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 Whether the application of Getty Oil Company for a permit to conduct dredge and fill activities by the construction of an oyster shell platform and by dredging (drilling) in East Bay, Santa Rosa County, should be approved, pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, F.S. Whether the application of Getty Oil Company for a variance from Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), F.A.C., to construct a shell foundation pad and to drill one natural gas exploratory well in East Bay, Santa Rosa County, should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. Whether the application of Getty Oil Company for a permit for natural gas flare construction should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. Whether the application of Getty Oil Company for a drilling permit should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 377, F.S. These proceedings stem from Getty Oil Company's intent to erect a structure and drill a test well in East Bay, Santa Rosa County, for the purpose of natural gas exploration. The waters of East Bay are Class II, approved for shellfish harvesting. Getty holds leasehold rights for drilling at the proposed site under an assignment of a lease granted by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund in 1968. DER issued Notices of Intent to grant Getty's three applications, subject to specific conditions, as follows: Request for Variance By letter of April 3, 1980, the DER Director of Division of Environmental Permitting issued its Notice of Intent to grant a variance from Section 17- 4.28(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 403.201(1)(a)(c) Florida Statutes, to permit the requested dredge and fill activities in an area approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Dredge and Fill permit By letter of April 3, 1980, the DER manager of the Northwest District issued Notice of Intent to issue a dredge and fill permit for the construction of the exploratory gas drilling platform provided that the applicant obtained a variance from the requirements of Sections 17-4.28(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Natural Gas Flare Construction Permit By letter of June 16, 1980, the DER manager of the Northwest District issued Notice of Intent to issue a permit for natural gas flare construction at the East Bay test site in Santa Rosa County. DNR issued the following Notices of Intent regarding the Chapter 377 drilling permit: By letter of June 18, 1980, as amended by letter of June 23, 1980, the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources issued Notice of Intent to recommend denial of Getty's application for a permit to drill in East Bay for the reason that Section 377.242, Florida Statutes, prohibits the construction of structures for the production of oil, gas and other petroleum products on submerged lands within the lease area. However, by further order of the Executive Director, dated duly 28, 1980, Notice of Intent was issued to recommend approval of the drilling permit application, subject to specified conditions in the event that the legal opinion expressed in his prior letters concerning the prohibition against drilling as set forth in Section 377.242, Florida Statutes, was found to be incorrect. Although the DER cases were originally scheduled for hearing in August, 1980, the consolidation of the DNR cases resulted in the granting of a motion for a continuance of the hearing until November, 1980. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties announced that they had arrived at a stipulated settlement and that all issues raised in the consolidated cases were, with two exceptions, withdrawn by the parties with respect to the three permit applications and the variance application. The two issues reserved by the Stipulation involved the application of Section 377.242(1), Florida Statutes, with respect to the requested drilling permit from the Department of Natural Resources. The Stipulation was accepted by the Hearing Officer as sufficiently comprehensive to meet the requirements of pertinent statutes and regulations with regard to the permits under consideration. Paragraph VI of the Stipulation provides that paragraphs II and IV of the Stipulation shall be specifically incorporated into the agency permits or variance to which those paragraphs refer. In view of the agreed resolution of the two DER permit applications, a hearing on those matters became unnecessary. However, as to the application for variance, subsection 403.201(2), Florida Statutes, mandates that the Department hold a hearing on each application for variance. Inasmuch as the parties to the proceedings had resolved all factual and legal questions in their Stipulation, the only remaining purpose for a hearing was to permit public participation. Accordingly, twelve public witnesses testified at the hearing (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1), four of whom submitted documentary materials (Exhibits 1-4). These included a petition signed by local area citizens in support of the project, a favorable recommendation by the Pensacola Area Chamber of Commerce, a statement from the League of Women Voters from the Pensacola Bay Area expressing concern for preservation and protection of estuaries and wetlands, and various publications submitted by one witness. After the receipt of public testimony, the hearing was continued until November 24, 1980 for presentation of evidence concerning the two remaining issues reserved by the parties in their Stipulation. Due to the fact that the DER was not a party to the matters remaining for consideration, its representative did not participate in the further proceedings. During the hearing sessions on November 12- 13, 1980, twenty eight exhibits were provisionally received in evidence. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2) . Eight additional exhibits were received in evidence during the session on November 24-25, 1980. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2) By Recommended Order, dated December 15, 1980, the Hearing Officer recommended to DER that the Stipulation of the parties be accepted, and that the requested DER permits and variance be issued in accordance with the terms thereof. The two issues reserved by the Stipulation involving the application of Section 377.242(1), Florida Statutes, are as follows: Whether Section 377.242(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits the proposed drilling on submerged lands located in East Bay. Whether Section 377.242(1), Florida Statutes, can be constitutionally applied to prohibit Getty from conducting the proposed drilling on submerged lands located in East Bay. Evidence was received at the hearing as to whether Getty Oil Company is authorized by the statutory provision in question to drill at the proposed site. As to the constitutional issue, Getty was permitted to proffer testimony to preserve such issue for any future judicial determination. The following findings of fact are restricted accordingly.
Findings Of Fact Getty Oil Company proposes to drill a hydrocarbon exploration well pursuant to State Drilling Lease No. 2338. The lease was issued by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida on July 9, 1968, to J. Melvin Young, Arden A. Anderson, and Philip D. Beall. Getty purchased the lease from the original lessees on March 10, 1970. The lease grants the right to explore for and produce oil and gas from the state-owned submerged water bottoms of East Bay, Blackwater Bay, and that portion of Escambia Bay lying in Santa Rosa County, a combined total of 47,932 acres. The proposed well would be drilled from submerged lands located in approximately the center of East Bay to a depth of approximately 17,800 feet. (Testimony of Anderson, Exhibits 6, 27) The well site will be located some 2.7 miles from the nearest shore and about six miles from the Gulf of Mexico. The site is not within one mile from the seaward boundary of the Yellow River Marsh Aquatic Preserve, the Fort Pickens State Park Aquatic Preserve, or the Gulf Islands National Seashore. East Bay is an estuary which is part of an estuarine "system" in the immediately surrounding area of Pensacola. An estuary is an area that is a buffer zone between the open ocean where the salinity is equal to 35 parts per thousand, and the fresh water river areas which drain into the system. The fresh water runoff carries nutrients into the system which in turn result in productivity of plants and organisms, including fish, shrimp, oysters, and other shellfish of various types. Estuarine systems are therefore one of the most productive types of ecosystems. East Bay is one of the best parts of the estuarine system from the standpoint of both water quality and general health of the system. Although during the major periods of river drainage in the winter and spring months, low water salinity exists on the surface of East Bay, the bay is not considered to be a fresh water lake, river or stream from an ecological standpoint. (Testimony of Herbert, Livingston, Exhibits 6, 15, 26, 29-32) The coastline of Florida in the vicinity of East Bay coincides with the seaward boundary of Santa Rosa Island, a barrier island, and extends across the mouth of the entrance to Escambia Bay. East Bay is connected to Escambia Bay, but does not connect directly to the Gulf of Mexico. (Stipulation, Exhibits 29, 31 and 32) Based on seismic data obtained from a 1970 survey of the Getty Oil Company's leased area, including East Bay, the only possible structure where hydrocarbons could be located beneath submerged lands is one covering 2,860 acres or approximately 4 1/2 square miles. The proposed well site is at the top center of the structure, which extends some 17,800 feet below the surface of the submerged land. There is no evidence that there are commercially recoverable deposits of salt, brines, or sulphur under the lands of the leasehold area. Hydrocarbon accumulations tend to occur along the crest of regional arches. The crest of the Santa Rosa Arch has been projected to be underneath the East Bay area. (Testimony of McCarthy, Greenwell, Exhibits 34-35) Studies conducted by Getty Oil Company to determine the advisability of drilling at the proposed site led it to the conclusion that there is one chance in twelve that hydrocarbons would be present in the target structure in commercially productive amounts. These studies also produced an estimate that Getty would accrue about $537,000,000 before state and federal income taxes if it vertically drilled four producing and one non-producing wells in the area. (Testimony of Greenwell) Directional well drilling is performed by the oil industry to maximum lateral deviations of 10,000 to 12,000 feet, depending upon varying conditions at the site. In such instances, an angle is formed at periodic intervals which eventually deviates sufficiently to reach the target structure. Straight-line slant drilling is only feasible in cases of shallow wells. Directional drilling creates varying problems based on the depth and lateral deviation required in a particular place. The "doglegs" required in creating the necessary angles pose extreme difficulties in removing cuttings from the drill hole. The angles created in the process produce tremendous torque and cause pipe "fatigue." Drill collars are subject to sticking and, at extreme depths, it is doubtful if turning of the pipe can be achieved. Such a method of drilling makes it difficult to control direction, particularly at great depths. Additionally, at extreme depths where the temperature is some 325 degrees, the rubber material of "down-hole" motors is melted. (Testimony of Porterfield, Moore) In order for Getty Oil Company to directionally drill from land to the target structure under East Bay, it would be necessary to commence drilling on land approximately 3.3 miles from the bay site at a point about 1 1/4 miles due north of White Point. Drilling at that location would require a 50 percent lateral deviation of some 17,500 feet and a total drilling distance of some 25,000 feet. Such a distance has never been attempted in the history of directional drilling and is considered by experts in the field to be virtually impossible from a technological standpoint. Such a well would require that 2 1/2 degree angles be formed every 100 feet. These bends in the well hole through which the pipe must be extended and bent would create extremely severe pipe failure problems and exacerbate the other traditional difficulties encountered in directional drilling. Further, the cost of directional drilling at the Getty site would make such an undertaking economically undesirable even if it were technically possible. In view of all the considerations, Getty Oil Company does not consider directional drilling a viable alternative to vertical drilling, and therefore would not undertake drilling by such a method. Getty does not own or hold property interests in any dry-land areas near the shore of East Bay. (Porterfield, Moore, Englert) Prior to 1972, the Department of Natural Resources issued permits to drill in submerged lands of the state. Subsequent to the 1972 enactment of Section 377.242(1), Florida Statutes, no such permits have been issued and the pending application of Getty Oil Company is the only one which has been received by the Department since that time. Based on prior policy, the Chief of the Department's Bureau of Geology recommended to the Executive Director that Getty's application be approved. His reason for such recommendation was that he had not been aware that there was a variation in the 1972 statute and the Department's prior policy. Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner, Executive Director, however, determined that the statutory provision prohibited the placement of structures for the purpose of producing oil or gas anywhere in submerged lands in the state within a mile seaward from the coastline, which he considered to be located at the seaward border of Santa Rosa Island. He interpreted additional language in the statutory provision (which prohibited the issuance of a drilling permit within one mile inland from the coastline unless estuaries, beaches and shore area were adequately protected in the event of accident) to refer to uplands, and that therefore unrestricted drilling on land could only occur more than a mile from the coastline. In this manner, he concluded that the legislature intended to protect all estuaries of the state. He views his decision to constitute a proposed departmental policy which would require ratification by the Governor and Cabinet as head of the Department. However, no rules have been issued in implementation of the statutory provision. Based on his interpretation of the statute, the initial letter of intent to deny the requested permit was issued on June 18, 1980, as amended by his letter of June 23, 1980. By his further letter of July 28, 1980, the Executive Director informed Getty Oil Company that he had been directed by the Governor and Cabinet to issue a Notice of Intent to recommend final agency action concerning the merits of the application in the event that his legal position was overruled. The letter stated that pursuant to that mandate, and after review of the application, he intended to recommend approval of a permit to drill the requested test well in East Bay for the reason that the application complied with all criteria set forth in Chapter 16C-2, Florida Administrative Code. Certain conditions were stated in the letter to which any permit would be subject. These conditions were the subject of tide later stipulation between the parties at the commencement of the final hearing in these proceedings. The statutory interpretation of the Executive Director was confirmed in a later departmental legal opinion. (Testimony of Henry, Gissendanner, Exhibits 15, 20, 36) Various legislative materials, including bills, committee reports, and transcripts of committee meetings which primarily were preliminary to or contemporaneous with the passage of the legislation that became Section 377.242(1), F.S., were admitted in evidence (Exhibit 33a-p). A post-hearing Motion of Getty Oil Company to supplement the record with additional legislative materials was granted in part by the official recognition of a Report of the House Committee on Environmental pollution Control (Exhibit 33q). A further post-hearing Motion of United Citizens Against pollution, Inc. to supplement the record with further pertinent legislative materials was similarly granted (Exhibit 33r, s).
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Rule 17 Administrative Code (1991), constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1.-8., below. Stipulated Facts Respondent has documented contamination from the abandoned petroleum storage system. The abandoned petroleum storage system has been properly closed. Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent on Respondent's forms 17-769.900(3) and (4), Florida Administrative Code, which was postmarked on or before June 30, 1992. The site is not eligible for cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes, the Early Detection Incentive Program, or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. This site is not owned or operated by the federal government. This site did not have leaking tanks that stored pollutants that are not petroleum products as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes. Respondent was not denied access to this site. Petroleum contamination was not discovered after the application deadline of June 30, 1992. Additional Facts Petitioner, a Florida corporation, is in the business of owning and leasing property. Petitioner is the fee simple owner of property located at 2022 Wahnish Way in Tallahassee, Florida. The property located on Wahnish Way was leased to James T. "Pete" Thomas by Petitioner's predecessor in title. Thomas operated a gasoline station and automobile repair garage on the property. The lease with Thomas was continued by Petitioner without change upon Petitioner's assumption of the legal title to the property in 1985. Prior to Petitioner's assumption of title to the property in the early 1970's, Thomas had installed four petroleum storage systems in a four tank pit on the property. Thomas later registered all four of the tanks with Respondent by the statutory deadline of December 31, 1984, as required by Florida law. Although Thomas signed the registration documents as an agent of Petitioner, he was not such an authorized agent and the registration occurred without the knowledge or approval of Petitioner. Sometime in the early 1980's, Thomas and his wholesale gasoline distributor determined that one of the four underground tanks was losing product. In 1982, Thomas ceased using the southernmost tank in the pit for the storage of petroleum products for subsequent consumption, use or sale. The distributor ceased placing gasoline in the southernmost tank. Petitioner, unaware that Thomas had experienced any product loss problems or that the tanks on the property had been registered by Thomas with Respondent, became aware of both matters following receipt of a letter from government officials of Leon County, Florida, on November 20, 1990. As set forth in that letter, Petitioner was apprised that the tanks were not in compliance with State of Florida standards and would have to be closed or retrofitted to bring the tanks into compliance. Following receipt of the letter, Petitioner informed Thomas that selling of gasoline at the site was to be discontinued immediately. Closure of the tanks, performed in early 1991, by contractors retained by Petitioner, consisted of excavation and removal of the petroleum storage systems from the property. All four tanks were in the tank pit side by side, from the northernmost end of the pit to the southern end of the pit fronting on Osceola Street in Tallahassee, Florida. When the removal was completed, a Closure Assessment form was prepared by one of the contractors, Jim Stidham and Associates, in accordance with requirements of Florida law. During that process, excessive contamination from petroleum product of the soils in the extreme south end of the tank pit was discovered. Excessive contamination, defined as anything more than 500 parts per million, was located beneath the southernmost pump on the southern end of the pump island and in the southern end of the pit. A 20 foot soil boring as near as possible to the site of the southernmost tank revealed that unacceptable levels of contamination extended to that depth. As supported by the testimony of James A. Stidham, Petitioner's expert in the assessment of contamination caused by underground petroleum storage tanks, the location of contamination in the pit area establishes that the tank causing the contamination was the southernmost tank. The hole discovered in one of the tanks at the time of removal was likely located in the southernmost tank. The excessive contamination located at the shallow depth of two feet under the southernmost pump resulted from the improper disconnection of piping attached to the pump and is not attributable to the leak in the tank. Each tank was connected by piping on the eastern end of each tank to the corresponding pump. The southernmost pump was not used after 1982 and was missing integral parts by the time the tanks were closed. In the course of exploring options for clean up of the property, Petitioner filed for assistance from Respondent in the form of participation in the ATRP. Unaware of the true date of the cessation of use of the southernmost tank, Petitioner gave the date of last use for all tanks in the pit by stating that the "tanks were taken out of service between December 15, 1990 and January 15, 1991." Petitioner provided this response to Respondent's July 30, 1991 request for further information on August 6, 1991. Although Respondent made an initial determination to deny Petitioner's application in the middle of August, 1991, that action was not communicated to Petitioner. Instead, Petitioner's application was held by Respondent, pending possible amendment to Section 376.305(7), Florida Statutes (1991). Respondent held Petitioner's application for a total of almost nineteen months before issuance of a formal decision to deny the application on February 26, 1993. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application was based upon the eligibility requirement restricting ATRP participants to those situations where the petroleum storage system has not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, and the belief of Respondent's personnel that all storage systems on Petitioner's property had stored products beyond that date. Specifically, Respondent eventually gave notice that it intended to deny Petitioner's application for participation in the ATRP for the following reason: Eligibility in the Abandoned Tank Restoration Program is restricted to those petroleum storage systems that have not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, pursuant to Section 17-769.800(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, ADI and Youngquist Brothers were licensed well drilling contractors and qualified to bid on Bid Request No. 9237 issued by Southwest Florida Water Management District ("SWFWMD" or "District"), Respondent. On July 23, 1992 the District mailed packets for bid requests to ADI, Youngquist Brothers, Inc., and others. On August 12, 1992 a mandatory pre-bid meeting for Bid Request No. 9237 was conducted at the District office. Representatives of ADI and Youngquist attended the pre-bid meeting. Responses to Bid Request No. 9237 were opened by the District on August 26, 1992. ADI's bid was for $159.50 per hour, and Youngquist's bid was for $200.00 per hour. Greg McQuown, District Manager of the Geohydrologic Data Section prepared the technical portions of this bid request and, following the bid opening, visited the facilities of both ADI and Youngquist as provided in Section 2.1.1.19 of the bid specifications to observe the equipment they proposed to use. Request for Bid No. 9237 requested bidders to submit an hourly rate for furnishing an experienced crew, the drilling rig and all equipment, materials, fuel and services necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of the drilling rig to be used in drilling numerous monitoring wells as directed by the District. Although the bid is for one year, it is renewable for two additional years. Drilling contracts on an hourly basis are not frequently used in water well drilling contracts, but for this project, this type contract appeared preferable to the District due to the wide variations in well depths and drilling conditions. Speed of drilling is a very significant element in an hourly rate drilling contract. Section 1.17 of the general conditions of Request for Bid No. 9237 provides in pertinent part: If bids are based on equivalent products, indicate on the bid form the manufacturer name and number. * * * The bidder shall explain in detail the reason(s) hoe (sic) the proposed equivalent will meet the specifications and not be considered an exception thereto. Bids which do not comply with these requirements are subject to rejection. Bids lacking any written indication of intent to quote an alternate brand will be received and considered in complete compliance with the specifications as listed on the bid form. Section 1.11 of the general specifications provides: 1.11 BID DATA. Bidders shall furnish complete and detailed Bid Data as specified on the Request for Bid Form. Bids furnished without data, or incomplete submissions may be rejected at the discretion of the District. Exceptions to the requirements, if any, shall be noted in complete detail. Failure by the bidder to detail each exception to a bid specification or a requirement results in the bidder being required to meet each specification or requirement exactly as stated. Section 2.2.2.3 under Contractor Equipment and Services (exhibit 2) lists the following equipment: API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe, no hard banding, square shoulders acceptable, 1,400 feet. API 4 3/4 inch steel drill collars 10,000 lbs. (approximately 200 feet). API 7 to 7 1/2 inch steel drill collars, 13, 500 lbs. (approximately 100 feet) are acceptable equivalent. Rig equipped with hydraulic torque equipment for drill collars and drill pipe. The drilling contemplated by this Bid Request is reverse air drilling in which an air hose is inserted inside the drill pipe and air from this hose facilitates a removal of the material through which the drill bit penetrates. ADI's Bid Proposal (exhibit 4) under Equipment List provides in pertinent part: Drill stem 4 1/2" flush joint 2 1/8 ID Collars 2 @ 3 1/2" X 20' 1 @ 6" X 20' -2 @ 7 3/4" X 30' * * * Above listed tools available, we will make available any other specified tools. The inside diameter (ID) of API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe is 2 11/16 inches. This size pipe will allow use of a 3/4 inch air hose and still provide adequate area for the drilled material to be excavated from the hole being drilled. Further, this Bid Request proposed the use of 6 inch PVC casing to be provided by the District. Thus, the drill pipe and drilling equipment needed to pass through this size casing. The function of the drill collar is to provide weight on the drill bit to insure a straight hole as well as increase the speed of drilling. All else being equal (especially speed of rotation of drill bit) the greater the weight the faster the drilling. Standard API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe has an outside diameter of 4 3/4 inches and is the largest standard drill pipe that can be used in the 6 inch casing here proposed. Not only does the 4 1/2 inch drill pipe proposed for use by ADI have a smaller ID than API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe specified, but also this is not a constant ID but constricts to this 2 1/8 inch ID where pipe sections are connected. This constriction can increase the turbulence in the pipe and slow the removal of the drilled material. The cross section area of a 2 1/8 inch ID pipe is 5/8 the area of a 2 11/16 inch ID pipe. Accordingly, drilling with the API 3 1/2 inch pipe can be much faster than with a drill pipe with a 2 1/8 inch ID due solely to the greater volume flowing through the 3 1/2 inch pipe. The 4 1/2 inch drill collars listed in ADI's bid proposal weighed in at 1100 pounds in lieu of the 4 3/4 drill collars and 10,000 pounds specified in Request for Bid. ADI contends that by adding the words "above listed tools available, we will make available any other specified tools" they clearly intended to provide all equipment demanded by the District. This is the type language which leads to contract disputes. All of Petitioner's witnesses testified that they intended to commence the work, if awarded the contract, with the equipment listed on their bid proposal. On an hourly drilling contract this equipment is inadequate. All of these witnesses also testified they would use the equipment listed in the Request for Bid specifications if required to do so by the District. Neither Dave Robinson, Petitioner's superintendent who prepared its bid and attended the pre-bid conference, nor Jerry C. Howell, President of Petitioner who modified and approved the bids submitted, had ever used API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe and were not familiar with the dimensions of that item. Yet they did not check to ascertain how the inside diameter of that drill pipe compared with the inside diameter of the 4 1/2 drill stem flush joint they had on hand. Petitioner further contended that the cost of the API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe was insignificant in determining the bid price submitted, and therefore, this discrepancy was immaterial and should not lead to rejection of the bid. Petitioner's bid failed to comply with General Conditions 1.17 in that it failed to explain in detail the reasons the 4 1/2 inch drill stem proposed for use meets the specifications which required a drill pipe with a substantially larger minimum interior cross section area. Petitioner's challenge to Youngquist's bid proposal as being non- responsive for not listing the API 3 1/2 inch pipe is without merit. Youngquist's bid complied with the provision of Section 1.11 of the General Specifications and McQuown's visit to Youngquist's facility confirmed that Youngquist had on hand all of the equipment specified in the Request for Bid Proposal. Petitioner was represented at the compulsory pre-bid conference by David Robinson, ADI's superintendent, who prepared ADI's bid package. Robinson testified that at the pre-bid conference he asked Mr. McQuown what was the inside diameter of the API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe and McQuown responded 1 7/8 inches. Several other witnesses, including McQuown, testified that no questions were asked at the pre-bid conference about the API 3 1/2 inch pipe and all of these witnesses were fully aware that the pipe has an ID greater than 2 1/2 inches. McQuown's testimony that Robinson asked only about the inside diameter of the 4 3/4 inch drill collar shown in the bid specifications and he responded 1 7/8 inches to that question is deemed the more credible evidence. Robinson testified that he thought McQuown has misspoke when he said 1 7/8 inches but did not check available catalogues to determine the actual ID of this pipe to shed some light on the adequacy of the 4 1/2 inch drill pipe proposed in ADI's bid. The more credible testimony is that Robinson was not misinformed about the ID API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe at the pre-bid conference.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the formal bid protest filed by American Drilling, Inc. to challenge the award of Bid Request 9237 be dismissed and that the contract be awarded to Youngquist Brothers, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6618BID Proposed findings listed by Petitioner are accepted except as noted below. Those neither noted below nor included in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 16. Rejected. Although there can be a slight variation in the internal diameter of API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe, there is no API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe with an inside diameter less than 2 1/2 inches. 18. Rejected as contrary to the credible evidence. Rejected. ADI fully intended to use the drill pipe and collars listed on its bid unless or until the District mandated a change to the equipment or tools specified. Both of Petitioner's principle witnesses believed the 4 1/2 inch drill stem listed could satisfactorily perform the required drilling. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted as a fact that after ADI learned it was low bidder inquiries were made to locate a source for the specified drill pipe and collars. At McQuown's visit to ADI, Jerry C. Howell assured him that ADI wanted to fully cooperate with the District in carrying out the contract when issued. Rejected that ADI's response was clear and complete as required by the specifications. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant. Diversified was not a party to these proceedings. Rejected. Youngquist's bid complied with the bid specifications. By not responding to those items in the bid specification, Youngquist, pursuant to the General Bid Specifications, agreed to provide exactly the equipment specified by the District in the Request for Bid. 32. These omissions have never been deemed by the District to be grounds for rejecting bids. 33 -34. Rejected as immaterial. 36. Although McQuown testified that he did not pay a lot of attention to the general (boiler plate) conditions in the bid proposal, he recognized that the failure of a bidder to list equipment different than that contained in the bid proposal meant that the bidder intended to supply the equipment specified. See 36 above. Rejected as irrelevant. Last sentence rejected as immaterial. First sentence rejected. Rejected. First sentence rejected. 46 - 49. Rejected as immaterial. 51. Rejected insofar as Youngquist's bid is concerned. 53. Last sentence rejected. Rejected as improper and inaccurate interpretation of the contract provisions. Moreover, this is a question of law, not of fact. The bid specifications speak for themselves. Interpretation of these specifications is a legal not a factual matter. Last sentence rejected. Last sentence rejected. Rejected as fact, accepted as a conclusion of law. See 36 above. 63 Generally accepted. However, it is found that all parties recognize that it was not necessary for bidders to have on hand all equipment requested in the bid specification, and that ADI representatives indicated that they would like to start work with the equipment on hand and would do so unless otherwise directed. Proposed joint findings submitted by Respondent and Intervenor are accepted. Those not included in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Manson, Esquire Mary Catherine Lamoureaux, Esquire Post Office Box 499 Tampa, Florida 33601-0499 Richard Tschantz, Esquire A. Wayne Alfieri, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Mark R. Komray, Esquire Thomas Smoot, Esquire Suite 600 12800 University Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33906-6259 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issues in these cases include the following: Did Petitioner file completed applications to entitle it to an oil and gas drilling permit? Is the Department's policy of requiring information in support of an offshore oil and gas well drilling permit not specifically set out in existing rules constitute an unadopted rule? If the Department applied an unadopted rule to Petitioner in these cases, does the unadopted rule meet the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes? Is Petitioner entitled to the oil and gas drilling permits it sought by default?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Coastal Petroleum Company (hereinafter referred to as "Coastal"), is a Florida corporation. Phillip Ware is the current president of Coastal. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with the responsibility of implementing Florida laws and rules regulating the issuance of oil and gas drilling permits. Intervenors are the Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., Sierra Club, Florida Chapter, and the Florida Audubon Society, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Environmental Intervenors"), and the Department of Legal Affairs (hereinafter referred to as "Legal Affairs"). The Environmental Intervenors and Legal Affairs filed verified petitions to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. Coastal's Offshore Drilling Rights. On or about December 27, 1944, Coastal's predecessor entered into two leases, Drilling Lease Nos. 224-A and 224-B (hereinafter referred to as the "Original Leases"), with the predecessor to the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund. The Original Leases gave Coastal the exclusive right to explore for and produce oil and gas on submerged lands of the State of Florida throughout an area extending for a distance of 10.36 statute miles off most of the west coast of Florida. The area extends from approximately Apalachicola, Florida, in the north, to Naples, Florida, in the south. On or about February 27, 1947, the Original Leases were modified to redefine the area covered by the Leases due to claims of the federal government of parts of the area originally covered by the Original Leases (hereinafter referred to as the "Modified Leases"). In 1990 the Legislature enacted Chapter 90-72, Laws of Florida (1990), expressing the current policy of the State concerning offshore drilling. Pursuant to Chapter 90-72 the Legislature prohibited all offshore leasing and drilling. Recognizing Coastal's rights pursuant to the Modified Leases, an exception for drilling in areas governed by the Modified Leases was included in Chapter 90-72. Coastal is currently the only person entitled to explore for, and produce oil and gas on State submerged lands. Coastal's working interests under the Modified Leases were, as a result of litigation between the State and Coastal, subsequently reduced to the width of the area covered by the Modified Leases to between 7 miles and 10.36 miles from the coast. The litigation began during the late 1960's and ended with a settlement in 1976. Following the execution of the Original Leases and continuing through 1968, Coastal was involved with obtaining permits for, and drilling, approximately 9 wells in the area covered by the Original and/or Modified Leases. No permits were obtained by Coastal to drill in the area covered by the Modified Leases after 1968 due to the ongoing litigation between Coastal and the State. After the settlement of the dispute in 1976, Coastal was involved in litigation with Mobil Oil until the 1980's. Due to that litigation, Coastal did not pursue any other drilling operations under the Modified Leases until the 1980's. Because of the significant changes in the state of offshore drilling technology since Coastal had last applied for a permit to drill offshore in Florida, it took Coastal until the early 1990's to file a new application to drill offshore. Permit 1281. In March 1992 Coastal filed five separate applications with the Department seeking permits to drill exploratory oil and gas wells at five separate locations in the Gulf of Mexico within the area of the Modified Leases. Two applications were for proposed sites offshore from northwest Florida and three were for proposed sites offshore from southwest Florida. The applications were designated permit application numbers 1277 through 1281 by the Department. The applications filed by Coastal included a completed one-page Department form (Form 3), a location plat for the proposed drilling sites, and a filing fee. Coastal subsequently withdrew four of the applications. Only permit application 1281 remained. Pursuant to permit application 1281, Coastal sought approval to drill offshore from Franklin County, Florida, near St. George Island. In August 1996 the Department, after protracted negotiations with Coastal, issued notice of its intent to issue Permit 1281. The protracted negotiations involved, among other things, a request of the Department for additional information concerning the proposed location and drilling plans of Coastal. The additional information requested by the Department was essentially the same as the information requested by the Department in these cases. While Coastal provided the information concerning permit application 1281, it did so under protest. The Department's proposed decision to issue Permit 1281 was challenged. Following an administrative hearing, a Recommended Order was entered recommending that the permit be issued. The Department rejected the recommendation by Final Order issued May 22, 1998. That Final Order has been appealed by Coastal. Coastal's Applications for Permits 1296 through 1307. On or about February 25, 1997, Coastal simultaneously filed twelve separate applications (hereinafter referred to as the "Twelve Applications") with the Department seeking permits to drill exploratory oil and gas wells at twelve separate locations in the Gulf of Mexico within the area of the Modified Leases. Coastal Exhibits 49 through 60. The Twelve Applications were designated permit application numbers 1296 through 1307 by the Department. All of the proposed drilling sites are located between 8 and 9 miles offshore in water depths ranging between 50 to 75 feet. The general location of the twelve proposed drilling sites is as follows: Permit applications 1296 and 1297: offshore from St. George Island and Franklin County; Permit application 1298: offshore from the St. Marks River, Wakulla County; Permit application 1299: offshore from the mouth of the Steinhatchee River, Taylor County; Permit applications 1300 and 1301: offshore from Anclote Island, Pasco County; Permit application 1302: offshore from Longboat Key, Sarasota County; Permit applications 1303, 1304, and 1305: offshore from Gasparilla Island, Charlotte County; Permit application 1306: offshore from Sanibel Island, Lee County; and Permit application 1307: offshore from Naples, Collier County. The locations of the proposed exploratory wells are depicted on Coastal Exhibit 27, which is incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. The Twelve Applications filed by Coastal consisted of the following: A completed Application For Permit to Drill, Form 3, for each well; A check payable to the Petroleum Exploration Bond Trust Fund as performance security for the twelve proposed wells; A navigation chart published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with the location (latitude and longitude) of each proposed drilling site and the area of Coastal's lease designated on the chart. The scale of the chart provided by Coastal is 1:20,000. A surveyor's report of the coordinates of each proposed drilling site was also included; and A single check in the amount of $24,000.00 in payment of the $2,000.00 application fee for each permit application. Form 3 requires that an applicant provide information concerning the name, phone number, and address of the applicant, the well name and its location, ground elevation, acres assigned to the well, the "field/area" of the well, the county and specific location of the well, proposed depth of the well, and the applicant's mineral interests in the drilling unit. Coastal provided all of this information. Form 3 also requires that the applicant answer a series of questions concerning whether the proposed location of the well will be located within: a municipality; tidal waters within 3 miles of a municipality; an improved beach; submerged land located in any bay or estuary; one mile seaward of the Florida coastline or the boundary of any state, or a local or federal park, or aquatic or wildlife preserve; on the surface of a freshwater body; 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 body. Coastal answered all of the foregoing questions "no" on the Twelve Applications. Coastal did not provide a copy of its Organization Report (Department "Form 1") because it had already provided one to the Department. As provided in the Department's rules, Coastal informed the Department that its Organization Report was on file with the Department. Coastal did not initially provide casing and cementing plans or a contingency plan for hydrogen sulfide with the Twelve Applications. Ultimately, casing and cementing plans were provided by Coastal. Finally, Coastal requested that the Department conduct a preliminary site inspection, pursuant to the requirement of Rule 62C-26.003(4), Florida Administrative Code. The Department's Notice of Incompleteness. By letter dated March 26, 1997, the Department informed Coastal that the Twelve Applications were incomplete. The Department requested that Coastal provide additional information which it listed under eleven general categories: Location Plat; Environmental and Site Assessments; Zero Discharge; Accidental Pollutant Discharges; Drilling Platform; Hurricane Plan; Geologic Data; Transportation; Test Oil and Gas Plan; Drilling Plan; and H2S Contingency Plan. Coastal's Response to the Department's Notice of Incompleteness and Request for Additional Information. By letter dated September 22, 1997, Mr. Ware, on behalf of Coastal, responded to the Department's March 26, 1997, notice of incompleteness and request for additional information. In general, Coastal provided some of the requested information but indicated that it did not believe the Department had the authority to request most of the information. Therefore, Coastal informed the Department that most of the requested information was not being provided. Despite the fact that Coastal did not provide most of the requested information, Mr. Ware stated the following in the first paragraph of the September 22, 1997, letter: In fact, no statutory or regulatory authority was cited for any request. If Coastal is mistaken on any such request, please inform us of the specific authority allowing the department to require such information and Coastal will respond. [Emphasis added]. The Department's Answer to Coastal's Request for Specific Authority. Coastal's request for citations of specific authority and Coastal's representation that it would provide the information if such authority were given, was reasonably interpreted by the Department as an expression of Coastal's willingness to continue to discuss whether the Twelve Applications were in fact complete. As a consequence, the Department proceeded to respond to Coastal's request rather than proceeding to treat the Twelve Applications as complete and review them on their merits. After extensive research, the Department responded to Coastal's request for authority by letter dated December 16, 1997. The Department provided Coastal with citations to statutes and rules which the Department believed supported the additional information it had requested in its March 26, 1997, letter. See Coastal Exhibit 76. The Department also pointed out inconsistencies in the information Coastal had provided in support of the Twelve Applications. In particular, the Department asked why Coastal's H2S contingency plan referred to a drilling rig different than the one that Coastal had indicated it intended to use. The Department also asked Coastal how it planned to drill twelve wells within the time allowed after a permit is issued with only the one drilling platform that Coastal had indicated it planned to use for all twelve wells. Coastal's First Notice of Completeness. By letter dated December 26, 1997, Coastal informed the Department that it was not convinced that the authorities cited by the Department in its December 16, 1997, letter required that it provide the additional information sought by the Department. Mr. Ware, therefore, informed the Department in the December 26, 1997, letter of the following: As a result of the Department's insistence that Coastal provide such information, Coastal is left with no alternative but to file a petition for administrative hearing concerning whether the materials submitted by Coastal were sufficient to complete the applications so that they should have been processed by the Department. Twelve separate Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing were filed by Coastal with the December 26, 1997, letter. Pursuant to the petitions, Coastal challenged the Department's request for additional information and sought approval of the Twelve Applications by default. Coastal's December 26, 1997, letter and the petitions filed simultaneously with the letter were the first indication from Coastal that it considered the Twelve Applications complete. On January 22, 1998, the Department entered an Order Dismissing Petitions, dismissing the twelve petitions filed by Coastal. The petitions were dismissed without prejudice to the filing of amended petitions alleging how the Department's December 16, 1997, letter constituted "agency action." No amended petitions were filed by Coastal. The Department also concluded in the Order Dismissing Petitions that Coastal's December 26, 1997, letter constituted Coastal's first notice that it considered the Twelve Applications complete and directed that staff grant or deny the Twelve Applications within 90 days from Coastal's notice. In support of the Department's conclusion that the Twelve Applications should not be considered as complete until Coastal filed its December 26, 1997, letter, the Department noted in its order that Coastal, in response to the Department's December 16, 1997, letter, had requested specific authority for the Department's request and had represented that it would provide the additional information sought by the Department if it were satisfied with authority cited by the Department. I. The Department's Denial of Coastal's Applications. On March 24, 1998, the Department entered a "Final Order" denying the Twelve Applications. It is this Final Order that is the subject of these proceedings. The Department's decision to deny the Twelve Applications was explained as follows: The applications as submitted do not provide the Department with assurance that the issuance of the permits would be in compliance with the standards and criteria of Chapter 377, Part I, F.S., and Rules 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C. The Department cannot determine based on the information submitted, that the proposed drilling activities do not threaten public safety and the state's natural resources. Information critical to making such a determination remains absent. . . . The Department's Final Order denying the Twelve Applications was entered within 90 days after Coastal notified the Department that it did not intend to provide any additional information to support the Twelve Applications and that it considered the applications complete. The Department's decision to deny the Twelve Applications was based solely on the Department's conclusion that it had not been provided sufficient information to review the merits of the Twelve Applications. The Department's Specific Authority Over Oil and Gas Drilling Permits. Part I, Chapter 377, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), establishes the law in Florida governing oil and gas resources of the State. Section 377.06, Florida Statutes, sets out the general public policy of the State concerning oil and gas: It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state to conserve and control the natural resources of oil and gas in said state, and the products made therefrom; to prevent waste of said natural resources; to provide for the protection and adjustment of the correlative rights of the owners of the land wherein said natural resources lie and the owners and producers of oil and gas resources and the products made therefrom, and of others interested therein; to safeguard the health, property, and public welfare of the citizens of said state and other interested persons and for all purposes indicated by the provisions herein. . . . The Department is designated as one of the agencies of the State authorized to carry out the powers, duties, and authority of the Act. Section 377.07, Florida Statutes. The Department's authority includes the authority to adopt rules and enter orders it deems necessary to implement and enforce the provisions of the Act. Section 377.22, Florida Statutes. In particular, the Department has been given broad authority to regulate the drilling for oil and gas in Florida in Sections 377.22(2)(a) through (x), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to this broad authority, the Department has promulgated Chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62C-25.006, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the general rule concerning the exploration for oil and gas in Florida: Each person who conducts geophysical surveys (unless exempted by Rule 62C-26.007), drills an oil or gas related well (62C-26.003), or operates an oil or gas related well . . . (62C-26.008) shall first obtain a permit from the Department. Each of these activities requires a separate permit. [Emphasis added]. Ordinarily a single permit will be issued for drilling a well and either transporting test oil or injecting test fluids for a period of 90 days after testing is commenced. . . . In these cases, Coastal is seeking a permit to drill an oil or gas-related well and must, therefore, comply with Rule 62C-26.003, Florida Administrative Code, titled "Drilling Applications" (hereinafter referred to as the "Drilling Application Rule"). The Drilling Application Rule establishes certain specific requirements concerning specific information which, by the clear terms of the rule, must be provided by all applicants for oil and gas drilling permits in Florida. Applicants for drilling applications are required to be provide the following: All Applications to Drill (Form 3) shall include an Organization Report (Form 1; 62C- 25.008), performance security (62C-25.008, 62C- 26.002), location plat (62C-26.003(7)), site construction plans (62C-26.003(9)), casing and cementing program (62C-26.003(5)), contingency plan if appropriate (62C-27.001(7)), and application fee (62C-26.003(8)). In addition to these items, an application to drill a nonroutine well shall include a lease map or document and a letter of justification, both as described in 62C-26.004(6)(d). Any of these items already on file with the Department may be included by reference. The application to drill shall be considered incomplete until the applicant requests a preliminary inspection be made by the Department. . . . A proposed casing and cementing program must be included with the application to drill. This program shall at a minimum include setting depths, specified minimum yield strength, grade of pipe, class of cement to be used, cement additives, cement quantity, intended interval to be cemented, hole size, displacement method, special tools to be used, and calculated percent excess cement to be used. . . . . Each application shall be accompanied by a location plat surveyed and prepared by a registered land surveyor licensed under Chapter 472, FS. All such plats shall meet the minimum technical standards for land surveys as specified in Chapter 61G-17-6, FAC, and must: Be drawn to a scale sufficient to show the required detail, preferably 1 inch = 1,000 feet. Show and provide a legal description of all mineral acreage within the drilling unit which is not under lease to the applicant. Show the exact well location (both surface and bottom if different) and unit acreage within the drilling unit and indicate distances to adjacent wells, drilling unit boundaries, quarter-section corners, rivers and other prominent features. With prior notice and explanation to the Department, other established lines, reference points, or methods may be used when section corners are unavailable and an inordinate amount of preliminary surveying would have to be done to establish section corners or other standard reference points. In any case, a standard survey or equivalent with plat shall be made prior to obtaining an operating permit. Show ground elevation, with tolerances, at the drill site. State whether the proposed drilling unit is routine on nonroutine and specify the applicable subsection of s. 62C-26.004 under which the well is located. Each application to drill shall be accompanied by a $2,000 processing and regulatory fee . . . for costs incurred by the Department through well completion or plugging. . . . . . . . The applicant shall describe the provisions made for locating and constructing roads, pads, utility lines and other facilities needed for drilling operations and shall make every effort to minimize related impacts. Applications for permits in wetlands, submerged lands, and other sensitive areas shall be reviewed in accordance with 62C-30.005, FAC. Coastal provided all of the specific information applicable to the Twelve Applications required by the Drilling Application Rule. Much of the information required by the Drilling Application Rule, however, pertains to drilling operations on land and not drilling operations on submerged, offshore lands. The Department's Offshore Drilling Policy. Although Coastal provided all of the specific information required by the Drilling Application Rule, the Department required that a significant amount of additional supporting information be provided in support of the Twelve Applications. The additional information is generally described in Section E of this Recommended Order and is more specifically described, infra. Through the incompleteness letters issued by the Department in these cases, the Department expressed a statement of general applicability which "implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency . . . ." Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. The Department's statement of general applicability is, in effect, that all applicants for offshore oil and gas wells must provide the information described in the Department's letters of incompleteness to Coastal; information not specifically listed in the Drilling Application Rule. This state of general applicability will hereinafter be referred to as the "Offshore Drilling Policy." The Offshore Drilling Policy is of recent origin. It was not applied during the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's. The policy was only recently developed because only a few offshore drilling permits have been applied for until recently and the technology applied in offshore drilling has changed significantly in the past fifty years. Between the 1960's and 1992, when Coastal filed five applications for permits, only one offshore drilling permit was issued by the Department. That permit was issued in the late 1970's or early 1980's to Getty Oil Company (hereinafter referred to as "Getty") for a test well approximately three miles offshore from Santa Rosa County, Florida. The Offshore Drilling Policy was not applied by the Department to Getty, although most of the information required in these cases was eventually provided by Getty. Getty provided the information not because of Department policy, however, but in an effort to settle a challenge to the Department's proposed decision to issue the permit. Although much of the Department's knowledge concerning offshore drilling was developed as a result of the Getty permit, the Department did not receive another permit application for offshore drilling for ten to twelve years or more. Since 1992, however, the Department has required the same additional information it requested Coastal to provide in these cases for seventeen different proposed well locations located from offshore sites off the northwest coast of Florida near St. George Island and extending to the southwest coast of Florida near Naples. The Offshore Drilling Policy has been adopted by the Department because existing rules were adopted primarily to govern drilling operations on land and not offshore. As a consequence, those rules inadequately address offshore wells. The Department, however, is charged with broad authority under Chapter 377, Florida Statutes, to govern oil and gas drilling operations on and offshore. That authority includes the broad authority to carry out the public policy of the State expressed in Section 377.06, Florida Statutes, to "conserve and control the natural resources of oil and gas . . . ; to prevent waste of said natural resources; . . . to safeguard the health, property and public welfare of the citizens . . . ." When the intent of existing rules is considered in the context of offshore drilling, it is apparent that Drilling Application Rule does not adequately address all the reasonable concerns with offshore drilling. The Department has developed the Offshore Drilling Policy to the point where it has become more than a mere interpretation and application of existing law to offshore drilling applications. The Offshore Drilling Policy has become a uniform statement of policy describing a significant amount of particular information which the Department will require for any application for an offshore drilling permit. The Offshore Drilling Policy has passed the point in its development that it can be considered the Department's reaction to a particular set of circumstances. The Scope of the Department's Application of the Offshore Drilling Policy. The Offshore Drilling Policy has been applied to the last seventeen applications for offshore wells filed with the Department. The first five applications were filed in March 1992. Although four of those applications were withdrawn, the Department developed the Offshore Drilling Policy and applied it to permit application 1281 prior to August 1996 when the Department issued its notice of intent to issue Permit 1281. Although the evidence failed to prove exactly when the Department decided to apply the Offshore Drilling Policy to permit application 1281, the policy had been applied before the Twelve Applications were filed in February 1997. The Offshore Drilling Policy was applied uniformly to the Twelve Applications from the date they were filed through the date of the hearing in these cases. The Offshore Drilling Policy was also sufficiently formulated for the Department to publish notice of its intent to adopt the Offshore Drilling Policy as a rule. That notice was published on November 24, 1998. Therefore, the Offshore Drilling Policy was sufficiently formulated to be proposed for adoption as a rule prior to the commencement of this de novo proceeding. It is apparent that the Department intends to apply the Offshore Drilling Policy to all applications for oil and gas wells proposed for location offshore in the waters of the State. At present, only Coastal has the right to drill in the sovereign submerged lands of the State and Section 377.242(1)(a)5, Florida Statutes, currently prohibits granting drilling permits within the boundaries of the Florida's territorial seas to any person other than Coastal. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Coastal cannot assign its right to drill to other persons, which it has done in the past. Even though Coastal may currently be the only applicant for oil and gas well drilling permits, the Department is at liberty to modify the Offshore Drilling Policy at any time to require different or additional information, without prior notice to Coastal. Coastal has the right to some certainty as to what information the Department may require for approval of an offshore drilling permit. Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes; De Novo Review of the Offshore Drilling Policy. Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires a de novo review of any unadopted rule which formed the basis of any agency action. The Department's denial of the Twelve Applications in these cases was based solely on its application of the Offshore Drilling Policy. The Offshore Drilling Policy has not been adopted as a rule, although the Department has instituted rule- making procedures. Therefore, if the Offshore Drilling Policy constitutes a rule, the Offshore Drilling Policy must meet the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Each category of information required by the Department pursuant to the Offshore Drilling Policy must be examined in determining whether some of the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, have been met. The other requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, can be considered generally without an examination of each category of information required by the Department. Location Plat Information. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning the location of the proposed wells: For each proposed location, submit a plat on an original nautical chart showing each drilling site relative to the shore. This map should include at least the following surface and bottom hole locations including satellite navigation coordinates so the site can be re-occupied by a preliminary inspection team, boundaries of the working interest area, location of nearby reefs or sensitive aquatic wildlife areas, wildlife migration routes, proposed routing of supply ships, discharge barges, pipelines, helicopter routes, and commonly used shipping lanes. Also submit a diagram showing the orientation of the rig and the location of its major components. Coastal provided only standard nautical charts with a surveyed site location and the lease boundaries noted. The charts did not contain any of the information requested by the Department. Nor did the charts note whether the plotted points were surface or bottom hole locations. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the Location Plat information: Section 377.22(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-26.003(7), Florida Administrative Code, quoted, supra. Section 377.22(2)(h), Florida Statutes, provides the following: (2) The department shall adopt such rules and regulations, and shall issue such orders, governing all phases of the exploration, drilling, and production of oil, gas, or other petroleum products in the state . . . as may be necessary for the proper administration and enforcement of this chapter. Rules, regulations, and orders promulgated in accordance with this section shall be for, but shall not be limited to, the following purposes: . . . . (h) To require the making of reports showing the location of all oil and gas wells; the making and filing of logs; the taking and filing of directional surveys; the filing of electrical, sonic, radioactive, and mechanical logs of oil and gas wells; if taken, the saving of cutting and cores, the cuts of which shall be given to the Bureau of Geology; and the making of reports with respect to drilling and production records. . . . The Department's purpose in requiring the information concerning the Location Plat was to allow it to place the proposed drilling site into context with the surrounding environmental and other features of the area. Without the requested information, the Department could not ensure that sensitive resources and significant features would not be damaged by the proposed drilling operations. Rule 62C-26.003(7), Florida Administrative Code, does not directly authorize the Department to request the Location Plat information. That rule was drafted with onshore drilling operations in mind. Requiring the Location Plat information in these cases is not a mere application of that rule. Rule 62C-26.003(7), Florida Administrative Code, however, does support the conclusion that the requested information is needed for offshore, as well as onshore drilling. More importantly, it demonstrates the broad authority of the Department under the Act to require assurances from an applicant for offshore drilling that the proposed drilling will not be detrimental to the environment. The information provided by Coastal concerning archaeological sites, underground sea cables, and sensitive environmental features on the bottom was not sufficient for the Department to fulfill its responsibilities under the Act. The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for Location Plat information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting Location Plat information was not arbitrary or capricious. Environmental and Site Assessment. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning environmental features of the proposed well sites: Submit a professional ecological/biological survey and report for each proposed drill site. Wildlife habitats including living coral reefs, artificial reefs, patch reefs, benthic infauna, sea grasses, and associated communities shall be identified and located if present. Photodocumentation consisting of television and color still photography shall be included with each report. . . . The Department's request included an outline format for the photodocumentation survey report. Coastal provided no information in response to the Department's request for Environmental and Site Assessment information. Instead, Coastal suggested that the Department obtain the information it requested through the preliminary site inspection required by the Department's rules. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the Environmental and Site Assessment information: Sections 377.21(2), 377.22(2)(i), 377.241(1), and 377.371(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code. While Section 377.21(2), Florida Statutes, gives the Department little authority concerning the protection of the environment, the other statutory provisions cited by the Department do. Section 377.22(2)(i), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to take into consideration the impact of drilling operations on surrounding leases or property. Section 377.241(1), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to take into consideration the nature, character, and location of lands on which drilling will occur and those involved with the drilling. Finally, and most significantly, Section 377.371(1), Florida Statutes, requires that drilling not cause pollution to land or water, "damage aquatic or marine life, wildlife, birds, or public or private property " Rule 62C-26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in part, that "[a]pplications for permits in . . . submerged lands, and other sensitive areas shall be reviewed in accordance with 62C-30.005," a rule governing applications for drilling in the Big Cypress Watershed. Rule 62C-30.005(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, sets out the requirements for drilling sites. Among other things, Rule 62C-30.005(2)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code, requires that topographical and engineering surveys of the drill site, along with aerial photography, must be prepared. While this rule does not specifically authorize the Environmental and Site Assessment information the Department has requested, the statutory authority that supports the rule does. Aerial photography is normally required as an aid to the Department in identifying the proposed site and the surrounding area. Obviously, aerial photography would be of little assistance for a submerged site. Therefore, in order for the Department to carry out its responsibility to protect the environment, including sensitive environmental features such as "live bottom areas" as defined in Rule 62C-25.002(49), Florida Administrative Code, the Department requested photodocumentation of the proposed sites. The Department's request that Coastal provide it with an environmental assessment of the proposed drilling sites was also made to give the Department the necessary information for it to ensure that the environmental impacts of the proposed wells would not be detrimental. Such information also relates to the ability of an applicant to ensure that it has adopted adequate plans to deal with possible oil spills and other accidents. By fully considering the environmental features of an area, the applicant will be better able to draft and adopt contingency plans. Unlike onshore drilling, an offshore well entails a relatively large drilling rig with large feet that rest on the bottom to support the drilling platform above the surface of the water. Those feet, if placed on live bottom, can cause significant damage to marine biota which live in crevices, cracks, and permeable portions of some rocks that may be found on the bottom. The preliminary site inspection conducted by the Department is not an adequate substitute for the information requested by the Department. That inspection is only intended to verify the assurances which the applicant is first required to give. After all, it is the applicant that is seeking permission to drill. As a consequence, the applicant should first determine what impact its proposed drilling will have and, if satisfied on its findings, provide assurances to the Department to support its application. The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for Environmental and Site Assessment information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting Environmental and Site Assessment information was not arbitrary or capricious. Zero Discharge. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning a "zero discharge" plan for the proposed wells: Submit a plan which ensures zero discharge operation for each proposed well. The plan must include an environmental monitoring plan which provides for filed sampling around the drill site such that pre-drilling, drilling, and post- drilling sediments may be compared. Coastal, in response, only stated that it intended to use a zero discharge drilling rig at all the proposed sites. A copy of a brochure generally describing the rig was provided. No description of systems for containing discharges was provided. Nor did Coastal provide monitoring and sampling plans. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting a zero discharge plan: Sections 377.21(2), 377.22(2), 377.22(2)(c) and (i), 377.241(1), 377.243, 377.371, and 377.371(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code. A zero discharge plan is the written plan that an applicant is supposed to follow in the event of the discharge of any pollutant into the surrounding environment of a well site. The plan must cover not only discharges from the well shaft, but also from all equipment used, located, or traveling to the site. The purpose of the plan is to prevent spills and, where an accidental spill occurs, to minimize the impact of the spill. While the use of a zero discharge rig may be a significant part of a zero discharge plan, its use alone is not sufficient. The use of zero discharge rig does not provide assurances concerning the operation of other vessels and equipment which may be used at a site. Nor does its use provide assurances as to what will be done to ensure that the rig works properly or what will be done if it does not. Section 377.22, Florida Statutes, provides authority for the Department to ensure that all precautions are taken to prevent pollutants entering the area of a drilling site or any area associated with the well. Section 377.22(2)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require that drilling operations are done in such a manner as to prevent pollution of the waters, including salt water, and property of the State. Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require safety equipment to minimize the possibility of an escape of oil and other petroleum products. Finally, Section 377.22(2)(i), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to prevent drilling operations that will cause injury to neighboring property. Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, also provides the Department with the authority to require assurances concerning an applicant's efforts to protect against discharges into the environment of oil and other pollutants: (2) As a condition precedent to the issuance or renewal of a permit, the division shall require satisfactory evidence that the applicant has implemented or is in the process of implementing, programs for control of pollution related to oil, petroleum products or their byproducts, and other pollutants and the abatement thereof when a discharge occurs. Finally, Section 377.371(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits persons drilling for oil and gas from polluting land or water and from damaging marine or aquatic life. A spill of oil or gas and other pollutants can have a devastating impact on the environment regardless of whether the spill occurs on land or at sea. Such damage could result in loss of tourism in Florida and severe economic damage. The oil industry has progressed significantly in its ability to prevent spills and, where spills occur, to minimize the impacts of the spill on the environment. In order to minimize the chance of spills and the impacts which could occur from a spill, however, an applicant must take the steps necessary to plan ahead of time and provide the Department with the assurances that the applicant has done so. The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for zero discharge information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting zero discharge information was not arbitrary or capricious. Accidental Pollutant Discharges. The Department requested that Coastal provide a spill contingency plan for each of the proposed well sites. The requested plan was to include Coastal's plans for dealing with escaped pollutants, modeling of how projected spills might react, plans for deployment of cleanup equipment, inventories of equipment available for dealing with spills, designation of the individuals responsible for cleanup, and general clean-up plans. In response to the request for the spill contingency information the Department insisted it needed, Coastal stated the following: With respect to Coastal's implementation of a program for control of pollution related to oil, petroleum products and their byproducts, and other pollutants, see the letter of Dr. Tom Herbert, and his curriculum vita, as well as the ISO 14,000 Program on file in Permit #1296. With respect to Coastal's implementation of a program for the abatement of pollution discharges related to oil, petroleum products and their byproducts and other pollutants, see attached letter of Shaw Thompson, and his resume on file in Permit #1296. Coastal did not provide the Department with a specific, written oil-spill contingency plan. Dr. Herbert was involved with ensuring compliance of the Getty well off of Santa Rosa County with environmental protection requirements. Dr. Herbert had not, however, reviewed information concerning the Twelve Applications other than the nautical charts showing the location of the wells. In a letter from Dr. Herbert submitted by Coastal to the Department, Dr. Herbert represented the following concerning Coastal's proposed operations: Coastal Petroleum has used the Getty operations as a "template" for designing operations for the permit number 1281 well and for all subsequent drilling permits pending (numbers 1296 through 1307). We have been retained to assist with the development of plans and procedures and to insure that the operations are carried out in an environmentally safe and conscientious manner. . . . . Coastal Petroleum Company has adopted the ISO 14000 standard as the method for implementing long-term environmental compliance for drilling and production operations off Florida's coast. As the issuance date for the 1281 permit draws near we will begin implementing the ISO 14000- program beginning with training provided by the University of Florida TREEO Center. The implementation of the environmental program will extend from Coastal's own employees to others who may be service companies or contractors. Dr. Herbert's representations to the Department in his letter and at hearing do not constitute an actual oil-spill contingency plan for any of the specific proposed well sites. At best, his representations constitute a commitment to deal with the manner in which Coastal will comply with environmental requirements in the future. It does not constitute a commitment to actually draft and implement an oil-spill contingency plan. Dr. Herbert and Coastal also failed to explain how the Getty site, which was located in 11 to 12 feet of water, is sufficiently similar to the proposed sites of the Twelve Applications, which are all located in much deeper waters. Nor did Coastal explain how it would deal with the fact that the Getty site was not in the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. More importantly, no specific oil-spill contingency plan was provided for the twelve proposed sites. Mr. Thompson is an expert in oil-spill containment and cleanup. Coastal provided a letter from Mr. Thompson providing assurances that he would be working with Coastal during any drilling of the twelve proposed wells. At hearing, Mr. Thompson had little knowledge of the proposed sites. More importantly, Mr. Thompson did not provide a specific oil-spill contingency plan for the twelve proposed sites. The ISO 14000 Guide provided by Dr. Herbert consists of a book containing a generic template suggested by the author for use by any business concerned with environmental impacts. The Guide is not specific to the oil and gas industry. More importantly, it is not specific to Coastal nor any of the proposed well locations. Finally, the Guide would be of little assistance in dealing with an actual emergency. The Guide is not a specific oil-spill contingency plan. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the oil-spill contingency plan: Sections 377.22, 377.22(2)(c), 377.243, and 377.371, Florida Statutes. The same statutory authority that supports the request for a zero discharge plan, supports the oil-spill contingency plan requested by the Department. Especially Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, quoted, supra. While Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, allows an applicant to implement or be in the process of implementing an abatement program, merely indicating the intent to implement a program is insufficient. The Department must ensure that an applicant has taken sufficient steps to prevent the pollution of land or water, as well as damage to aquatic or marine life, wildlife, and birds. The environmental damage from a spill or a well blow-out can be significant. One of the worst oil well blow-outs occurred at an exploratory well. Site specific information must be considered by the applicant in its planning and such information must be provided to the Department for it to make its statutorily required evaluation. The Act in general and the specific citation provided by the Department in support of its request for an accidental pollutant discharge plan give the Department sufficient authority to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting the accidental pollutant discharge plan was not arbitrary or capricious. Drilling Platforms. The Department requested that Coastal provide information concerning the drilling platform(s) Coastal intended to use at each proposed site. In particular, the Department requested information concerning rig impacts, rig designation, scheduling, commitment from rig owners, zero discharge, auxiliary power equipment, and safety plans concerning karst hazards, including a shallow seismic program to rule out the existence of sinkholes or bottom caverns. In response to the request for the drilling platform information the Department sought, Coastal provided only a brochure for the Nobel Drilling Company's rig, the Paul Wolff. Coastal also indicated that the rig would face north. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the drilling platform information: Sections 377.22(2)(c), (d), and (i), Florida Statutes; and Rules 62C- 26.003(10), 62C-27.001(4), (5), (6) (cited as 62C-26001(5) and 62C-26001(6) by error in the Department's December 16, 1997, letter), and 62C-28.004(8), Florida Administrative Code. Section 377.22, Florida Statutes, provides authority for the Department to ensure that all precautions are taken to prevent pollutants entering the area of a drilling site and to protect surrounding property. Section 377.22(2)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require that drilling operations are done in such a manner as to prevent pollution of the waters, including salt water, and property of the State. Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require safety equipment to minimize the possibility of an escape of oil and other petroleum products. Section 377.22(2)(d), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to ensure that drilling is performed in a manner that will prevent the escape of oil from one stratum to another. Finally, Section 377.22(2)(i), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to prevent drilling operations that will cause injury to neighboring property. The rig Coastal proposed to use sits on three large feet, each with a diameter of over 93 feet. Each foot sits 235 feet from the other two. The entire rig is extremely heavy and, therefore, each foot has a great deal of weight placed on it. The Department requested information concerning rig impacts in order to avoid adverse impacts on the sea bottom. The Department requested information on rig designation, scheduling and owner commitment because of the Department's concern that a single rig could not drill all twelve wells within the limited one-year period of time a permit is valid for. Coastal had also provided some inconsistent information in its hydrogen sulfide plan concerning what rig would be used. Without knowing what rig would be used at each location, the Department could not fully evaluate the possible impacts of the rig on the environment. The seismic survey and the sink hole and karst formation safety plans were requested because of concerns that a rig could collapse if it were placed on such a formation. A karst formation is a geologic formation caused by increased porosity and permeability of underground limestone formations. As limestone is eaten away, the potential for a sinkhole or cavern collapse increases. Sinkholes and karst formations are not uncommon in the area of Coastal's proposed wells. If a rig collapsed on a karst formation, it is possible that a blow out or other oil spill could occur. The potential for such a catastrophe is greater in this instance because the rig that Coastal is proposing to use is a tripod design which could tip over if one foot were placed in a sinkhole or karst formation that collapses. A shallow seismic survey would provide information concerning possible karst formations at the sites where Coastal plans to drill its test wells. The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for rig impact information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting rig impact information was not arbitrary or capricious. Hurricane Response Plan. The Department requested that Coastal provide a hurricane preparation and response plan for each site. Coastal provided none of the requested information. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the hurricane response plan: Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-27.001(5) and 62C-27.006(1), Florida Administrative Code. Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require safety equipment to minimize the possibility of an escape of oil and other petroleum products in the event of a natural disaster. Although not cited by the Department, Section 377.371, Florida Statutes, gives the Department broad authority to ensure that oil and gas wells do not pollute. The entire area where Coastal proposed to drill is subject to hurricanes for a significant part of every year. Such storms can have a devastating impact on any structure, including an oil rig, which is in its path. Requiring that an applicant for drilling permits anywhere in the coastal waters of Florida plan ahead of time to respond to an approaching hurricane is abundantly reasonable. The Act in general and the specific citation provided by the Department in support of its request for a hurricane preparation and response plan give the Department sufficient authority to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting a hurricane preparation and response plan was not arbitrary or capricious. Geologic Data. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning the geology of each location of its proposed well sites: Submit material in the form of studies, data, cross sections, or maps which support or explain your decision for locating each well as proposed. All interpreted geologic data must be certified by a geologist licensed in Florida. Coastal provided none of the requested information. For applications 1296 and 1297, Coastal referred the Department to its application for Permit 1281. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the geologic information: Section 377.075(4)(g), 377.21(2), and 377.241(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C- 26.004(6)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Section 377.075(4)(g), Florida Statutes, requires that the Department maintain maps identifying information concerning oil and gas activities in Florida. This provision does not, however, authorize the Department to request the geologic information it requested from Coastal. Section 377.21(2), Florida Statutes, gives the Department the authority and the duty to make inquiries to determine whether "waste" exists or is imminent. "Waste" is defined in Section 377.10(10), Florida Statutes. Based upon the definition of "waste," Section 377.21(2), Florida Statutes, gives the Department the authority to request the information it requested concerning the geology of Coastal's proposed locations. Finally, Section 377.241(3), Florida Statutes, requires that the Department take into consideration the "proven or indicated likelihood of the presence of oil, gas or related minerals in such quantities as to warrant the exploration and extraction of such products . . ." before issuing any permit. This provision alone is sufficient for the Department to request the geologic information it requested from Coastal. Oil and gas wells are not drilled without first considering the geology of an area and the likelihood that oil or gas may be found. The determination of a likely successful well is made by a consideration of relevant geologic information such as that requested by the Department. Without such information, the Department would not be able to reasonably carry out its duty under Section 377.231(3), Florida Statutes. Coastal did not dispute the reasonableness of the requested information in determining whether a well should be placed at a proposed location. Instead, Coastal suggested that the Department has all the information it needs to make the determination and, therefore, Coastal shouldn't be required to provide any further information. The information available to the Department, however, is too general in nature. It does not deal with specific locations such as those proposed by Coastal. More importantly, it is Coastal that is seeking permission to drill. Coastal should, therefore, have already gathered and considered the geologic information requested by the Department in deciding where to place its exploratory wells. There have been relatively few wells drilled in Florida offshore waters. None have been productive. One offshore well located near Franklin County was drilled in 1968 and was dry. The only producing offshore well was located off the southern tip of the Florida Keys. Given these facts, the Department was reasonable in seeking assurances from Coastal concerning the possibility that its proposed wells were reasonably placed. Finally, the information Coastal referred to with regard to Permit 1281 was submitted during the formal administrative hearing on that case and was not as part of Coastal's permit application. That information, therefore, was not available to the Department to review. Nor was it provided during the formal hearing on these cases. The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for geologic information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting geologic information was not arbitrary or capricious. Transportation. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning transportation to and from the proposed wells of the drilling rig(s), a description of onshore facilities and the traffic to the rig(s), and a description of, and route to be taken by, transport vessels and helicopters. In response to the Department's request for the transportation information demanded by the Department, Coastal merely stated that no helicopters would be used at any of the proposed sites except in case of an emergency. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting information concerning transportation: Section 377.22(2)(s), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-26.006(1) and 62C- 26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code. Section 377.22(2)(s), Florida Statutes, allows the Department to require "certificates of clearance or tenders in connection with the transportation or delivery of oil or gas, or any product." Section 377.371, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to ensure that a drilling operation is not harmful to the environment. This provision alone gives the Department sufficient authority to request information from Coastal concerning how it intends to deal with transportation issues concerning the proposed wells. Pursuant to the Department's statutory authority, the Department has adopted Chapter 62C-30, Florida Administrative Code, which, among other things, provides rules governing transportation issues for wells located in Big Cypress. Although those rules do not specifically deal with offshore wells, they do support the conclusion that assurances concerning transportation issues surrounding any well can be required by the Department. Accidents, and the resulting damage to the environment, often occur during the transportation of oil and other equipment and supplies used for a rig. The Department needs to be provided with assurances that every effort is made by an applicant to avoid such damage. If provided sufficient information, the Department may be able to require that an applicant use a different route between a rig and an onshore facility in order to avoid a sensitive reef and thereby reduce the potential adverse impacts of an accident to the reef. A different route may also be required due to safety concerns. In addition to the legitimate concerns of the Department about accidental spills of oil, gas, and cuttings, the Department is concerned about the transportation of other noxious or hazardous materials used in drilling operations. Mixed saltwater and oil byproducts of drilling also must be transported away from a well site. Spills of these materials can have adverse impacts on the environment and, therefore, steps must be taken to reduce those impacts. The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for transportation information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting transportation information was not arbitrary or capricious. Test Oil and Gas Plan. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning plans to test for oil and gas at each of the proposed wells: Submit a plan for safely producing, transporting, and storing test oil and gas. What mode of transportation is anticipated? Tankers? Barges? Pipelines? Where will produced test oil/gas be taken? Where will landfall occur? Include a statement from each appropriate local government assuring that all proposed facilities for oil and gas transportation and storage, both onshore and offshore, will be in compliance with local comprehensive plans. Indicate any leasehold interest or other property interests which will need to be secured to transport test oil or gas. Will test gas be vented, flared, or stored? Discuss why. Coastal provided no test oil and gas plan or other information in response to this request. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the test oil and gas plan: Sections 377.06, 377.22(2)(c) and (s), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-25.006(1) and 62C-28.001, Florida Administrative Code. For all the reasons previously discussed concerning the Department's authority to regulate oil and gas wells, the Department's statutory authority is broad enough to require the test oil and gas plan it requested from Coastal. The testing of fluids, their transport, and their storage all can have adverse impacts on the environment. The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for a test oil and gas plan give the Department sufficient authority to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting a test oil and gas plan was not arbitrary or capricious. Drilling Plan. The Department requested that Coastal provide information concerning drilling plans for the proposed wells, including a blow-out prevention plan. In response, Coastal provided all of the requested information, including a casing plan, cementing plan, and drilling plan, but refused to provide a blow-out prevention plan. The Paul Wolff brochure provided to the Department included a list of blow-out preventers that are standard equipment on the rig, but there was no information concerning how a blow-out would be dealt with. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the blowout prevention plan: Sections 377.22(2)(a), (c), (d), (e) and (l), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-26.003(5), 62C-26.007, and 62C-27.005, Florida Administrative Code. Section 377.22(2)(l), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to adopt rules to prevent blow-outs. That authority, coupled with other provisions of the Act giving the Department the authority to protect the environment from oil and gas well drilling operations, is sufficient authority for the Department to require the requested blow-out prevention plan. A blow-out can cause the release of oil and gas into the environment with serious consequences to the environment. Preventing a blow-out is, therefore, of paramount importance. Proper prevention of blow-outs depends upon the geology of each drilling site. Different sites may require different equipment or different measures to prevent a blow-out. Consequently, a separate plan for each site is reasonable and necessary. The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for a blow-out prevention plan give the Department sufficient authority to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting a blow-out prevention plan was not arbitrary or capricious. H2S Contingency Plan. The Department requested that Coastal provide a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) contingency plan, including a site specific air dispersion model for each site predicting the transport of any hydrogen sulfide accidentally released into the air. Coastal provided a single hydrogen sulfide contingency plan. No air dispersion modeling was provided. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting individual plans and modeling: Sections 377.22 and 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-27.001(7), Florida Administrative Code. Hydrogen sulfide is a toxic gas which can be released during drilling operations. The gas is colorless. It is also denser than air. If not handled properly, a release can be fatal to anyone coming into contact with the gas. For an offshore well, a release of hydrogen sulfide can injure workers on the rig and boaters or fishermen in the area. Contact with hydrogen sulfide at a concentration of 100 parts per million can kill a person's sense of smell in 3 to 15 minutes. At a concentration of 300 parts per million, it can be fatal, and at 500 parts per million breathing will cease in only a matter of a few seconds. Because hydrogen sulfide is heavier than air, it will remain just above the surface of the water, where people are normally located on the Gulf. Individuals on the Gulf cannot escape to higher ground to avoid the gas like they may be able to do on land. While modeling cannot provide certainty as to how a cloud of hydrogen sulfide might act, it can at least give information concerning the prevailing wind direction of each site, which may be beneficial in being prepared to deal with an accident. Without such information it is difficult to determine whether plans to deal with an accident are adequate. Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, provides adequate authority for the Department to require that Coastal provide modeling for each proposed site. The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for hydrogen sulfide modeling give the Department sufficient authority to request the modeling. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting modeling was not arbitrary or capricious. Section 120.57(1)(e)2.c., Florida Statutes. None of the required information is vague, establishes inadequate standards, or vests unbridled discretion in the Department. All of the information requested by the Department was understood by Coastal. Coastal knew what the Department was requested because it had already provided the requested information in support of its 1281 permit application. Section 120.57(1)(e)2.e., Florida Statutes. Coastal received adequate notice of the Department's Offshore Drilling Policy. Coastal had been requested to provide the information in support of its 1281 permit application. It was given written notice of the Offshore Drilling Policy in these twelve cases through the March 26, 1997, notice of incompleteness and the December 16, 1997, explanation of authority for the requested information. AA. Section 120.57(1)(e)2.g., Florida Statutes. While there are costs which Coastal would be required to pay in order to provide the information required by the Department, those costs are not excessive; not when the rationale for requesting the information is considered. Coastal did not consider the costs associated with providing the information sought by the Department to be too excessive for it to refuse to provide the information in seeking Permit 1281. On the contrary, Coastal incurred those costs. Although there was testimony that the costs of providing the information for Permit 1281 was in excess of a million dollars, the weight of the evidence failed to support the testimony. The evidence proved that the costs of providing all of the information requested by the Department would be well below a million dollars for each well. As to considering less costly alternatives, Coastal never gave the Department an opportunity to do so. Coastal simply refused to provide the requested information, to propose less-costly alternatives, or to discuss the matter further with the Department. Nor were any, less costly, methods of obtaining the information necessary for the Department to carry out its responsibilities under the Act proved at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying permit applications 1296 through 1307 for failure to file complete applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 26th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Angerer, Esquire Robert J. Angerer, Jr., Esquire Angerer and Angerer Post Office Box 10468 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Andrew Baumann, Assistant General Counsel John W. Costigan, Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Monica K. Reimer, Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 S. Ansley Samson, Esquire David G. Guest, Esquire Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Post Office Box 1329 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Reimbursement Program The Florida Legislature created the reimbursement program to provide for rehabilitation of as many petroleum contamination sites as possible, as soon as possible. Section 376.3071(12)(a), Florida Statutes. The Legislature intended that those responsible persons who possessed adequate financial ability should conduct site rehabilitation and seek reimbursement in lieu of the state conducting the cleanup. Section 376.3071(12)(c), Florida Statutes (1993). When owners and operators of the site or their designees perform site remediation program tasks under any of the programs created by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, those entities become entitled to reimbursement from the Inland Protection Trust Fund (IPTF) of their allowable costs at reasonable rates. Section 376.3071(12)(b), Florida Statutes. "Allowable" costs are those which are associated with work that is appropriate for cleanup tasks. Section 376.3071(12)(d), Florida Statutes, requires DEP to: Reimburse actual and reasonable costs for site rehabilitation; and Reimburse interest on the amount of reimbursable costs for applications filed after August 14, 1992, at a rate of 1 percent per month or the prime rate, which- ever is less. Interest shall be paid from the 61st day after an application is filed with the department until the application is paid, provided the department determines the application is sufficient; otherwise, interest shall be paid commencing on the date the application is made sufficient until the application is paid. . . . A site owner or operator may engage the services of firms to perform remediation activities on a site and may designate an entity to receive reimbursement for such work. Section 376.301(14), Florida Statutes. Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code (as revised in April of 1993), contains DEP's rules which were in effect at the time Petitioners submitted the instant applications. This chapter is currently located in Chapter 62-773, Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code establishes procedures and documentation required to receive reimbursement from the IPTF. Rule 17-773.100(4), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 17-773.100(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: "review and approval of reimbursement applications shall be based upon the statutes, rules and written guidelines governing petroleum contamination site cleanup and reimbursement which were in effect at the time the work was performed or the records of activities and expenses were generated, as applicable. . . . In order to be reimbursable, an applicant must break charges in an application into applicable units and rates. Rule 17-773.100(5), Florida Administrative Code. DEP has a predominate rate schedule to determine whether an allowable cost is reasonable. DEP bases its predominate rates on a study of average rates that contractors charge for a particular task. Requests for reimbursement must apply to costs which are "integral" to site rehabilitation. Rule 17-773.100(2), Florida Administrative Code. "Integral" costs are those which are essential to completion of site rehabilitation. Rule 17-773.200(2)(11), Florida Administrative Code. After integral costs have been identified and incorporated on a units and rates basis in an invoice, the invoice may be marked up at two levels. These markups are subject to certain limitations established by DEP rule: There can be no more than two levels of markups or handling fees applied to contractor, subcontractor or vendor invoices (Rule 17-773.350(9), F.A.C.); There can be no markups or handling fees in excess of 15 percent for each level of allowable markup applied to contractor, subcontractor or vendor invoices (Rule 17-773.350(10), F.A.C.); and There can be no markups or handling fees applied to invoices between any two entities which have a financial, familial, or beneficial relationship with each other (Rule 17-773.350(11), F.A.C.). In order to be reimbursable, costs must have been actually "incurred." Rule 17-773.700, Florida Administrative Code. "Incurred" means that allowable costs have been paid. Rule 17-773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code. When the "person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation" (PRFCSR) has no financial interest in the site, DEP considers the following costs as incurred when the program task is complete: Reasonable rates, including profits associated with the work performed, claimed for the use of their own personnel or equip- ment with documentation pursuant to Rule 17-773.700(7), F.A.C.; and Allowable markups or handling fees applied to their paid contractor, subcontractor, or vendor invoices pursuant to Rule 17-773.350(9), (10), and (11), F.A.C. Rule 17-773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code. Other rules reference limitations on the ability of an entity to take a markup. Rule 17-773.600(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: . . . If the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation manufactured the [capital expense item], or a markup is otherwise prohibited under Rule 17-773.350(9), (10) or (11), Florida Administrative Code, no markup of the equipment shall be allowed. Rule 17- 773.700(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: Costs claimed in a reimbursement application for the employees, equipment or materials of the site owner, site operator or any entity which has a financial interest in the site or a familial or other beneficial relation- ship with the site owner or operator shall be considered to be in house and reimburse- ment shall be limited to actual costs only. No fee, markup, commission, percentage or other consideration shall be allowed. . . . Rule 17-773.700(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part as follows: Pursuant to Rule 17-773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code, reasonable rates, including profits, may be claimed for the personnel and equipment or other allowable expenses of the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation as well as allowable markups on paid contractor subcon- tractor and vendor invoices and shall be considered incurred for the purpose of reimbursement provided: The person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation does not have a financial interest in the site pursuant to Rule 17-773.200(7), Florida Administrative Code, or a familial or other beneficial relationship with the site owner or operator; The activities performed were integral to the program task claimed pursuant to Rule 17-773.500, Florida Administrative Code; and Detailed invoices are provided by the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation that include all subcon- tractor and vendor invoices . . . [which] must identify the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation and clearly distinguish their costs from those for paid subcontractors or vendors. There are no other provisions in the applicable rules which pertain to markups. A contractor must pay all invoices generated by a subcontractor at 100 percent of their face value prior to submission of an application in order to qualify those invoices for reimbursement. When a contractor pays a subcontractor's invoices, the contractor paying those invoices normally may take one of the allowable levels of markup. Prior to submitting a reimbursement application, a funder or PRFCSR involved in the reimbursement chain must pay the contractor for its invoices and markup. Then, the funder may apply the second allowable markup and submit the reimbursement application for review by DEP and payment from the IPTF. DEP does not contest the second level of markup in these applications. DEP rules restrict reimbursement when parties within the usual "chain" of reimbursement (PRFCSR or funder, contractor and subcontractor) have financial, beneficial or familial relationships with each other or the site owner. The application form requires disclosure of such relationships through the Program Task and Site Identification Form. Rule 17-773.200(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: "Beneficial relationship (interest)" means a connection or association, excluding an arm's length contractual relationship, which benefits a person or company by yielding a profit, advantage or benefit, or entitlement thereto, exceeding five percent of the person's or company's annual gross income. Rule 17-773.200(6), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: "Familial relationship (interest)" means a connection or association by family or relatives, in which a family member or a relative has a material interest. . . . Rule 17-773.200(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: "Financial relationship (interest)" means a connection or association through a material interest or sources of income which exceed five percent of annual gross income from a business entity. Banks, lending institutions, and other lenders that provide loans for site rehabilitation activities are not considered to have a financial interest in the site on that basis alone. However, as of the effective date of this rule, guarantors of loans to or co-makers of loans with persons signing as responsible party are considered to have a financial interest if the amount of the loan exceeds five percent of the net worth of either company. As used in this definition, sources of income shall not include any income derived through arm's- length contractual transactions. Rule 17-773.200(13), Florida Administrative Code, states as follows: "Material interest" means a direct or indirect interest or ownership of more than five percent of the total assets or capital stock of any business entity. The rules and written guidelines of DEP do not address activities, including financing arrangements, occurring outside of the usual chain of reimbursement, so long as an applicant does not include charges for such activities in an application. Heretofore, DEP has not deducted finance costs that an applicant does not include as a line item in a reimbursement application. Pursuant to Section 376.3071(l2)(m), Florida Statutes, DEP must perform financial audits "as necessary to ensure compliance with this rule and to certify site rehabilitation costs." Rule 17-773.300(1), Florida Administrative Code. DEP performs this audit function: (a) to establish that the PRFCSR incurred the cost; (b) to determine that adequate documentation supports the claimed costs as incurred; and (c) and to review the reasonableness and allowance of the costs. The audit staff interprets the term "incurred" to mean that the applicant paid the costs included in the reimbursement application. Pursuant to Rule 17-773.350(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, "[i]nterest or carrying charges of any kind with the exception of those outlined in Rule 17-773.650(1), F.A.C." are not reimbursable. The exceptions to the payment of interest set forth in Rule 17-773.650(1), Florida Administrative Code, are not at issue here. An interest rate charge on short-term borrowed capital from an unrelated third-party source is a "cost of doing business." DEP's predominate rates are fully loaded. They include a variable for all direct and indirect business overhead costs such as rent, utilities and personnel costs. DEP includes the cost of short-term borrowed capital in the direct and indirect overhead components of DEP's fully-loaded personnel rates. Rule 17- 773.700(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. However, DEP never intended for its predominate rate schedule to create an entitlement to reimbursement of claims which are not otherwise actual and reasonable costs of site rehabilitation. Petitioners PRFCSRs are entitled to make application for reimbursement of allowable markups and costs of site rehabilitation that they incur. In these consolidated cases, the site owners or operators designated either Petitioner ET or Petitioner SEI as PRFCSR. The PRFCSR is typically referred to as the "funder" in the reimbursement chain. Petitioner ET is a trust formed in 1993 and domiciled in Bermuda. It acts as a conduit for funds that finance activities associated with Florida's petroleum contamination site cleanup program. The named beneficiaries of the trust are those contractors and subcontractors entitled to payment of costs for activities integral to site rehabilitation and for allowable markups of such costs. The sole trustee of ET is Western Investors Fiduciary, Ltd. (WIFL). WIFL is also the owner and a beneficiary of ET. Any profit that ET derives from funding cleanup projects flows through WIFL to investors who provide funds to finance site rehabilitation. American Environmental Enterprises, Inc. (AEE discussed below) provided the investment funds for the reimbursement applications at issue here. WIFL is a limited liability corporation created and domiciled in Bermuda. The officers of WIFL are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Peter Bougner, Secretary. The directors of WIFL are: William R. Robins, John G. Engler, Paul H. DeCoster, Alec R. Anderson and Nicholas Johnson. WIFL's directors are also its shareholders. Petitioner SEI is a corporation incorporated and operating under Florida law. Organized in 1994, SEI acts as a conduit for funds to finance activities associated with Florida's petroleum contamination site cleanup program. The officers and directors of SEI are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Executive Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. William R. Robins is the sole shareholder of SEI. SEI was specifically created to meet the needs of American Factors Group, Inc.'s (AFG discussed below) Florida investors. Respondent DEP is the agency charged with the duty to administer the IPTF and Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. Financing Entities American Factors Group, Inc. (AFG) is a privately held corporation incorporated and operating under New Jersey law. AFG is not a party to this proceeding. AFG, acts as the servicing agent for contracts associated with factoring activities and other types of financing operations. AFG, through one of its divisions, Environmental Factors (EF), entered into financing contracts with entities in the reimbursement process: (a) Petitioners ET and SEI, funders; (b) Gator Environmental, Inc. (Gator), general contractor; and (c) Tower Environmental, Inc. (Tower), prime subcontractor. Through these agreements, EF or its assignee bought the rights of ET, SEI, Gator, and Tower to future reimbursement payments at a percentage of the face value of the relevant invoices. The officers of AFG are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Bleak House, Inc. (Texas) owns the stock of AFG. American Environmental Enterprises, Inc. (AEE) is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. AEE is not a party to this proceeding. AEE, as the assignee under the EF contracts, is a third-party provider of capital to various entities in the reimbursement process, including Petitioners. The officers of AEE are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Bleak House, Inc., (Nevada) owns the stock of AEE. Bleak House, Inc., (Nevada) is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. Bleak House, Inc. (Texas) is incorporated and operating under Texas law. Officers of both corporations are William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Magazine Funding, Inc. owns the stock of both Bleak House corporations. Magazine Funding, Inc. is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. Officers of Magazine Funding, Inc. are William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Family Food Garden, Inc. owns the stock of Magazine Funding, Inc. Family Food Garden, Inc. is incorporated and operating under Massachusetts law. Officers of Family Food Garden, Inc., are William R. Robins, President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Six shareholders own the stock of Family Food Garden, Inc. None of these shareholders are related by familial ties to the officers or directors of the aforementioned companies or any relative thereof. Each of these companies -- ET, SEI, WIFL, AEE and AFG (including EF) share common officers and directors. Each of the companies maintain their own books and business records, file their own tax returns, and maintain records in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which they were established. They operate pursuant to their respective bylaws or trust agreement. ET, WIFL, and SEI do not have common assets with AEE or AFG (including EF). ET, WIFL and SEI do not have a beneficial, financial, or familial relationship with AEE or AFG (including EF) as Rule 17-773.200, Florida Administrative Code, defines those terms. Despite the facial organizational and structural integrity of ET, WIFL, SEI, AEE and AFG, the officers and directors of AFG and/or AEE created Petitioners, in large part, for the benefit of AFG and/or AEE as a means to invest funds in Florida's petroleum contamination site cleanup program. The primary purpose of each funder is to maximize the profits of AFG and its investors. AFG has other investment vehicles (funders) which it uses at times depending on the needs of its investors. AFG waits until the last instance before deciding which entity it will designate as funder in any particular factoring scenario. AFG usually does not make that decision until the day AFG's designated funder issues a funder's authorization to the general contractor. At the hearing, Mr. Stephen Parrish, a vice president of AFG, testified as the party representative for ET and SEI. WIFL and SEI have no employees. EF or AFG responded to DEP's request for Petitioners to provide additional information about the financing scheme utilized here using stationary bearing EF's or AFG's letterhead. Nineteen of the letters written on ET's behalf refer to ET as an affiliate of AEE. At least five of the letters written on SEI's behalf refer to ET as the funder and AEE as ET's affiliate. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that AFG and/or AEE negotiated less than arms-length contractual agreements with ET, WIFL, and SEI. Petitioners admit that they are "affiliates" of AEE and AFG through contractual agreements. However, there are no written factoring contracts between Petitioners and AFG such as the ones that exist between AFG, Gator and Tower. The only documented evidence of agreements between Petitioners and AFG are transactional based bills of sale representing the sale to AEE of Petitioners' right to receive reimbursement from the IPTF. AFG created these bills of sale for bookkeeping purposes. AFG did not even go to the trouble of tailoring the form for the bills of sale for their stated purpose. For all practical purposes, Petitioners are under the management and control of AEE and AFG. Petitioners and AFG disclosed their affiliation in meetings with DEP staff and through correspondence and other documentation, including but not limited to: (a) letter to DEP dated July 13, 1994 from AFG's counsel; (b) Addendum to Certification Affidavit signed by a Certified Public Accountant in each application; (c) Funder's Authorization; (d) letters sent to DEP between August 14, 1995 and November 19, 1996. Factoring and the Factoring Transactions Factoring is the purchase and sale of an asset, such as an account receivable, at a discount. An account receivable reflects the costs that a business charges after rendering a service but before the entity responsible for payment pays for that service. When a contractor completes a rehabilitation task, the contractor's invoice is an account receivable until it receives payment. In these consolidated cases, AEE provided short-term operating capital to Gator and Tower at an interest rate equal to the discount percentage of the relevant invoice (account receivable). Gator and Tower did not sell their account receivables to AEE. Instead, AEE, as the assignee of EF, purchased a contractual right to receive Gator's and Tower's reimbursement payments. In exchange, AEE advanced Gator and Tower a discounted amount of their invoices. The discounted amount of an invoice represents a loan from AEE to Gator and Tower. The difference between the face amount of the invoice and the discounted amount of the invoice represents interest. A discount percentage and an interest rate are equivalent. The amount of the discount represents interest on the loan or advance provided by AEE. It is an interest expense to the contractor or subcontractor. The Factoring Agreements On or about April 25, 1994, EF and Tower entered into a Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement. On or about July 8, 1994, EF and Tower executed an addendum to the Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement. The addendum required Tower to sell to EF Tower's right to receive payments from Gator. In return, EF agreed to advance Tower a discounted amount equal to 97 percent of the face amount of Tower's invoices. Tower agreed to repay EF 100 percent of the face amount of the invoices upon receipt of payments from Gator. The discounted amount of each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Tower. A bill of sale evidenced the sale of Tower's right to receive payment on each application. On or about July 8, 1994, EF and Gator entered into a General Contractor Factoring Contract. On or about July 13, 1994, EF and Gator entered into an Addendum to General Contractor Factoring Agreement. This addendum required Gator to sell EF Gator's right to receive payments from ET or SEI. In return, EF agreed to advance Gator a discounted amount equal to 88 percent of the face amount of Gator's invoices. Gator agreed to repay EF 100 percent of the face amount of the invoices upon receipt of payments from the funder. The discounted amount of each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Gator. A bill of sale evidenced the sale of Gator's right to receive payment on each application. The financing of the pending reimbursement applications involved the following interrelated transactions though not necessarily in this order: AEE as the assignee of EF purchased the right of ET, SEI, Gator and Tower to receive reimbursement for their services at a discount. ET, SEI, Gator and Tower agreed to repay AEE in full. Tower prepared and submitted to Gator an invoice for services provided by Tower and its subcontractors. Tower also prepared and submitted to Gator a reimbursement application for the program task. AEE advanced Tower the agreed upon discount amount. Tower used these funds to pay its subcontractors and vendors. AEE advanced Gator the agreed upon discount amount. Gator used these funds to pay Tower. Tower repaid AEE in full. Gator prepared an invoice for services provided by Gator, Tower and Tower's subcon- tractors including a 15 percent markup and submitted it with the reimbursement application either to ET or SEI. AEE advanced ET or SEI the discounted amounts as agreed. ET or SEI paid Gator in the full amount of Gator's invoice plus markup. Gator repaid AEE in full. ET or SEI prepared an invoice for its services plus the services of Gator, Tower, and Tower's subcontractors and a 15 percent markup. ET or SEI submitted the reimbursement application to DEP. When ET or SEI receives reimbursement from the IPTF, they will remit the total payment to AEE. The on-site work on each project was complete or substantially complete prior to Gator's involvement. In regards to some applications, the relevant dates on the subcontract/purchase order, Gator invoice, and Tower invoice are the same. The amount of time between AEE's payment of the advances and Gator's and Tower's subsequent remittance of 100 percent of the face amount of their invoices to AEE varied from a few days to a few weeks. The Agency Statement--Factoring Petitioners submitted the subject applications to DEP between July 18, 1994 and February 17, 1995. The financing scheme utilized in these applications was unique. Prior to the receipt of these applications, DEP never had reviewed reimbursement applications using the type of factoring scheme at issue here. In fact, the instant cases present a scenario never contemplated by DEP when it promulgated its rules and written policies. In the instant applications, the "chain of reimbursement" included: ET and SEI as funders or PRFCSRs, Gator as the named general contractor, Tower as prime subcontractor, and numerous subcontractors and vendors. As stated above, DEP was also aware that AFG and AEE (including EF) were "affiliated" with ET and SEI and would ultimately receive all reimbursement payments from the IPTF. 56 When Petitioners submitted the subject applications, no rule or written policy disallowed reimbursement for the face amount of contractors' and subcontractors' invoices when they sold their right to payments, i.e. the receivables, at a discount. When Petitioners submitted the subject applications, DEP had rules that restricted the ability of an entity to apply markups on invoices when a familial, financial or beneficial affiliation existed between a contractor, subcontractor, PRFCSR and the site or site owner, or when such relationships existed amongst those entities in the chain of reimbursement. However, there were no rules or written guidelines restricting reimbursement, based upon financial transactions occurring outside of the chain of reimbursement, if the applicant did not pass the costs of such transactions to DEP in an reimbursement application. In that regard, DEP usually dealt only with what was apparent in an application. If an application had a line-item claim for interest, DEP would not pay that claim under the rule limiting the payment of interest. Otherwise, DEP generally did not deal with costs, including interest, for which the applicant did not seek reimbursement. The applications in the subject cases did not contain line-item claims for interest. However, the difference between the face value of the invoices and the amount for which Gator and Tower sold their right to receive reimbursement for those invoices clearly represents interest. Tower's invoices appear to represent work that was integral to site remediation which was broken down into appropriate Eunits and rates. There is no evidence that the prime subcontractor, subcontractors and vendors intentionally inflated their invoices to cover the cost of financing. However, they did agree to accept a lesser amount then the face amount of their invoices for their services prior to the filing of the applications. In September and October of 1993, Paul DeCoster wrote letters to DEP describing a proposed financing scheme in which AFG would purchase the account receivables of contractors engaged in site rehabilitation. Mr. DeCoster wrote a follow-up letter dated October 4, 1993. In this letter, Mr. DeCoster proposed that AFG would charge the contractor a finder's fee which would be in addition to the 15 percent financing "markup" taken by the investor providing the financing. This proposal referenced a funder, FEC, whose parent was AFG. The transactions between the entities in the instant applications did not involve a finder's fee or a funder identified as FEC. In October of 1993, Will Robins met with DEP staff to discuss the manner in which the reimbursement program would apply to a proposed financing scheme. In this proposal, AFG would charge contractors an application/initiation fee and/or a commitment fee. The transactions between the entities in the instant applications did not involve an application/initiation fee and/or a commitment fee. After that meeting, counsel for AFG sent DEP a letter dated November 4, 1993. The letter acknowledges that the existing rules did not "specifically address the types of situations that arise when providing capital for cleanup activities through funding groups such as AFG." The letter identifies ET as the proposed funder through which AFG would finance cleanups. AFG would receive the ultimate reimbursement payment from the IPTF. At that time DEP was concerned that the proposed application/initiation fee was a "kickback" which DEP should deducted from the funder's markup. In January of 1994, counsel for AFG wrote a letter to DEP describing a financing scheme which differs in some respects from the financing scheme at issue here. This letter states that AFG intended to purchase receivables of the funder and the general contractor at a discount. Under this plan, the general contractor and the funder would claim the two markups. The subcontractors would pay AFG a finder's fee. The letter reveals that AFG, its affiliates, and investors would recover the cash equivalent of both levels of markups plus a fee from subcontractors for funding the high costs or risky projects. The transactions between the entities in the instant applications did not involve a finder's fee. On July 13, 1994, counsel for AFG wrote DEP to explain some modifications in the details to the proposed plan for the purchase and sale of receivables at a discount. This letter informed DEP that AFG would have a financial affiliation with the funder (ET) which would exist outside the chain of reimbursement and which would have no effect on either the markups or the overall reimbursement amount reflected in any application. All contracts within the chain of reimbursement (between ET, SEI, Gator, Tower, and its subcontractors) would be negotiated in arms-length transactions. The letter states: In this plan the subcontractors will perform their work on the site and will prepare their invoices in a manner consistent with any publicly or privately financed cleanup. Those invoices will be complied and forwarded to the general contractor for its review and the general contractor will add on the markup allowed by rule to the subcontractor's bills. The reimbursement application will then be forwarded to the funder who will ensure that all bills have been paid and who will be identified as the "person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation" on the reimbursement application. The funder will take the second markup allowed by rule, and will submit the reimbursement application to the Department of Environmental Protection for processing. Reimbursement will ultimately be paid by the Department to the funder in accordance with the reimbursement application. At no step in this process will the Department relinquish any authority to review and approve either the scope and nature of the clean-up or the rates charged by the contractors and subcontractors. Commencing on August 31, 1994, DEP began to develop a policy regarding the use of factoring as a financing mechanism in the reimbursement program. DEP personnel exchanged numerous documents regarding the subject of factoring. In one of those memoranda dated September 2, 1994, Charles Williams, DEP's Reimbursement Administrator, indicated that "we absolutely need to have a Big Meeting to decide what to do once and for all." In November 1994, DEP provided AFG's counsel with an informal opinion of how DEP would handle a factored application as described by Will Robins of AFG in an earlier meeting with DEP staff. The statement was that the difference between the amount that a contractor accepted in payment for his services, which was a discounted amount after factoring, . . . and the face value of the invoice which was claimed and marked up in the application was determined to be a carrying charge or interest, which is specifically disallowed for reimbursement in the reimbursement rule. American Factors Group. Inc. and the Environmental Trust v. Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 95-0343RU, Final Order issued July 24, 1995. DEP advised AFG's counsel that it would deal with factored applications involving other entities on a case by case basis. On December 20, 1994, John Ruddell, DEP's Director of the Division of Waste Management, sought permission from DEP's Policy Coordinating Committee to promulgate a rule amendment to Chapter 62-773, Florida Administrative Code (formally Chapter 17-773). A draft rule accompanied the request. Mr. Ruddell developed the draft rule in compliance with Chapter 94-311, Section 6, Laws of Florida, which required DEP to revise its reimbursement rule. The draft rule provided that nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to authorize reimbursement for the face amount of any bill or invoice representing incurred costs when the receivable has been sold at a discount. In all such cases, reimbursement shall be limited to the actual discounted amount accepted by the provider of the goods or services. . . . The draft rule had the effect of prohibiting factoring as a mechanism for financing site rehabilitation work. The draft rule did not single out any other financing mechanism. DEP did not promulgate that draft rule. DEP requested that Petitioners furnish additional information regarding the instant applications. Between March 1, 1995 and November 17, 1995, Petitioners responded to DEP's requests with letters bearing AFG's or EF's letterhead. The letters state that prior to filling the applications, ET (and in some cases SEI) paid Gator for the face amount of the invoices plus Gator's markup. Gator then paid the subcontractors for the face amount of their invoices. Prior to these payments, AEE, an affiliate of ET, purchased the right to receive the amount due to Gator from ET or SEI and the right to receive the amount due to subcontractors from Gator. In each case, AEE bought the right to receive at a discount. According to the financing scheme, ET or SEI received sufficient funds from AEE to make the payments to Gator. ET, in turn, was obligated to pay AEE following its receipt of the funds claimed in the reimbursement application. On or about April 21, 1995, Bruce French, Environmental Manager in DEP's Bureau of Waste Cleanup, developed a memorandum discussing the proper handling of factored and/or discounted reimbursement applications. Mr. French initially sent the memorandum to Charles Williams, DEP's Reimbursement Administrator in DEP's Bureau of Waste Cleanup. The memorandum states that: invoices from subcontractors, vendors, suppliers and/or the general contractor which were paid a factored (e.g., discounted) amount by a third party capital participant (e.g., funder) represents the actual amount incurred by that entity and subsequently by the general contractor. DEP subsequently disseminated the memorandum to all application reviewers to acquaint them with DEP's policy on invoices or applications involving factoring as the financing mechanism. DEP did not direct the policy on factoring towards any individual company. DEP intended it to apply to "any combination of a general contractor, management company, funder and responsible party" in any situation in which a third party capital provider paid those program participants or suppliers a factored (discounted) amount of their invoices. The policy memorandum directed DEP reviewers to deduct costs from an application in an amount equal to the difference in the face value of an invoice and the amount paid for the right to receive payment under that invoice. The language of the policy set forth in the April 21, 1995 memorandum was broad and did not condition DEP's position on factoring on any affiliation between any parties. Between August 14, 1995 and February 2, 1996, DEP took action on the 45 applications at issue here. As reflected in those notices, DEP denied reimbursement of costs claimed in those applications because of the factoring of the supporting invoices and because "the difference between the face amount of the supporting invoices and the amount factored represents interests or carrying charges which are specifically excluded from reimbursement pursuant to Rule 62- 773.350(4), F.A.C." DEP deducted from the cost of each application an amount equal to the amount of the discount on each relevant invoice. When DEP issued the denial letters, it had not adopted the policy against factoring by the rulemaking procedure required in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The notices reflected a basis of denial of costs that was consistent with DEP's policy as reflected in the December 20, 1994 Draft Rule and the April 21, 1995 memorandum. This non-rule policy, which generally applied to all factoring schemes was not apparent from the rules in effect at that time. The Agency Statement--Markup/Value Added Policy Funders and contractors are entitled to take a markup of paid contractor and subcontractor invoices for allowable costs at reasonable rates. The invoices must represent actual and reasonable costs which are integral to site remediation. Contractors usually are entitled to a first-tier 15 percent markup for supervising and/or coordinating on-site remediation, for investing capital while awaiting reimbursement by paying subcontractors' invoices, and for assuming liability for the performance of the subcontractors. Funders normally are entitled to a second-tier 15 percent markup as an incentive to provide funds to finance the work. Markups are expressly subject to limitations set forth in Section 17- 773.350(9), (10) and (11), Florida Administrative Code. There are no other specific or implied limitations on markups in the rules or written guidelines. Requiring each entity that receives a markup in the reimbursement chain to pay contractor, subcontractor, and vendor invoices helps ensure that each level in the reimbursement chain pays the entity at the next lowest level in full. In these cases, each level in the reimbursement application chain "technically" paid the entity at the next lowest level. DEP policy in effect at the time Petitioners submitted the instant applications for reimbursement was to allow markups of paid invoices at two levels. However, DEP was not aware of situations where general contractors claimed markups for work that was complete before they ever became involved in the projects. With regard to all of the pending reimbursement applications, Gator applied a 15 percent markup to all of Tower's invoices including the invoices of Tower's subcontractors and vendors. With regard to a minimum of 30 of the 45 sites, Gator clearly did not supervise, manage or direct any of the on-site remediation activities. In fact, Gator did not become involved until after Tower had undertaken and completed these tasks. In at least 30 of the instant cases, Tower was acting as the general contractor when all of the on-site remediation took place. However, Tower could not apply a 15 percent markup to the invoices for its own services. Gator made it possible for Petitioners to claim the markup on Tower's invoices. As to the 15 sites at which Gator allegedly had some type of involvement with on-site remediation activities, the record contains no evidence regarding the specific activities or the level of Gator's involvement on any particular project. Gator performed some type of minimal due diligence review of Tower's site work. Gator allegedly reviewed Tower's technical and administrative files, cross-referenced technical and administrative files with the applications which Tower prepared, made visits to some job sites, and prepared a deficiency letter to determine the appropriateness of the scope of Tower's work. However, all of these functions were repetitious of the work performed by Tower and the certified public accountant attesting to the Certification Affidavit. Tower was a qualified engineering consulting firm that employed its own engineers and geologists. Gator's employee that reviewed the technical information in Tower's files was not a Florida professional engineer. He was not qualified as a certified public accountant to determine whether a charge was within DEP's reasonable rates. The Gator employee was a Florida professional geologist but he did not sign and seal the deficiency letter as such. There is no reference in DEP's rules or written policies to a deficiency letter. AFG required Gator to prepare the deficiency letter within two days of the date on which EF provided Gator with the opportunity to review a completed task. This two-day turn around time allegedly afforded efficiency of payment. The deficiency letters were limited to the question of whether the scope of Tower's services were reimbursable. Gator did not begin its review of an reimbursement application until after Gator received an invoice from Tower. The relevant subcontract/purchase order issued by Gator to Tower, the Tower invoice and the Gator invoice often were prepared on the same day. Gator "technically" paid the invoices at the next lowest level with money that AEE advanced. When Gator received payments from ET or SEI, it immediately repaid AEE before ET or SEI submitted the applications to DEP or soon thereafter. Pursuant to the addenda to the factoring contracts, Tower, not Gator, contributed to a reserve trust account which AEE will use to cover any reimbursement shortfalls. Gator allegedly indemnified the funder and guaranteed its own work but did not assume a risk of loss on Tower's work. On most if not all of the applications, Gator performed no meaningful management or supervisory functions. Gator's primary purpose in these consolidated cases was not to afford AFG a level of comfort as to the appropriate scope of the individual program tasks but to ensure that third-party investors maximized their profits. On September 1, 1994, Restoration Assistance, Inc., an entity under contract with DEP to review reimbursement applications, issued a memorandum to its reviewers directing them to complete their review and do a "total denial" on "Gator Environmental packages." The memorandum advised the reviewers that "Bruce" was drafting canned language to use in DEP's denial statement. On or about April 21, 1995, DEP presented its reviewers with a memorandum setting forth an initial overview of a "value added" policy for markups taken by a "management company" involved in site remediation activities. The memorandum indicated that DEP would allow reimbursement of claims for actual project management work and value-added services. The memorandum further provided that DEP would allow markups to a management company which only provided cash-flow services for a majority of the program task period even if the management company performed no other service. However, DEP would deny a markup if the management company provided such services during a "one month time period." DEP intended for the April 21, 1995 memorandum to acquaint DEP reviewers with the emerging DEP policy on markups. DEP's rules and written guidelines do not address the distinction made in the April 21, 1995 memorandum regarding the timing during which a management company could provide cash flow services and still be entitled to a markup. On October 20, 1995, Charles Williams issued a DEP policy memorandum for reviewers to use in reviewing reimbursement applications. Through that memorandum, DEP finalized and implemented the "value added" policy. The memorandum states that if the "GC" [general contractor] was involved with the management of the project during the course of the actual work by subcontractors, [DEP] rules do not preclude them from applying a markup. However, if the "GC" came along after the work was completed by other contractors and their involvement was more of a due diligence exercise to faciltiate (sic) a funding arrangement by a third party, then the "GC" markup would not be justified, though a markup by the actual funder listed as the PRFCSR could be allowed." Prior to the establishment of the "value added" policy on October 20, 1995, DEP made no inquiry as to whether a contractor provided value added services which were not reflected in an application in order to be entitled to a markup. DEP applied the "value added" policy to all pending applications (including the ones at issue here) resulting in a deduction of Gator's markup in all of the subject cases. The Department of Banking and Finance reviewed and issued a report (Comptroller's Report) on the Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Reimbursement Program on November 29, 1994. This report addressed the issue of markups in the reimbursement program. The Comptroller's Report recognized that DEP found the multiple markup structure to be beneficial in that it "attracts the involvement of companies whose role in cleanup projects is limited to providing funds to finance the work [and] attracts investors who provide funds which might not otherwise be available--thus facilitating cleanup of contaminated sites." The report acknowledges that a prime contractor "might have only limited direct involvement in the cleanup, having engaged subcontractors for most or all of the actual work." The Comptroller's Report did not address whether a contractor would be entitled to a markup if it became involved after all site work was complete. The Petroleum Efficiency Task Force's (PETF) final report concerning financing for reimbursement contractors issued on August 17, 1994. This report discussed DEP's policy of allowing two markups on paid invoices. The report recognized that "funders must be able to rely on the skills and knowledge of contractors to minimize reimbursement shortfalls." The PETF recommended for future consideration that "the Department should provide in rulemaking that contractors who take the first-tier 15 percent markup on subcontracted work must adequately supervise the work." When the PETF issued this final report, there was no existing rule that established any level of on site supervision or any other specific criteria for applying one of the two allowable levels of markup, other than paying invoices for integral site rehabilitation work. DEP's rules and written guidelines did not substantively change with regard to the "value added" policy from the April 22, 1993 revision of Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code, to the October 20, 1995 memorandum which established a non-rule limitation on the ability of an entity to apply a markup to paid invoices. The "value added" policy is not reflected in any rule or written guideline, and would not be made available to a participant in the reimbursement program who requested program information. The "value added" agency statement is a non-rule policy which has the effect of a rule. DEP intends to apply the policy in all cases where a contractor's service adds no value to a project. DEP did not anticipate the need for such a rule when it promulgated the current rules. The Agency Statement Standard During the 1994 Legislative Session, the Florida Legislature directed that "no later than January 1, 1995, DEP shall review and revise rules related to the pollutant storage tanks programs . . . ." Chapter 94-311, Section 6, Laws of Florida. DEP understood that legislative instruction to include rule revisions related to the reimbursement program. On April 7, 1994, the Office of Statewide Prosecution issued a Statewide Grand Jury Report. The final report concerning financing of reimbursement contractors was prepared for the Florida Petroleum Efficiency Task Force on August 17, 1994. The Office of Controller issued its report on the Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Reimbursement Program on November 29, 1994. All of these reports offered suggestions for changes to the reimbursement rule. DEP first learned about factoring from presentations by Paul DeCoster and Will Robins in 1993. After these meetings, Petitioner proposed several factoring plans as proposed schemes to finance petroleum contamination site cleanup projects. Petitioners did not finalize the exact financing scheme they intended to use until July of 1994. Petitioners filed the first applications on July 18, 1994. By that time, DEP was aware that the factoring company was affiliated with the funders. DEP was also aware that the factoring company would receive the difference between the face amount of an invoice and the discount amount of that invoice. However, DEP was not aware of the exact nature of the relationships between AFG, AEE, EF, ET, WIFL, SEI, Gator and Tower. DEP was unable to evaluate all aspects of Petitioners' factoring plan without supplemental information about the details of the purchase and sale of receivables as they related to each application. DEP requested additional information from the applicants to determine if the costs were actually incurred. As a result of the information that DEP received, it reviewed all transactions to determine whether the costs claimed in the applications were actual and reasonable. On December 20, 1994, John Ruddell, Director of DEP's Division of Waste Management, sought permission from DEP's Policy Coordinating Committee to promulgate a rule amendment to Chapter 62-773, Florida Administrative Code (formerly Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code). A draft rule accompanied the request. DEP intended the draft rule to comply with the legislative mandate contained in Chapter 94-311, Section 6, Laws of Florida. By that time, Petitioners had filed 41 of the subject applications. The 1994 draft rule provided that if a program participant sold a receivable at a discount, reimbursement would be limited to the actual discounted amount accepted by the provider of the goods or services rendered. The draft rule eliminated markups of contractor and subcontractor invoices. The December 20, 1994 memorandum to DEP's Policy Coordinating Committee did not indicate any deficiency in the existing delegated legislative authority that would prevent DEP from implementing the changes to the draft rule. DEP policy coordinating committee declined to approve the initiation of rulemaking procedures. Instead, it directed DEP staff to draft a bill for the 1995 legislative session. DEP based this decision on a determination that it would take too long to correct the numerous problems through the rulemaking process. The 1995 Legislative Session made several changes to the reimbursement program, particularly as it related to the direction of future site remediation activities. Chapter 95-2, Laws of Florida, passed the 1995 Legislative Session and changed the program from reimbursement of completed work to requiring pre-approval of work before it commenced. The 1995 Legislative Session did not make any relevant amendment to the reimbursement payment procedures in Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes. During the period between adjournment of the 1995 Legislative Session and February 2, 1996, DEP took action on each of the 45 applications that are the subject of this proceeding. Meanwhile, DEP focused its attention on making the necessary changes to switch from a reimbursement program to the new pre- approval program. It is not unreasonable to believe that such a significant change in a large program would take an agency some time to educate itself and the program's participants, prepare documentation and forms, and take steps to begin implementation. On March 22, 1996, approximately six and one-half months (198 days) after the petition for administrative hearing in Case No. 95-4606, and almost 21 months after the effective date of Chapter 94-311, Laws of Florida, DEP published its notice of rule development in the Florida Administrative Weekly. DEP filed the notice of rule development specifically "in response to litigation pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings" in the 45 cases that are the subject of this proceeding. In these consolidated cases, DEP did not have sufficient time prior to March 22, 1996 to acquire the knowledge and experience reasonably necessary to address, through the rulemaking process, the policy statements relative to factoring and markups based on value added services. Certainly, related matters were not sufficiently resolved to enable DEP to initiate rulemaking to address the policies set forth in the March 21, 1995 and October 20, 1995 memoranda until the spring of 1996. DEP is currently using the rulemaking procedure expeditiously and in good faith to adopt rules which address these non-rule policies. Additionally, the record indicates that it was not possible for the agency to initiate rulemaking in time to give Petitioners advance notice of the new policies. Petitioners filed the last applications in February of 1995 before DEP had time to fully evaluate the factoring plan. The time it took DEP to develop the detail or precision in the establishment of the policies set forth in the March 21, 1995 and October 20, 1995 memoranda was reasonable under the circumstances.
The Issue Did the site in question fail to meet monitoring and retrofitting requirements within the schedules established under Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, and thereby not be eligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program?
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 was enacted as Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, and codified primarily in Section 376. 071, Florida Statutes. It provides for the expeditious cleanup of property contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum product. As part of the SUPER Act, the legislature created the program which is of direct relevance in this litigation. The EDI Program, Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes,, provides for state cleanups of sites contaminated as a result of a discharge from a petroleum storage system. Petitioner now owns and operates a facility at Route 1, Box 167 Jay, Florida. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The facility contains two underground petroleum storage tanks which were installed on or before 1970. (T8, 9). Monitoring wells were installed for the tanks in December, 1988. (T7). Monitoring wells are pipes which are installed in the ground around a tank excavation to allow for detection of leaks from the tanks. (T8).
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 site owned by Petitioner be determined to be ineligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program, pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-15SO (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Mr. Thomas L. MCNAUGHTON MCNAUGHTON's Store Route 1 Jay, FL 32565 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
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, a tool company, should be required to repay funds that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workforce and Employment Opportunity (the "Department") alleges were erroneously paid under a North American Free Trade Agreement- Transitional Adjustment Assistance ("NAFTA" or "NAFTA-TAA") job training program for equipment that Respondent provided to two NAFTA-TAA trainees.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department administers NAFTA-TAA, a job training program established under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement and funded by the federal government. The program provides vocational training for employees adversely affected by trade agreements made by the United States with Canada and Latin America. Once a business is certified as "NAFTA eligible" based upon diminished employment opportunities attributable to international trade, the affected employees are referred to the Department for evaluation by a local NAFTA coordinator. In consultation with the Department's local NAFTA coordinator, a participant chooses from training programs taught at various public and private educational institutions and vocational training facilities. The student is provided a training allowance that includes the cost of tuition, books and fees. The Department arranges to pay training costs directly, and to pay vendors for the required books, tools and supplies. In this case, the Department alleges that two students participating in the NAFTA program purchased tools from Respondent that were not required for their training as automotive technicians. The Department alleges that, by providing tools not required for training and obtaining reimbursement therefor from the Department, Respondent acted in violation of the "rules and practices" of the NAFTA program. The Department offered no evidence that it has promulgated rules related to its administration of the NAFTA- TAA program, and offered no evidence of a Florida statute or of federal statutes, rules or policies governing the Department's administration of the program. The Department produced no documentation to indicate that it has developed official written policies regarding its administration of the NAFTA-TAA program. Henry Broomfield, the Department's statewide TAA coordinator, testified as to the actual operation of the program. Mr. Broomfield stated that the program pays for tuition, books and supplies for up to 104 weeks. He testified that the participating schools are required to present a list of the books, tools and supplies that the student will need during training, and that reimbursement is limited to the items on that list. Mr. Broomfield testified that the list is limited to items required for training, and does not include tools that students may need in the field after they complete their training. The student and the Department's local TAA coordinator are provided with copies of the list. Charles Thackrah, an instructor at P-Tech, testified as to the development of the approved book, tool and supply list at his institution. The list was developed over time by Mr. Thackrah and his fellow instructors, and includes the minimum basic hand tools required to complete the objectives of the program. The list was not developed specifically for the NAFTA program, but is the minimum tool list for all students enrolled in the automotive service technology course. Mr. Thackrah stated that P-Tech does not require the purchase of tools outside the list. Mr. Broomfield testified that when a student needs particular items on the list, the student must contact the local TAA coordinator, who authorizes the purchase from a third party vendor. When the student receives the tools, the third party vendor sends the bill to the local TAA coordinator, who then forwards the invoice to the state office for final approval. Mr. Broomfield testified that a request for an unlisted tool must be made in writing by the student's instructor. The student brings the written request to the local TAA coordinator, who forwards it to Mr. Broomfield's office for final approval. The instructor must verify that the requested tool is necessary for training. The evidence established that, aside from one incident in which a student obtained approval for a special pair of welding shoes, neither of the students in question followed the approval procedure for unlisted tools set forth by Mr. Broomfield. On February 13, 1998, Howard Spangler of Largo was enrolled in the NAFTA-TAA program by the Department's local coordinator for the Clearwater area, Margaret Brewer. Mr. Spangler was enrolled for training as an automotive technician. Also on that date, Mr. Spangler received a letter approving his request for training. The letter stated that his training would be provided by P-Tech "at a cost not to exceed $4,400.00." The letter stated that this amount "includes tuition, books, supplies and fees." Also on February 13, 1998, Ms. Brewer provided Mr. Spangler with an "Applicant Acknowledgement Form" stating that $2,400 would be allotted for "books, equipment, supplies and/or tools. This is the total amount allowed for the entire length of your training, be it a one-week, or a two-year course." The form stated that "books, special equipment, tools and uniforms will be limited to those items required by the school for every student." The form also stated that when the amount allotted for training materials has been exhausted, any additional costs must be borne by the student. Mr. Spangler signed the form, acknowledging that its contents had been "fully discussed" with him. The evidence established that Mr. Spangler obtained from Respondent tools that were not on the approved list at a total price of $4,336.92, and that the Department paid Respondent for those purchases. Mr. Spangler testified that he was aware of the limits set forth in the letter and acknowledgement form, and of the approved list of tools, but also testified that Ms. Brewer told him that he could purchase items not on the list with his instructor's approval. He stated that Ms. Brewer never told him that her approval was required for purchases of tools not on the list. Mr. Spangler testified that he approached Ms. Brewer about a pair of special shoes for his welding course. Although the welding shoes were on the approved list, Mr. Spangler wanted Ms. Brewer's approval for his purchase because he paid more for them than the price shown on the list. Mr. Spangler testified that during this conversation he also asked Ms. Brewer about purchasing tools not on the list, and that Ms. Brewer told him that he needed only his instructor's signature to obtain tools he would need in the field. Mr. Spangler understood the $4,400 limit on tuition, books, supplies and fees. Notwithstanding the limit, he purchased over $4,000 in tools alone from Respondent. He stated that he relied on Ms. Brewer's advice in making these purchases. Mr. Spangler testified that it would be difficult to hold a job in the field with only the tools included on the approved list, and that Ms. Brewer clearly imparted the understanding to him that he would be allowed to purchase whatever he needed for the field, if his instructor approved. Ms. Brewer testified that she always told the students that the state would not pay for tools outside of those on the list. She told the student that if he needed something special that the instructor believed was necessary to complete the course, then the student would have to bring her a letter from the instructor. She would then send the letter to Mr. Broomfield in Tallahassee for approval. Ms. Brewer recalled Mr. Spangler approaching her about approval for the welding shoes, but did not recall telling him that he could get approval for items outside the approved list. She testified that she would not have approved purchases of items not on the list without writing a letter of explanation to Mr. Broomfield and obtaining his final approval. The facts that Mr. Spangler approached Ms. Brewer for approval of the welding shoes, and that Ms. Brewer submitted this request to Tallahassee for final approval, tend to support Ms. Brewer's testimony as to what transpired between her and Mr. Spangler regarding the necessity of Department approval for items not on the approved list. Ms. Brewer testified that, as far as she knew, she had no independent authority to approve purchases outside the list. She stated that it was her understanding that the NAFTA program dealt strictly with the tools needed to complete the coursework, not with tools that students might need in the field after completing the courses. Ms. Brewer had no direct contact with the vendors, but relied on the students to convey the information regarding the NAFTA program to the vendors and to their instructors. Mr. Thackrah was Mr. Spangler's instructor, and testified that he did not tell Mr. Spangler that the NAFTA program would pay for tools that he would need in the field after completing his coursework. Mr. Thackrah stated that he did not have the responsibility to track the various programs that provided funding to his students, and that he did not know what the NAFTA program would provide. Mr. Thackrah testified that he was provided no written guidelines as what the NAFTA program would or would not pay for. He stated that anything he knew about the NAFTA program was conveyed to him by his students, who told him that NAFTA would cover anything they would need in the field. Mr. Thackrah recalled helping the students put together lists of tools they would need in the field. He assumed that NAFTA would pay for these tools, based on his students' explanation of the program. Mr. Thackrah testified that he might have passed along this understanding of the NAFTA program information to Keith Williams, Respondent's employee in charge of the P-Tech account. Mr. Thackrah did not believe he told Mr. Williams that the students were allowed to buy anything they wanted, but that Mr. Williams may have heard that from the students. Mr. Williams testified that he had an informal meeting with instructors at P-Tech, and that they told him that the NAFTA students were entitled to any tools that they would need in the field to perform an automotive technician's job. The instructors gave him no dollar limit on those purchases, and told him that the students needed only the instructors' approval to purchase the tools. Mr. Williams testified that these students must have "thought it was Christmas." Mr. Williams recalled that Mr. Thackrah was "probably" the person who gave him the information about NAFTA reimbursements. Mr. Williams testified that he took the P- Tech instructors at their word, because he had been dealing with them over the course of five years and never had a problem with reimbursements. On September 1, 1998, Robert Dennison of Pinellas Park was enrolled in the NAFTA-TAA program by the Department's local coordinator for the St. Petersburg area, Sylvia Wells- Moore. Mr. Dennison was enrolled for training as an automotive technician. Also on that date, Mr. Dennison received a letter approving his request for training. The letter stated that his training would be provided by P-Tech "at a cost not to exceed $3,950." The letter stated that this amount "includes tuition, books, supplies and fees." Also on September 1, 1998, Ms. Wells-Moore provided Mr. Dennison with an "Applicant Acknowledgement Form" stating that $450 would be allotted for "books, equipment, supplies and/or tools. This is the total amount allowed for the entire length of your training, be it a one-week, or a two year course." The form stated that "books, special equipment, tools and uniforms will be limited to those items required by the school for every student." The form also stated that when the amount allotted for training materials has been exhausted, any additional costs must be borne by the student. Mr. Dennison signed the form, acknowledging that its contents had been "fully discussed" with him. The evidence established that Mr. Dennison obtained from Respondent tools that were not on the approved list at a total price of $8,046.79, and that the Department paid Respondent for those purchases. Mr. Dennison testified that he looked at the list of approved tools and concluded that no one could do a mechanic's job with those tools. He asked Ms. Wells-Moore if other tools would be provided, and she said they would. Mr. Dennison did not recall whether Ms. Wells-Moore told him that he would need her approval for purchases outside the list. He testified that, as he understood the NAFTA program, he believed all the tools he purchased were authorized. Ms. Wells-Moore testified that her practice was to tell students that all their tools and supplies had to come from the approved list. She stated that students were required to come to the Department and obtain a voucher before making any purchases. The student would then take the voucher to the merchant and obtain the approved tools. The merchant is then responsible for sending the invoice to the Department of Labor for reimbursement. Documents entered into evidence at the hearing indicate that Ms. Wells-Moore provided written instructions to Jason Hoch, a salesman working for Respondent on the P-Tech account. These instructions were consistent with her description of the vouchering process. She sent these instructions by facsimile transmission on October 2, 1998, prior to the purchase of any of the unlisted tools by either Mr. Spangler or Mr. Dennison. Ms. Wells-Moore testified that she never told Mr. Dennison that he could purchase items that he would need in the field after completing his coursework. She stated that she was not authorized to approve such purchases. Ms. Wells-Moore testified that if a student approached her about a tool not on the list, her first step would be to contact the instructor to ask whether the student really needed the tool to complete the coursework. She recalled such a conversation with one of Mr. Dennison's instructors, and the instructor telling her that the unlisted tools in question were not required for the course. Richard Knight was Mr. Dennison's instructor at P- Tech. Mr. Knight provided Mr. Dennison with a copy of the approved list and told him that these were the minimum tools. Mr. Knight testified that he had no direct knowledge of the NAFTA program and was unaware of any authority he had to approve the purchase of tools not on the list. He never told Mr. Dennison that NAFTA would provide tools for use in the field. Mr. Knight stated that he never "approved" any tool purchases, but he did recall signing a list of tools that Mr. Dennison brought to him. He understood that his signature was to verify that these were tools that the student would find useful in the field. Mr. Knight never received any written guidelines from the Department as to allowable purchases under the NAFTA program. He recalled a former student in the NAFTA program who said that NAFTA would pay the students for anything they needed in the field. Mr. Knight testified that both Mr. Dennison and Mr. Spangler appeared to assume that NAFTA would pay for tools they would need in the field. Mr. Knight also conceded that he may have relayed the students' understanding to the Respondent's salespeople. Mr. Broomfield testified that he became aware of problems when a representative of Respondent called to complain that some of its invoices were not being paid. Mr. Broomfield could find no record of the invoices at issue. He investigated and discovered that Respondent was bypassing the local TAA coordinators and sending its invoices directly to Tallahassee, some to the wrong division within the Department. Mr. Broomfield testified that this explained why so many unauthorized purchases were reimbursed by the Department. When an invoice arrives at the Tallahassee office, it is assumed that the local TAA coordinator has investigated and approved the purchase. Under ordinary circumstances, the Tallahassee office does not conduct an item-by-item review; it merely processes the invoices and writes the checks. In summary, the evidence established that Mr. Spangler and Mr. Dennison purchased tools not on the approved P-Tech list valued at a total of $12,383.71. The evidence established that these students were provided written notice of the firm limits on the allotted costs for their training. The evidence established that Ms. Wells-Moore gave Respondent written notice of the proper procedure for processing its invoices, prior to any of the unauthorized purchases. The evidence established that Respondent bypassed this procedure, and was reimbursed for purchases that had not been approved at the local level. The evidence established that the Department was remiss in its administration of the NAFTA program. It has promulgated no written rules or policies setting forth the reimbursement limits of the NAFTA program. It provided no written guidelines to either the schools or the vendors regarding allowable purchases. Ms. Brewer frankly stated that she relied on the students to inform their schools and vendors as to the purchasing limits. Whether Messrs. Spangler and Dennison honestly believed their purchases were allowed, or whether they were manipulating the system, they might not have obtained the unauthorized items had the Department directly informed P-Tech of its reimbursement practices. The evidence supports the finding that Respondent at the least was aware that the NAFTA program appeared to be unusually liberal, and that Respondent should have made further inquiry. Mr. Williams likened the program to "Christmas" for its participants. He testified that the instructors explained that the students were entitled to tools they would need in the field. However, the instructors credibly testified that, if they told Mr. Williams such a thing, they were merely relaying what the students told them. At best, Respondent was content to rely on the information provided by the students rather than contacting the Department to seek confirmation. The fact that Respondent bypassed the local TAA coordinators, and offered no explanation for this breach of the billing procedure, supports an inference that Respondent's failure to inquire was not entirely innocent. The evidence established that Respondent knew or should have known that the purchases in question were not covered by the NAFTA program, absent prior approval from the local TAA coordinators and the central office in Tallahassee. The Department's failure to establish a system of informing schools and vendors of the program's requirements was sufficiently obviated in this case by Ms. Wells-Moore's contacts with Respondent's representative. Ms. Wells-Moore directly placed Respondent on notice of the Department's reimbursement practices, prior to the purchases by Messrs. Spangler and Dennison. At the hearing, Respondent asserted a claim that the Department still owes Respondent $14,119.59 for tools provided to Messrs. Spangler and Dennison. Given the findings of fact above, it is unnecessary to address this claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department enter a final order providing that Respondent is indebted to the Department for NAFTA-TAA program overpayments in the amount of $12,383.71, and that Respondent shall repay the aforesaid amount within six months following entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline Corbett, Credit Manager Nestor Sales Company, Inc. 7337 Bryan Dairy Road Largo, Florida 34647 Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary B. Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 303 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast The Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
