement requires Seaboard to implement "Preliminary Contamination Assessment Actions". These actions provide the framework for determining if the problems identified at Seaboard's used oil facility have resulted in contamination of the soil, surface waters and ground water. The actions required are subject to prior DER approval. The actions represent standard conduct in these and similar types of cases. (DER's Exhibit 1). If the surveys and tests required by the agreement indicate soil, sediment, surface water or ground water contamination, DER can pursue any or all of the following: (1) institute an administrative proceeding requiring further assessment and cleanup; (2) institute a civil action in circuit court; or (3) perform the necessary corrective actions at the facility and recover the costs of such actions from Respondent, Seaboard. (DER's Exhibit 1). Notice was given of DER's proposed consent agreement with Seaboard by publication in the Ocala Star Banner of August 10, 1989. The Petitioners live around Little Lake Bryant, Oklawaha, Florida, where Seaboard's used oil facility is located. The Petitioners timely filed the petitions leading to the present hearing. The Petitioners are Helen V. Pierce, Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Pierce, Mr. and Mrs. Maurice Warner, Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Painter, Sr., Mr. and Mrs. William E. Hartman, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Hallman, Mr. Robert J. Painter, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Weinheimer, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Allan Gwin, Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Jones, and Mr. and Mrs. Daryl N. Driscoll. Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Weinheimer and Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Pierce, Petitioners in this case, did not attend the hearing. The other Petitioners attended the hearing. Introduction of waste oil into the waters of Little Lake Bryant would endanger the waters of the lake around which all of the Petitioners live. They use this lake for recreational purposes.
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 the DER enter a Final Order approving a consent agreement incorporating the following four recommendations: installation of impervious areas with high enough walls to retard a spill under all tanks; removal of the underground tank from the flood plain; installation of monitoring wells in sufficient quantity in new and old areas; and frequent inspection. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Otis Ted Holly Route 4, Box 851 Silver Springs, FL 32688 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Elbert Gray Route 1, Box 1293A Oklawaha, FL 32679 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Alachua County Environmental Protection Department discriminated against Tilak B. Shrestha based upon his race or national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, by releasing Mr. Shrestha from his temporary assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department and by not hiring Mr. Shrestha for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist within the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida funds the Petroleum Cleanup Program (Petroleum Program) which is focused on removing petroleum contaminants from various sites within the State of Florida. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) administers the Petroleum Program, also known as the Underground Storage Cleanup Program. In 12 counties, including Alachua, Florida contracts with the county to manage the Petroleum Program. The Alachua County Environmental Protection Department (Alachua DEP) manages the Petroleum Cleanup sites in Alachua County. Mr. Chris Bird has been the director of the Petroleum Program since 1993. He has worked with Alachua County since 1986. In the 1994-1995 fiscal year, the Florida Legislature was facing a deficit; therefore, the Legislature significantly reduced the funding for the Petroleum Program. As a result, DEP froze the Petroleum Program, and dropped several active sites. The lack of funding resulted in downsizing at both the county and state levels at the beginning of 1995. At the beginning of 1995, the Alachua DEP had three funded positions in the Petroleum Program. Mr. Alex Vieira occupied the position of full-time Professional Engineer. The Alachua DEP also had funding for an administrative position and a full-time Environmental Engineer/Geologist. The Environmental Engineer/Geologist position was vacant at the beginning of 1995. The Alachua DEP originally advertised for the position. However, when the State reduced funding for the Petroleum Program, the Alachua DEP decided not to fill the position with a permanent employee and ultimately froze this permanent position. In order for the Petroleum Program to continue at a minimum level of operation, the Alachua DEP hired temporary employees through Temp Force, a temporary employment agency. Temp Force served as an independent contractor for the Alachua DEP. Temp Force provided Mr. Tilak Shrestha and Mr. Mike Shuler to the Alachua DEP Petroleum Cleanup Program. Mr. Shuler began working at the Alachua DEP through Temp Force two months prior to Mr. Shrestha's Temp Force assignment to the Petroleum Program. At the time of the assignment through Temp Force, Shrestha was not credentialed as a Ph.D. Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler were employees of Temp Force, received their paychecks from Temp Force and acquired no benefits from Alachua County. Mr. Shrestha worked as a Temp Force employee for six months at Alachua DEP and was assigned to various projects at the Alachua DEP. As supervisor for the Petroleum Program, Mr. Vieira assigned projects to both Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler. Mr. Shrestha described his working conditions during his assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua DEP as "good, no complaints," and "good on average." In 1995, the Florida legislature ultimately reduced funding for the Petroleum Program from $1.2 million to approximately $250,000. When the Alachua DEP received notice of these funding cuts, Mr. Bird advised Mr. Vieira that he needed to release one of the Temp Force employees from his assignment with the Alachua DEP. Mr. Vieira retained Mr. Shuler and informed Mr. Shrestha that he would no longer be working on the Petroleum Cleanup assignment through Temp Force. Mr. Shrestha's assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua DEP was terminated on August 10, 1995. During Fall 1995, the legislature substantially changed the law and administration pertaining to the Petroleum Program, both at the county and state levels. In October 1995, Ms. Pegeen Hanrahan became the Petroleum Program supervisor following Mr. Vieira's resignation. Ms. Hanrahan earned a Bachelor's degree in Environmental Engineering and Sociology and a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering. She is a registered Professional Engineer and a certified Hazardous Materials Manager. She began working for Alachua County in 1992 as an Environmental Engineer and later served for three years as Hazardous Materials Program Supervisor for Alachua County. When Ms. Hanrahan became supervisor of the Petroleum Program in Fall 1995, the Petroleum Program had essentially entered a "stand-by" mode. The Alachua DEP declined to send any additional work to its sub-contractors. Therefore, the technical duties involved in the Petroleum Program were reduced and the administrative duties became more important. During the Fall of 1995, there were no permanent employees on staff. Mr. Shuler remained as the only temporary employee in the Petroleum Program and according to Ms. Hanrahan was doing a "perfectly adequate job." Based on the new and reduced Petroleum Program budget for the 1995-1996 fiscal year, the Alachua DEP acted in October 1995 to establish the position of Senior Environmental Specialist in lieu of the Environmental Engineer/Geologist position. The position was advertised in December 1995. The main role of the Senior Environmental Specialist was to assist the Professional Engineer in the area of the administration involved in the Petroleum Program. The duties included filing reports, tracking sites, and submitting task orders and invoices to the office in Tallahassee. Due to the increasing changes in the Petroleum Program, the Alachua DEP required a Senior Environmental Specialist who understood the Petroleum Program's administrative tasks, as well as the State policies pertaining to the Petroleum Program. The Senior Environmental Specialist candidate was required to have a technical background in fields including, but not limited to, engineering, biology or geology. The Professional Engineer, not the Specialist, was assigned the technical review of the Petroleum Program. An applicant's understanding of the technical and administrative duties was necessary. In 1995, the Alachua DEP advertised the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, which included printing an advertisement in the local newspaper, per the County regulations. The Alachua DEP described the administrative tasks of Senior Environmental Specialist to include: preparing reports; making recommendations; receiving and investigating complaints; conducting performance evaluations; counseling, hiring and terminating employees. The Alachua DEP described the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the Senior Environmental Specialist to include: thorough knowledge of the technical methods and procedures involved in the administration of environmental regulations, programs, and policies; knowledge of local, state, and federal rules, regulations, and ordinances related to environmental protection; ability to create concise, clear, and succinct technical reports; and ability to research technical problems, formulate recommendations, and compile related reports. The Alachua DEP described the minimum qualifications for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist as: Bachelor's degree in environmental or natural science, civil or environmental engineering, geology, or hydrology, or related field, and two years' professional level environmental-related experience; or any equivalent combination of related training and experience. The County received 14 applications for the position as Senior Environmental Specialist from applicants, which included Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler. Ms. Hanrahan was supervisor of the Petroleum Program in January 1996 and responsible for the hiring of the Senior Environmental Specialist. She received an Application Referral Document from personnel, stating that each of the applicants met the County's minimum requirements for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Upon receipt of the re?sume's and applications, Ms. Hanrahan initially screened the applicants for those who had petroleum-related experience. She narrowed the applicants to four individuals, who included Mr. Shrestha, Mr. Shuler, and two others. On January 22, 1996, Ms. Hanrahan conducted a telephone interview of each of the four applicants who passed the initial screening. The telephone interview was customary hiring practice within the Alachua DEP. During the telephone interview, Ms. Hanrahan asked each applicant the same series of ten questions, designed to test the applicant's level of knowledge regarding technical and administrative aspects of the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Mr. Shrestha answered five out of a possible eleven answers correctly. This was the second highest score out of the four applicants. Shuler achieved the highest score, answering eight-and-one-half out of eleven answers correctly. Three interview questions specifically addressed administrative issues. Question six asked, "What does RBCA stand for?" Question seven stated, "This year the Florida Petroleum Cleanup Program has adopted a new mechanism for review and approval of work on petroleum contaminated sites. Can you tell me what that program is called?" Question nine stated, "Give two examples of policy decisions under RBCA." Mr. Shrestha failed to answer question six, seven or nine correctly. Mr. Shrestha's failure to correctly answer each of the administrative questions indicated to Ms. Hanrahan that he was unaware of the changes within the Petroleum Program. Another purpose of the telephone interview was to assess the applicants under pressure. Ms. Hanrahan also sought to evaluate how the applicants responded to her authority. During the telephone interview, Mr. Shrestha challenged Ms. Hanrahan regarding the relevance of the questions to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist and she noted his argumentative attitude during the interview. He conceded at the hearing that he did ask her about the relevancy of the questions. Based upon his argumentative tone, Ms. Hanrahan questioned Mr. Shrestha about his ability to accept her supervisory decisions. She decided not to hire Mr. Shrestha for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist based on his limited knowledge of the administration of the Petroleum Program, a factor essential to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, and his inability to accept her authority as supervisor. Ms. Hanrahan was also aware of critical statements that Mr. Shrestha allegedly had made to female co-workers during his assignment through Temp Force at the Alachua DEP. Ms. Robin Hallbourg is currently employed as Senior Environmental Specialist with the Alachua DEP. Ms. Hallbourg has been with the Alachua County DEP for 15 years. Ms. Hallbourg worked with Mr. Shrestha at the Alachua DEP during Mr. Shrestha's assignment through Temp Force. Ms. Hallbourg testified that Mr. Shrestha told her that "she should be home with her child" and that she "should allow a man to have her job." After this conversation, Ms. Hallbourg discussed his statements with others in the Alachua DEP, including Ms. Hanrahan. Ms. Hanrahan recalled the discussion with her. Ms. Hanrahan hired Mr. Shuler for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist because he proved himself to be the most qualified candidate during the interview process. Ms. Hanrahan kept an interview log on which she noted Mr. Shuler's strong qualifications for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. She noted his "excellent experience in the Petroleum Cleanup Program and his significant applicable training and experience in program administration." Ms. Hanrahan also noted that his "application and interview showed strong computer skills." Mr. Shuler's Bachelor's degree in Microbiology met the education requirements for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Moreover, at the time of Shuler's application, there had been a growing emphasis placed on bi-remediation, which is currently a regularly used process. Given Ms. Hanrahan's education, training,and experience as a Professional Engineer, she determined that a Bachelor's degree in Microbiology was an appropriate background for the position. In addition, Mr. Shuler had the technical knowledge of processes, performance of groundwater sampling, and drilling, as well as other relevant technical knowledge pertaining to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Additionally, due to his continued assignment in the Alachua DEP, he was aware of the new administrative duties required of a Senior Environmental Specialist. Ms. Hanrahan had personally observed Mr. Shuler from October 1995 until January 1996, and was extremely satisfied with his performance. As part of the usual hiring process, Ms. Hanrahan submitted her interview log, personnel action form, and applications to the personnel department to support her hiring decision. Mr. Bird approved the hiring decision in his capacity as director, and the personnel department, budget department, and Equal Employment Office then approved the decision. Since his hire, Mr. Shuler has been commended by the Alachua DEP and his supervisors. Ms. Hanrahan informed Mr. Shrestha that he had not been hired for the position during a telephone conversation on January 23, 1996. She did not base her decision to hire Mr. Shuler over Mr. Shrestha on the basis of race or national origin. Ms. Hanrahan is fully aware of Alachua County's Equal Employment Opportunity policy through her position as advisor on the Equal Opportunity Advisory Committee. There is no evidence of any discriminatory hiring decision. In fact, on the same day that Ms. Hanrahan hired Mr. Shuler for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, she also hired Mr. Gus Olmos for the position of Environmental Engineering Supervisor. Mr. Olmos is from Panama and is Hispanic. Moreover, Dr. Prasad Kuchibhotla is a Professional Engineer with a Bachelor's, Master's and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. He is from India and is Asian. Alachua County hired Dr. Kuchibhotla in 1997 and is the current Petroleum Cleanup Program Manager for Alachua DEP. Dr. Kuchibhotla currently has a Senior Environmental Specialist working for him within the Petroleum Program. As was the case in December 1995, the current Specialist's primary duty is to assist him with the detailed administrative tasks involved with the Petroleum Program. On January 27, 1997, Mr. Shrestha filed a formal Charge of Discrimination. The charge was date stamped as received by the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 30, 1997. Mr. Shrestha is currently employed with Bell South in Atlanta, Georgia. He earns $47,000 per year and receives health benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Tilak B. Shrestha is not entitled to any relief relating to his charge of discrimination under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 2nd day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilak B. Shrestha 3579-C Meadowglen Village Lane Doraville, Georgia 30340 Robert M. Ott, Esquire County Litigation Attorney Post Office Box 2877 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
