The Issue The issue is whether the application of Petroleum Products Corporation for reimbursement of the cost of assessment and clean-up of soil and groundwater contamination at its site in Broward County, Florida, under the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response Act of 1986 should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Legislature provided a system for the clean-up of sites contaminated as the result of the storage of petroleum or petroleum products in the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response Act of 1986 (Super Act), Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, codified primarily as Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. The Super Act contains a reimbursement program funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund. Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, permits reimbursement of allowable costs for the rehabilitation of sites contaminated from discharges related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products. Petroleum Products Corporation owns a parcel of land located at 3130 Southwest 17th Street, Pembroke Park, Florida. From 1959 to 1970 Petroleum Products Corporation operated a facility on that land which collected used oil from service stations and automobile dealerships, processed it, and sold it either as fuel oil or lubricating oil. About 90% of 150,000 gallons of used oil processed monthly at the facility was sold as fuel; the remaining oil was sold as lubricating oil, but even when sold as lubricating oil, it was sometimes burned as fuel because re-refined oil makes good fuel. The storage tanks were located on the southeastern portion of the property, near Carolina Road. The facility used a two-phase distillation process. Used oil was distilled to remove water, after which it could be sold as fuel oil. If processed in the second phase, for sale as lubricating oil, it was distilled further, and treated with sulfuric acid and clay to remove additives and residue, and change color. This phase produced a waste consisting of acid/clay sludge. This sludge is generally very black, and has a pH of approximately 3. It is very viscous, and has the consistency of roofing cement; laymen would describe it as tar. It does not flow easily, but is liquid enough to be pumped. This processing also occurred in the southeast part of the property. While the recycling facility produced lubricating oil using the acid/clay treatment from 1959 to 1970, the acid sludge was hauled to a municipal dump, or placed in pits dug into the ground on the north and east of the plant site. When the pits were dug, they were dug below the water level, and there was water in the pits before the sludge was dumped in them. The disposal of sludge in pits on the recycling site was a prevailing industry practice, and violated no regulatory requirements at the time. Operators considered on-site disposal of sludge preferable to hauling sludge to a landfill. During periods of heavy rain, some of the sludge may have overflown the pits and spread to nearby land, where it would become mixed with the surface soil. Petroleum Products Corporation ceased making lubricating oil in 1970, but continued to process used oil into fuel oil. The local Broward County Pollution Control Agency asked Petroleum Products Corporation to remove the acid/clay sludge from its property, and to refill the pits with other fill material. Petroleum Products Corporation acceeded to this request, and a great volume of sludge, perhaps hundreds of thousands of gallons, was removed from the pits, which were then refilled under the supervision of the Broward County Pollution Authority. Receipts Petroleum Products Corporation produced at the hearing, or thereafter from the custody of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, show that more than 150 truck loads of sludge were removed and hauled to landfills operated by Metropolitan Dade County or by the City of Surfside. Some pockets of the sludge remain at the site of the pits because they were not completely emptied. The backfill was clean fill, and the area was then bulldozed so that warehouses could be constructed in the area. This filling and bulldozing changed the contour of the land from what it had been in the past. The Department contends that much of the sludge was spread out over an extended area of the site, and not removed to landfills. The evidence is persuasive that almost all of the sludge from the pits was removed to landfills. The testimony of Mr. Blair denying that the sludge was spread was credible. In addition, on-site spreading of the sludge would have been impracticable. As a tar-like substance, if spread out, it would have been tracked everywhere. It would stick to the tracks or wheels of any vehicles operating on the surface, and was so acidic it would burn or irritate the skin of anyone who came in contact with it. It would be extremely difficult to perform maintenance on equipment used to spread the sludge because of the need to clean the sludge off, so that the mechanic would not be burned. In addition, there are a large number of receipts evidencing the systematic hauling of the sludge to landfills. The logic of Mr. McDonnell's testimony is persuasive: If you have the alternate, which they obviously did, of hauling it away and simply dumping it, no one would go out and deliberately choose to do a very difficult job [spreading the sludge over the property] where there is an easy alternative available to them. (Tr. 285) Although the facility ceased its re-refining of lubricating oil in 1970, it continued to collect, process, and sell used oil as a fuel until 1984. About 150,000 gallons per month of used oil were processed and sold as fuel. The oil was typically crank case engine oil which contained the substances normally found in used oil of that type. There is no persuasive evidence that Petroleum Product Corporation ever received any hazardous waste, or mixed used oil with any hazardous waste. Used oil is not listed as a hazardous waste by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or by the Department. The used oil collected and recycled at Petroleum Product's facility was pumped into and stored in above-ground storage tanks. There were, over time, from 10 to 25 tanks, which ranged in size from 12,000 to 20,000 gallons. Normally, the facility stored between 400,000 and 500,000 gallons of used oil. Occasionally, the facility also received virgin oil, but it was processed quickly or sold because of its higher value. At the peak of its operation, the facility had 25 to 35 storage tanks. Recycling operations had slim profit margins and were small operations. Storage tanks, pumps, and other equipment were bought used, often from other businesses dealing in virgin petroleum products. That used equipment was often rusty or deteriorating. Tank bottoms could have holes in them as the result of rust from standing water; tanks were sometimes riveted, and would have side or bottom leaks. The tanks had virtually no overfill protection. When oil was pumped in, it would overflow from the top and run down the sides. Operators were typically not careful with the oil, because it had a very low value, about 2 to 5 cents a gallon. A spill of a few thousand gallons was regarded as an inconsequential matter. The pumps used in storing oil often had leaks in packing seals, or had screw joints which would leak. Tank valves, also usually bought as used equipment, were often installed without new stem packing, and also would leak during operation. Almost no preventive maintenance was done, because it was not cost-effective to do so. Equipment was repaired only if its current state of repair interfered with operations, which usually meant that leaks were not repaired until they created a fire hazard. Leaks and spills from used oil storage tanks, including their pumps, valves, and piping, were common. A great volume of used oil leaked or spilled from Petroleum Products Corporation's tanks, pumps, and piping over its 25 year operation. There were also large oil spills resulting from four or five major fires at the facility in the 1960s. The fire in 1963, which may have been the result of vandalism, caused 40,000 to 60,000 gallons of use oil to spill from storage tanks; 8 or 10 tanks were destroyed. There were no dikes, so that the oil flowed freely. When firemen used water on the fire, the oil was absorbed into the soil. Another major fire occurred in October, 1966 in which three oil storage tanks collapsed spilling about 50,000 gallons of oil. Another 25 foot high oil tank collapsed on a firetruck. There is no way to know, with certainty, the volume of used oil, virgin oil, and lubricating oil which spilled or leaked into the ground on the site. It is reasonable to believe that 9 to 12 gallons of oil would have leaked or spilled each day at the facility, which would have resulted in spill of over 100,000 gallons of oil. This estimate, made by Mr. McDonnell, is credible and is conservative, given the volume of oil also spilled during the fires. Petroleum Products Corporation does not contend that the leaks and spills from process tanks, rather than from storage tanks, are eligible for reimbursement of site assessment and cleanup costs. Oil leaked from both, however, and once in the ground, the oils are indistinguishable. Due to the capacity of the tanks and the years they were in use, however, it is reasonable to assume that 15% or less of the leaks and spills were attributable to process tanks. After processing, most of the oil was burned as fuel. Some was used as a lubricant. The only difference between used oil sold as fuel or lubricant was that the lubricating oil had the additives removed and the color changed. Both burn well. There is an insufficient basis in this record to justify the Department's interpretation excluding this site from eligibility for cleanup because oil processing ocurred at the site to produce lubricating oil. Section 376.3071 does not disqualify all or part of a site from eligibility for cleanup reimbursement because a portion of the used oil stored there was ultimately used as lubricants. In 1984 a Department investigator asked Petroleum Products Corporation to install exploratory wells to determine whether there was contamination at the site. Petroleum Products engaged the firm of Dames & Moore to undertake a preliminary investigation, which revealed that there was groundwater contamination in the form of floating hydrocarbons. On April 1, 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Petroleum Products Corporation entered into a consent order agreement which required the removal of 17 above-ground tanks leaking used oil into the ground, which constituted a continuing source of contamination. Petroleum Products Corporation contracted with Conversion Technology Corporation to recover and recycle the oil and wastes, with Waldron's tank cleaning services to clean the empty tanks and drum the sludge, with Cuyahoga Wrecking Service to make the tanks inoperable, and with Seven & Seven Transporters to remove the waste to a disposal facility. The employee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who was in charge of the site commended Petroleum Products Corporation for its cleanup effort, and wrote as the OSC [on- scene coordinator] for this EPA-monitored cleanup I may say that [Petroleum Products Corporation] exemplified industrial cooperation and responsibility in combating the vexing problem of hazardous waste management. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) Petroleum Products Corporation cooperated with the Environmental Protection Agency and with the Department in determining how to deal with the contamination. It has already spent approximately $150,000 to perform remedial action. Contamination at the site is of three types: oil floating in the groundwater, soil contamination, and groundwater contamination. It is not possible to clean any individual phase of the contamination without affecting the other phases. Attempts at remediation must be monitored to prevent an influx of organic contaminants into the aquifer. Similarly, the cost related to the cleanup of an individual phase of contamination cannot be isolated because of the inter-related nature of the cleanup phases. The creation of a cone of groundwater depression is necessary for any recovery of the free or floating oil. The cost of recovery of the free product cannot be separated from groundwater cleanup because it is necessary to treat large quantities of groundwater involved in creating a cone of depression. To the extent that a proportion of the cost might be estimated, the cost associated with the recovery of free product would be a minor portion of the overall cleanup. There is currently a free product recovery effort in place at the site, which is intended to prevent further migration of the product off-site. This ongoing action is not considered an element of the site cleanup. The most feasible method of cleanup for the free product will involve the excavation of the soils to create a trench. The free product and ground water will be recovered as they flow into the trench. During October and November of 1984, Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., a consulting firm working under contract with the Department, assessed the extent of free floating oil in the groundwater under the Petroleum Product Corporation's site. Those consultants found a free floating layer of oil from 5" to 30" thick under approximately one-half of the one acre site Petitioner still owns. The free product generally mirrors the location of the former recycling facility and its storage tanks. The viscosity of the free product is comparable to about 40-weight engine oil. Environmental Science and Engineering estimates that the floating layer of oil contains 20,000 to 60,000 gallons of recoverable petroleum product. The direction of ground water flow and the migration of contaminants off-site is to the east or southeast. The soil above the oil layer has been saturated with oil because of the fluctuations of the layer with movement of the water table as the area experiences heavy rains or dry spells. Wells drilled in the location of the former sludge lagoons to the north and east of the plant site reveal a heavy slightly liquid type of sludge. The oil in the lagoon sites is immobile, and no free product collects in the wells after 24 hours. One sample collected in the mason jar shows a slight degree of oil separation after 24 hours. This anecdotal evidence of separation is not very informative, and is not persuasive that oil separates from the remaining sludge on-site. See, Finding 32, below. A second assessment of soil and groundwater contamination was done by another consulting firm under contract with the Department, Ecology and Environment, Inc. That study showed free floating product at the site. The only calculation of the amount of free floating oil was that done by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., see, Finding 29, estimating that there would be 20,000 to 60,000 gallons of recoverable oil. That calculation understates the amount of oil in the ground. The estimate given by George McDonnell of 103,000 gallons is more persuasive. It is consistent that the large amounts of oil which leaked or spilled at the site over a 25 year period. It is unlikely that any appreciable portion of the approximately 103,000 gallons of floating oil has its genesis in the separation of oil from the acid/clay sludge which had been disposed in the two lagoons for the following reasons: Oil associated with acid/sludge would be quite acidic, and have a pH between 2 and 4. The pH scale is not a linear scale, so differences in pH are quite dramatic as the pH values change. Samples of free product shows a uniform pH of approximately 6 or 7. In almost all 31 monitoring or observation wells the pH is consistent with the characteristics of used oil, (a pH of 6 or 7), not the pH of sludge (a pH of 2 to 4). The only sample which disclosed a low pH was that taken in monitoring well number 3 which was located in the former sludge lagoon site. The groundwater flows to the east or southeast. This does not explain the presence of free product to the west and southwest of the sludge pits nor the absence of free product to the east of the pits. The viscosity of the oil is similar to that of 40-weight engine oil and not highly viscous, as the tar-like sludge would be. The oil in the sludge pits is basically immobile and no free product surfaced in the monitoring well after waiting 24 hours. The pH of the free product is nearly neutral. The Department believes that the sludge was mixed with lime rock or fill and spread over the site to increase the pH of the oil. This is unpersuasive. Mixing with lime rock would increase the pH of the sludge (tend to bring it towards neutral) but it would not cause the dramatic lowering of acidity which would bring the sludge to a pH of 6 or 7. In addition, the viscosity of the sludge would not be so changed by mixing the sludge with fill that its viscosity would become similar to that of 40-weight engine oil. To believe that the free product results from sludge disposal rather than leaks ignores the normal operating practice of used oil recovery facilities in the late 50s and 60s where spills from storage tanks, pumps, and piping were very common. Little of the free product has been recovered through the current remediation efforts. If not recovered, over time the approximately 103,000 gallons of floating oil will spread to adjacent property. To recover this oil by conventional trench or well recovery operations will probably cost $250,000 or more. The capital cost of the groundwater recovery/discharge system, with monitoring wells, will be about $85,000; cost of operating and maintenance are approximately $180,000. The firm of Ecology & Environment, Inc., collected soil samples at 56 locations in two phases in its remedial investigation. Forty-six of the samples were taken at shallow depths (27 at 8 inches, 19 at approximately 10 inches); 10 more samples were taken in the old disposal pit sites at depths between 0 and 35 feet). The two primary classes of contaminants found in the soil were lead and organics (hydrocarbons associated with petroleum products). Both contaminants are found in used oil. The lead and organic contaminants were found in the shallow soils over the southern half of the site. Very little contamination was found beyond the main area of site activity. The soil contamination was concentrated in the plant and former disposal pit areas. Samples with high lead concentrations were found in the former disposal pit sites. Contamination extended to a depth of 25 feet in one soil sample from a former pit, where oily plastic sludge was found with fine sand or clay. The two former pit sites are the only places with documented contamination below a 10 foot depth. Although the organic contamination extended laterally further than the lead contamination, Environment & Ecology concluded that the wider distribution did not reflect contamination from Petroleum Product Corporation's activities. The general area has long been the site of commercial and industrial activities, and there are many other possible sources for contamination including a firing range, which would have been disposing of lead bullets fired at the range, a generator plant, and a former spray-painting facility. Solvents and other chemicals used in these activities would contribute to soil and groundwater contamination. The consultants had been told by area businesses that small scale dumping of industrial chemicals in the vicinity has been common. Soil samples revealed a "great deal of heterogeneity." There was no uniform distribution of soils in the shallow zone. This probably occurs because after the reprocessing operations ended in 1970, the land was cleared and filled, so that many of the warehouses now in the area could be constructed. Most of the upper 8 to 10 feet is fill material. The ground water was monitored by installing 38 wells on the site, most of which were screened at depths of 10 to 12 feet. Five intermediate wells with depths of 50 feet and two deep wells of 100 to 200 feet were also installed. Every sample exhibited a pH of between 6.4 and 7.4. The primary contaminants were lead, organics, and chromium. The evidence does not indicate the source of the chromium. It is unrelated to Petroleum Product Corporation's activities. The groundwater contamination, both metal and organic, was only in the shallow zone. It extends laterally roughly to the same extent of the shallow contamination found in the soil. This suggests that the contaminants in the soil migrated due to seepage from rainfall or fluctuation in the water table into the groundwater. The water table is about five feet below the land surface. The Department has argued that the contaminants in the soil and groundwater were caused by mixing and spreading of the sludge material during the early 1970s over the surface of the area. This hypothesis has already been rejected for the reason stated in Findings 7 and 8, above. It is more likely that the soil contamination resulted from frequent spills and leaks of oil from storage tanks years ago. The soil contaminants are those found in used oil. The area generally is flat. There was no impediment to oil spills flowing over a large surface area, following the contour of the land at that time. Depending on the method used to clean up the site, the cost of rehabilitating the area will range between two and forty-six million dollars. It will cost over one million dollars to recover and treat contaminated groundwater. Approximately 110,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil must be removed and treated, the majority of that coming from the area outside the former sludge pits. The presence of contamination at the site is to be expected, given the site's former use. All of the 8 turnpike facilities and 8 maintenance yards operated by the Florida Department of Transportation report petroleum contamination from tanks, and the Department of Transportation has estimated cleanup cost will range from $20 to $30 million, although DER believes the cost may be $5 million. The cleanup will be funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund, as would the reimbursement in this case. The cost of rehabilitation is in the range of estimates that the Department has received for other petroleum contamination sites. In summary, the Petitioner's site is contaminated primarily from leak and spills of used and virgin oils processed or unprocessed and from storage tanks, pumps and integral piping. Small spills were continuous and some associated with fires were massive. The only portion of the site not contaminated due to leaks and spills is the residual soil and groundwater contamination from the sludge disposal pits, which is a small part of the overall contamination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Petroleum Products Corporation fo eligibility to participate in the cleanup program funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 9th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Rulings on Findings of Fact proposed the Petitioner: As will be obvious, the proposed order submitted by Petroleum Products Corporation comported closely with the Hearing Officer's view of the evidence, and with some modification was essentially adopted as proposed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10, to the extent necessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33 Rejected as repetitious of Finding of Fact 6. Rejected, see Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. The spreading theory is rejected in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. See also the stipulation of the parties entered as Exhibit 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Findings of Fact proposed by the Department. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted as modified in Finding of Fact 2. Discussed in the Conclusions of Law, see page 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Implicit in Findings of Fact 3 and 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unsupported by the transcript references given. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 Rejected as unnecessary. Generally rejected; see Finding of Fact 6 concerning the filling of the disposal pits. While some pockets of sludge remain at the site of the pits, the volume is difficult to determine. In an absolute sense, those pockets may contain a substantial amount of sludge, but on a comparative basis, by far the greatest part of the sludge was removed. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1), but see the final sentence of (1). Generally adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 28, and 34. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28, since the recycling facility and storage tanks were on the southern part of the property. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Implicit in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected because the process tanks necessarily store the product being processed, serving as a vessel to contain the product. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 3 with respect to the turnover in the volume of used oil processed at the facility. Only about 10 percent of the oil was reprocessed as lubricating oil. This is more significant than the volume of the tanks. See also Tr. 24 with respect to the storage capacity, and Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the surficial drainage has probably been changed by the filling and regrading of the property in preparation for building the warehouses. See Finding of Fact 6. The current surficial flow says little about the flow when the facility operated in the late 1950's and throughout the 1960's. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 through 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Generally rejected, the evidence is persuasive that about 50,000 gallons of oil were lost in the 1966 fire. (See Tr. 36-37.) Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected, the free product covers approximately one-half acre. Rejected, the more persuasive evidence is the 103,000 gallons estimated by Mr. McDonnell. See Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. See Findings of Fact 28 and 34. Rejected because it is unlikely that sludges are separating in the former sludge lagoon. See Finding of Fact 30. The source of the oil is more likely the substantial loss of oil which occurred from the fires and from leaks over the years which is now floating above the ground water. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected as unpersuasive. Rejected, the source of the free product is not leaching from the disposal pit, but the oil from over flows and leaks during operation as well as large inundations during fires. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 30. Rejected because oil does not separate from the sludge. Rejected for the reason given for rejecting Finding of Fact 63. Rejected, the seepage is not the result of separation in the disposal pits, but from the plume of free product in the ground above the ground water. Rejected as unnecessary, but the similarity of the oil seeping from the sludge pit area to waste oil is consistent with its source as leaks and spills inicident to fires. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate, see Finding of Fact 30. Rejected as unnecessary; obviously as there is no more storage, so there is no more source for leaks or spills. 71-73. Discussed in Finding of Fact 30. Rejected because liquid product will not accumulate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(5). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Rejected for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Rejected for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Rejected as unnecessary and for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1), which is consistent with the source of the free product being used oil rather than separation from sludge remaining onsite. 83-84. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. McDonnell has been accepted. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as redundant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Implicit in the finding that lead is a contaminant found in used oil. See Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary; see also, Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, although there were disposal pits in the north and eastern parts of the property. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34 with respect to location, but the testimony with respect to spreading of the sludge is rejected. See Finding of Fact 7. It is unlikely that sludge was spread over the site. The more likely explanation for the appearance of sludge in the lithologic logs for the southern end of the site is that the disposal lagoons periodically overflowed after heavy rains and provided a mechanism for the active transport of sludge out of the disposal pits into some areas on the southern end of the site. Apparently the northern area now occupied by the warehouses was higher, because no sludge was found in observation wells 4, 5 and 19. Rejected, page 41 of DER's Exhibit 3 shows no sludge at observation well 5, which the proposed finding implies. 107-112. Generally rejected because the testimony with respect to the surface flow from the tank area being to the south is rejected because the grading of the property as the warehouses were built likely changed the contour of the land. Mr. Levin's testimony was not particularly strong; for example, at page 25 of his prefiled direct testimony he states, "And for the shallow soil contamination I would still have to lean towards the fact that the materials were mixed and spread." 113-114. The sludge contamination is not the predominant or source of contamination. Rather, it is the oils which floated across the land and were carried into the soil and resulted from the leaks and spills. 115-120. Generally accepted in Finding of Fact 36, although subordinate to that finding. 121. Generally accepted, although the soil contamination by lead is attributable to leaks and spills from the used oil. 122-124. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 38. 127-128. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 36, especially the last sentence, and 38. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 39. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 39, especially the last sentence. Rejected as unnecessary. 132-134. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. 135. Rejected because the soil contamination is the result of leaks and spills of oil. 136-137. Rejected, it is more likely that the neutral pH of the ground water is the result of the essentially neutral contaminant, the used oil. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, although consistent with Finding of Fact 39 that the lateral extent of ground water contamination mirrors the soil contamination which has resulted from leaks and spills. 140-141. The predominant source of contamination is leaks and spills. 142. Rejected, the area affected by the leaks and spills is large, due especially to the fires and consequent loss of large amounts of oil from tanks. See Finding of Fact 41. 143-144. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 145. Although true, not relevant. 146-148. Rejected, whether the Environmental Protection Agency is correct or not in its assessment is not at issue here. This site was contaminated by used oil. 149-150. Although true, not relevant. Implicitly accepted in that no finding with respect to "bias" has been made. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected because the predominate source of contamination is an eligible source. Rejected, but the source here falls within the statutory directive. Rejected. The site here is predominantly contaminated by used oil, which is eligible. The eligible portion is not a minor part of the entire of the contamination. COPIES FURNISHED: R. L. Caleen, Jr., Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent Baldwin is liable for the violations of state statutes and rules that are alleged in the NOV and, if so, whether Respondent should be ordered to pay the civil penalties proposed by the Department.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapters 376 and 405, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Respondent BR Baldwin, Inc., is a Florida corporation. Beginning in July 31, 2006, Baldwin owned and operated an automotive service station at 2000 Drew Street in Clearwater, Florida (“the property”). Located at the property are three underground fuel storage tanks, along with their associated piping and dispensers. There is also an underground storage tank for waste oil. Baldwin ceased using the underground storage tanks in May 2007 and had them taken out of service in July 2007. Count I of the NOV charges Baldwin with a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.400(3)(a) which requires owners and operators of petroleum storage tank facilities to carry liability insurance or to otherwise demonstrate to the Department that they are financially able to pay for corrective actions and third party liability. Baldwin admits that from July 31, 2006, until June 25, 2007, it did not have liability insurance coverage for the facility and did not otherwise demonstrate to the Department that it was able to pay for potential liability. Bobby Baldwin, the president of Baldwin, contends that he tried to obtain insurance coverage but was unable to do so until June 2007. The more persuasive evidence shows that he did not at first make reasonable efforts to obtain insurance. His efforts to obtain insurance only became reasonable after the corporation was cited for failing to obtain insurance. Baldwin alleged, but did not prove, that the violation was caused by circumstances beyond his reasonable control and could not have been prevented by his due diligence. Bobby Baldwin contends that his receipt of a storage tank registration placard from the Department misled him to believe that he did not have to get insurance. The issuance of a placard is not tied to the requirement for insurance coverage. Bobby Baldwin admitted that he was unfamiliar with the regulations that are applicable to petroleum storage facilities when he purchased the facility. His failure to inform himself about the applicable regulations was unreasonable and does not provide a basis for mitigating the penalties assessed for violating the regulations. In the NOV, the Department seeks a penalty of $5,000 for the violation addressed in Count I. Count II of the NOV charges Baldwin with violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.610(3)(c), which requires that manual tank gauging be performed for tanks of 550 gallons or less nominal capacity. The tank gauging is required so that a leak can be discovered. Baldwin admits that it did not perform manual gauging for its waste oil tank during the approximate year that it operated the service station. Bobby Baldwin testified that he would have performed the manual gauging, but he was unaware that it was required. He also testified that he never used the waste oil tank. In the NOV, the Department seeks a penalty of $4,000 for the violation addressed in Count II, which represents two days of violation. At the hearing, the Department modified the penalty demand to seek only a single day violation, or $2,000. Count III of the NOV is the Department’s claim for investigative costs of $1,000. The Department apparently determined not to seek costs and presented no evidence in support of its costs claim at the final hearing. At the hearing, the Department stated its willingness to have the (modified) penalties of $7,000 reduced by 50 percent, to $3,500, and to allow Baldwin to pay the penalties in twelve equal monthly installments. Bobby Baldwin testified that he is financially unable to pay even the revised penalties of $3,500. There are exhibits in the record that relate to Bobby Baldwin’s personal finances. However, Bobby Baldwin is not named in the NOV. BR Baldwin, Inc., alone, is responsible for any penalties. The Department contends that a respondent’s inability to pay or difficulty in paying a penalty is not a mitigating factor that can be applied to reduce penalties. The statute does not identify inability to pay as a mitigating factor, but neither does it exclude its consideration. See § 403.121(10), Fla. Stat. The issue is moot in this case, however, because the Department has already stipulated to the reduction of the penalties by 50 percent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SuperAmerica of Florida, Inc. (SuperAmerica) is affiliated with SuperAmerica Group, Inc., a corporation with headquarters in Lexington, Kentucky. SuperAmerica markets petroleum products from convenience store facilities in an eleven-state area concentrated in the Ohio Valley and upper Midwest. In 1985, SuperAmerica began constructing convenience store facilities in Florida, and opened its first stores in 1986. It installed state-of-the-art petroleum storage tanks, lines, dispensers and leak detection equipment at each new site. Casey McKenzie became SuperAmerica's administrative manager for its Florida facilities in October 1990. At that time there were approximately thirty-seven SuperAmerica convenience store facilities in Florida. Mr. McKenzie's duties included monthly reporting to corporate headquarters, environmental compliance, and emergency petroleum discharge response at the Florida sites. Mr. McKenzie left Florida in June 1993, after SuperAmerica completed its sale to Shell Oil Company of what was then over fifty sites. Virtually all of SuperAmerica's Florida sites had three separate tanks for different grades of gasoline, plus one tank for diesel fuel. The tanks were either 12,000 or 8,000 gallons in volume. Each site had between twelve and sixteen dispensers, and each dispenser had up to six nozzles for dispensing different grades of gasoline and diesel fuel. The Florida sites, including the sites at issue, experienced high volume sales as they were open twenty-four hours a day and were located in areas of heavy private and commercial traffic. The volume of sales required frequent storage tank refilling, sometimes daily or every other day. The volume of sales and frequent refillings made petroleum discharges in the form of spills, splashes and drips caused by human error a common occurrence. Customer overfill incidents involving small quantities of fuel were the most common occurrence. Other spills resulted when the underground storage tanks were being filled. SuperAmerica had procedures to minimize the risk of spills and to detect the spills or discharges. The tanks were all fitted with Gilbarco automatic tank gauging devices which computed volume of fuel and water in the tanks, the inches of fuel and water and the temperatures inside the tanks. Operators or staff also used long sticks to manually measure volume of fuel and water in the tanks. And a third method of measure was a daily sales inventory. Mr. McKenzie received the reports of these inventories on a periodic basis and store operators were instructed to watch for, and report unexplained discrepancies. To his knowledge, during his tenure as administrative manager, there were no unexplained discrepancies nor discrepancies in those inventories resulting from leaking tanks. At each site, including the sites at issue, there were six groundwater monitoring wells. The wells were generally installed during installation of the underground storage tanks in the same excavation pit. The monitoring wells were accessible through manhole covers on the surface of the concrete pad. Locked caps below the manhole covers were intended to maintain the environmental integrity of the wells. Water entered the wells through slots in the pipes which lined the well, from about a foot below the pad surface and extending below the water table. Prior to June 1991, the SuperAmerica area managers took water samples from the wells each month, performed sight and smell tests and recorded the results on an inspection report. Beginning in June 1991, SuperAmerica hired National Environmental Services and Testing (NEST) to perform the monthly groundwater sampling from the monitoring wells. NEST used a vapor monitoring device (organic vapor analyzer - OVA) in the monitoring wells to detect the pressure of organic vapors in addition to performing groundwater sampling. The monitoring wells at the seven sites at issue contained groundwater. At various times, as more specifically addressed below, NEST's monitoring reports for the sites at issue noted elevated organic vapor readings, odor present, and product in the form of skim, light skim, or sheen. Mr. McKenzie had procedures in place and carried out those procedures to respond to large volume spills or accidents above ground, as well as catastrophic leaks of underground tanks. These were his primary concerns. He did not expect a catastrophic leak in the relatively new equipment, and none occurred. Mr. McKenzie did not attribute any of the reports of elevated vapor readings, odor or presence of petroleum or diesel product in the form of skim or sheen, as evidence of tank or line failure. There are other rational explanations for the readings. Specifically, rainfall could easily dissolve and wash spilled fuel, antifreeze, oil or road grease into cracks in the pad, into manhole covers and onto the ground where it could easily seep into the monitoring wells. As conceded by counsel for SuperAmerica, there was a discharge at each of the seven sites, for purposes of the FPLRIP program. Printed text on the top of the Discharge Reporting Forms advises facilities of their obligation to report discharges or suspected releases within one day of discovery. For each site at issue, monitoring well records contained evidence of odor, product or elevated vapor readings more than one day prior to SuperAmerica's filing Discharge Reporting Forms. After filing Discharge Reporting Forms with DEP, Mr. McKenzie contacted Tanknology Corporation to schedule testing of the tanks and lines. The company was busy and was not able to complete the tests until some time (more than three days) after Mr. McKenzie filed the Discharge Reporting Forms. SuperAmerica did not intentionally cause a discharge at any of the sites, nor intentionally disable leak detection devices. When the Discharge Reporting Forms were filed, Mr. McKenzie was not aware of any spill or other discharge in excess of 25 gallons for which he had failed to file a reporting form within twenty-four hours. As of the date of the hearing there was no conclusive evidence of what caused the odor, product and elevated OVA readings in the monitoring wells. SuperAmerica's expert conjectures that they were caused by surface water runoff, sloppy transport deliveries, customer overfills and other routine problems of the high-volume facilities. In determining whether SuperAmerica was eligible under FPLRIP with regard to the sites at issue, DEP's program administrator, William Truman, considered only whether SuperAmerica properly reported suspected releases and whether it timely tested the storage systems. Those were appropriate considerations. The basis for denial as to each site is more specifically described below. On January 19, 1993, counsel for the parties executed a joint stipulation relating to an eighth facility site. In that stipulation, the agency recited its agreement that failure to report suspected releases within one working day of discovery could no longer, standing alone, serve as a basis for denial of restoration coverage eligibility under 1992 amendments to Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, governing FPLRIP. The stipulation also recited: Nothing in this Joint Stipulation shall be construed to mean that violation of the discharge response requirements contained in section 376.3072(2)(d), F.S. (1992) , and implemented in rules 17-769, 17-769.600(15) and (16), Florida Administrative Code is no longer a valid basis for denial of eligibility for restoration coverage on an incident by incident basis under FPLRIP. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. G) Hudson-DEP Facility No. 51-8837646 DOAH Case 92-6871 (Site 8023) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system located at 9508 SR 52, Hudson, Pasco County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks (USTs): two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTS; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about March 1988. On August 21, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well five was 3800 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2800 ppm. On September 16, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1000 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2000 ppm. On October 15, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 2400, five was 2900 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2200 ppm. On November 20, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 3600, five was 3000 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 6900 ppm. On December 4, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 3100, five was 2800 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 5100 ppm. On January 4, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1100, five was 2400 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2900 ppm. On March 6, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was product in monitor wells four, five and six. The report also indicates there was an odor in monitor wells five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well six exceeded 10,000 ppm. Elevated readings and odor persisted in well six in April and June. On July 14, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1400 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2600 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The form was signed by Casey McKenzie. The form indicates the date of discovery was July 14, 1992 (the most recent date on which NEST sampled the monitor wells). The method of initial discovery was a Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Company. The Type of pollutant discharged was Unleaded gasoline. The Cause of leak and Estimated number of gallons lost were both Unknown. On or about August 26, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. The test report commented that one dispenser had leaks at the nozzle when pumping and the tester had the store put an Out of Order sign on the nozzle. On or about September 1, 1992, the Department issued an order declaring SuperAmerica site no. 8023 eligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. On October 6, 1992, and again on October 21, 1993, the Department issued its amended orders of ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the discharge reported. Melbourne-DEP Facility No. 05-8840685 DOAH Case 93-4402 (Site 8024) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8024) located at 700 West New Haven Avenue, Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1988. On December 13, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 4200 ppm to 8500 ppm. On January 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 1200 ppm to 8000 ppm. On February 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in wells one, two, five and six. There was an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 2100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On March 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an order in monitor wells one and five. The OVA readings for wells one and five both exceeded 10,000 ppm. Odor and elevated readings persisted in April. On June 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well six exceeded 10,000 ppm. There was odor in wells one, five and six. The report contains the notation Charlie will check early July. If readings have not declined, he will file DNF. On July 9, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 220 ppm to 7100 ppm. There was odor in wells three, four, five and six. On July 17, 1992, Brevard County conducted an inspection of the facility. The Natural Resources Management Division of Brevard County is DEP's designated local program for purposes of the FPLRIP. The report noted the excess OVA readings since December. It required a tightness test and investigation into the source of the discharge, and it required a contamination assessment. It also noted that administrative action will be taken on this facility for major violation of 17-761, Florida Administrative Code . . . (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1) On or about July 21, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF indicates the date of discovery was July 9, 1992 - the date on which NEST sampled the monitor wells. The method of initial discovery was Vapor Readings. The Type of pollutant discharged was Unleaded gasoline. The Cause of leak and the "Estimated number of gallons lost were both Unknown. On or about July 28, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On or about July 1, 1993, the Department issued its Order of Ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Cocoa-DEP Facility No. 05-8841566 DOAH Case 93-4402 and 93-4403 (Site 8034) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8034) located at 1600 Clear Lake Road, Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida. The facility consisted of three underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; and one 8,000 gallon UST. The USTs were installed in or about January 1989. On December 13, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well number five. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for wells one, two, three, four and six all exceeded 10,000 ppm. On January 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells one through four and well six. With the exception of well three, the OVA readings for all of the wells exceeded 10,000 ppm. On February 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 2100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On March 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 4100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On or about March 31, 1992, Brevard County conducted an inspection at site no. 8034. The Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form cover sheet prepared by the Brevard County Inspector noted in part: From 12/31/91, OVA readings in all wells have exceeded reportable quantity (>500 ppm); in some instances, 5 wells >10,000 ppm. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2) The Inspection form also noted the facility failed to report Suspected releases within one working day of discovery. The above-referenced Underground Storage Tank Compliance Inspection Form also noted the facility failed to report Confirmed releases (positive response of a release detection device) within one working day of discovery (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2). The form requires a DRF within one day and a tightness test ASAP. On or about March 31, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF was signed by Mr. Casey McKenzie. The DNF indicated the date of test or discovery was March 30, 1992. The method of initial discovery was a DER Compliance Audit. The DNF does not contain information concerning the estimated number of gallons lost. The Cause of leak and the Type of pollutant discharged were both Unknown. On or about April 5, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a tightness certificate. The test report noted no product visible in the monitoring wells, but odor was present. On July 1, 1993 and again on October 21, 1993, the Department issued its order and amended order of ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Sarasota-DEP Facility No. 58-8840985 DOAH Case 93-5734 (Site 8035) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8035) located at 4405 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1988. On September 17, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well six. There was an odor in all six wells. The OVA reading for wells one, two, three and five all exceeded 1500 ppm. On October 18, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Both product and an odor were present in all six wells. The OVA readings for wells one through five exceeded 700 ppm. On November 22, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Both product and an odor were present in all six wells. The OVA readings for wells one, two and five were 2200 ppm, 1200 ppm and 4000 ppm. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Product and odor were present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well five was 3100 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well five was 3200 ppm. On February 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well two was 900 ppm. On March 11, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product in all six wells and odor present in wells one, two and five. The OVA reading for well two was 900 ppm. On April 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in wells one, two and three. On or about April 16, 1992, Sarasota County conducted a routine inspection at the above-referenced facility. The Sarasota County Pollution Control Division is DEP's designated local program agency for purposes of FPLRIP. On the Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form the Sarasota County Inspector noted: Monitor wells 1, 2, 3 and 5 had OVA readings exceeding 5000 ppm. - High readings and product in wells has been recorded in monthly report by the facility since October, 1991. (Respondent's Exhibit 4) The inspector also noted the facility Has recorded high OVA readings in several MW's but not filed DRF. The County Inspector also noted the facility failed to report Any spill, overfill, or other discharge within one working day of discovery and that the facility failed to report Suspected releases within one working day of discovery. The County Inspector made the following notations on the back of the report: Monitoring well log indicates excessive contamination free product in all wells high OVA readings as [far] back as October '91 no records of any tightness testing in regards to the increase of contamination levels found in wells. DRF on file? (Respondent's Exhibit 4) A letter from Sarasota County dated April 22, 1992, required laboratory analysis of monitor well water within 45 days. The analysis was done by NEST and was provided to Sarasota County on June 29, 1992. On July 7, 1992, Sarasota County received the report and requested that SuperAmerica file a Discharge Reporting Form due to the appearance of excessive contamination. On or about July 15, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a DNF with the Department. The DNF indicates July 14, 1992 as the Date of receipt of test results or discovery. On or about August 29, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On or about September 17, 1993, the Department issued its order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Clearwater DEP Facility No. 52-8944446 DOAH Case No. 93-4406 (Site 8036) At all times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8036) located at 4450 Easy Bay Drive, Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. The above- referenced facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1989. On September 16, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 8000 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 3000 ppm. On October 17, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor present in well five. The OVA reading for well five was 8500 ppm. On January 1, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for wells four and five was 1100 ppm. On February 6, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well five. The OVA reading for well five was 400 ppm. On March 11, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 2800 ppm. On April 7, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 650 ppm. On July 13, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 1100 ppm. Casey McKenzie prepared a Discharge Notification Form but did not file it because he believed the local agency had instructed him to hold it pending further investigation. On or about August 28, 1992, Tanknology Corporation performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a Certificate of Tightness. On October 12, 1992, Pinellas County conducted a routine inspection at the above-referenced facility. The HRS Pinellas County Health Unit is the agency's designated local agency for FPLRIP. The County Inspector made the following notation on the Inspection Report Form Cover Page: What actions were taken in response to positive responses in one or more monitor wells for the following months - 10/91; 9/91; 11/91; 1/92; 2/92; 3/92; 4/92; 7/92 - provide copy of monitor these monitor reports - take appropriate actions at this time. (Respondent's Exhibit 5) On or about October 27, 1992, SuperAmerica filed the July 13, 1992 DNF with the Department. The DNF reflected a discovery date of July 13, 1992. The DNF indicated the method of initial discovery was a vapor reading from monitor well testing company. On or about July 1, 1993, the Department issued its order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Englewood-DEP Facility No. 08-8945143 DOAH Case 93-2710 (Site 8038) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8038) located at 2710 South McCall Road, Englewood, Charlotte County, Florida. The facility consisted of four USTs: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about September 1989. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 6200 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 9800 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 2000 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 1100 ppm. On February 13, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 1500 ppm. On April 10, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 1100 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 5900 ppm. An Interoffice Memo dated April 24, 1992, from Mr. McKenzie to the manager of store no. 8038 provided in part: The monthly test of your store's monitor wells revealed the following results which need to be addressed: Monitor well number 5 showed vapor readings exceeding 5900 PPM. This is a reportable quantity to the DER. No previous results have show [sic] levels this high. (Petitioner's Exhibit 38C) This latter assertion is obviously in error given the fact that in December, 1991, the OVA reading for well four was 6200 ppm while the OVA reading for well five was 9800 ppm. On May 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 2100 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 3000 ppm. On June 15, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 2500 ppm. On July 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 1100 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with DEP. The DNF was signed by Casey McKenzie. The DNF indicated the Date of Test or discovery was July 20, 1992. The method of initial discovery was Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Reports. The estimated number of gallons lost and the cause of leak were both unknown. On or about September 1, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On September 4, 1992, Casey McKenzie wrote to DEP's South District Office with regard to the DNFs filed for Englewood Facility and the Punta Gorda Facility. With regard to SuperAmerica's failure to timely report the releases, the letter provided in part: In your letter, you refer to the elevated OVA readings recorded several months ago but not reported. This was simply an error on my part. SuperAmerica began utilizing an outside contractor to perform monitor well sampling at these locations in December. Prior to that, we performed the monthly sampling ourselves using the sight and smell method appropriate for ground water well monitoring... I was not aware of the thresholds for reporting of vapor levels. I was aware we had no sheen or odor present. When our contractor and I finally discussed the importance of the vapor readings and the ramifications involved, we immediately filed Discharge Notification Forms for suspected releases. . . Any errors made in reporting were due to lack of knowledge on my part, ... (Respondent's Exhibit 3) Mr. McKenzie's assertion of ignorance cannot be reconciled with the statements set forth in his Interoffice Memo dated April 24, 1992. See paragraph 85, above. On or about April 23, 1993, and again on October 20, 1993, DEP issued its order and amended order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Punta Gorda-DEP Facility No. 08-9045849 DOAH Case 93-2711 (Site 8039) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of its petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8039) located at 3035 Tamiami Trail, Punta Gorda, Charlotte County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about January 1990. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product in well four. There was an odor in all of the wells. The OVA readings for wells one, three, four, five and six all exceeded 10,000 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well two was 600 ppm; well three was 4500 ppm; well four was 900 ppm; and well five was 2500 ppm. On February 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two, three and five. The OVA reading for well one was 6000 ppm; wells two and three were in excess of 10,000 ppm; well four was 4100 ppm; and well five was 3800 ppm. On March 9, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two, three and five. The OVA reading for well two was in excess of 10,000 ppm; well three was 2000 ppm; and well four was 3000 ppm. 26 On April 10, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well two was 1500 ppm while the OVA reading for well three was 550 ppm. On May 14, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well two was 2200 ppm while the OVA reading for well three was 1100 ppm. On June 15, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in well two. The OVA reading for well two was 7300 ppm; well three was 1500 ppm; and well four was 1100 ppm. On July 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well one was in excess of 10,000 ppm; well three was 2000 ppm; and well four was 3100 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF was signed by Casey McKenzie. The DNF was dated July 24, 1992. However, the DNF did not include the information as to the date of test or discovery of the discharge. The cause of the leak and the estimated number of gallons lost were both unknown. The DNF indicated the method of discovery was a Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Company. On or about August 27, 1992, the agency conducted an inspection at Site 8039. During the inspection, no obvious odors were detected in the monitoring wells, indicating that there may have been errors in the original OVA readings. The agency directed SuperAmerica to have groundwater samples analyzed. The analysis was provided to the agency on October 27, 1992. On or about August 27 and September 4, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the sight and issued certificates of tightness. On or about April 23, 1993, and again on October 20, 1993, DEP issued its order and amended order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. North Ft. Myers-DEP Facility No. 36-8631544 DOAH Case 93-4405 (Site 8006) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8006) located at 4600 Bayline Drive, North Ft. Myers, Lee County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The tanks were installed on or about April 1987. In or about November 1992, SuperAmerica hired Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) to perform an environmental audit in conjunction with SuperAmerica's planned sale of the property. On January 7, 1993, ESE was performing soil borings in the tank farm and pump island areas. Soil samples were being analyzed for the presence of excessive contamination, if any. Those borings were made with a four-inch diameter hand auger. At boring SB-2, near the easternmost fuel island, the ESE employee cracked the fiberglass midgrade unleaded product line with the hand auger causing an underground discharge. SuperAmerica discovered the discharge on January 16, 1992 and filed a Discharge Reporting Form on that same date. On July 1, 1993, DEP issued its Order denying SuperAmerica eligibility for restoration coverage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter its final order denying eligibility to SuperAmerica in cases nos. 92-6871, 93-2710, 93- 2711, 93-4402, 93-4403/93-4404, 93-4406 and 93-5734; granting eligibility in case no. 93-4405; and dismissing case no. 93-2712 (voluntary dismissal). DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The findings of fact proposed by both parties, or stipulated by the parties, have been adopted in whole or in substance, except for the following: SuperAmerica's Proposed Findings of Fact. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial: 11-17, 20-23, 26-29, 39-40, 48-52, 59-66, 72-75, 79-87, 90- 92, 94-96, 98, 101, 104, 106-107, 109-147, 166, 173, 181,183, 203, 211-212, and 220. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence or unsupported by credible evidence: 97, 108, 149-155. DEP's Proposed Findings of Fact. These findings have all been adopted in substance. Additional findings have been made however, to explain the background and include facts common to all of the sites. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, Suite 654 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kenneth Plante General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Gary M. Pappas, Esquire POPHAM, HAIK, SCNOBRICH and KAUFMAN, LTD. 4000 International Place 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, Florida 33138 James M. Ellerbe, Esquire SuperAmerica Group Law Department 3499 Dabney Drive Lexington, Kentucky 40509
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint? Respondent's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and petitioner's proposed recommended order have been considered in preparation of the following findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact have been adopted for the most part, in substance, but they have been rejected when not supported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times respondent Son-Mar Propane, Inc. operated as a liquefied petroleum gas dealer under license No. 0156030178 issued by petitioner. Liquefied petroleum gas is stored under pressure. A gallon of the liquid expands to 270 gallons of vapor, at normal temperatures and pressures. Because it is so much denser, the liquid occupies the bottom of any space in which both liquid and vapor are confined. If a storage tank stands upright, and the valve is open or there is a leak at or near the valve (by far the most common place for leaks), vapor will escape. But, if the cylinder is on its side, the top-mounted valve is low enough that liquid can escape, immediately to expand as vapor to 270 times its volume as liquid. More fuel increases the risk of fire. The agent of ignition is unknown in the present case. SAINT PATRICK'S DAY 1983 Raymond Towse is not a well man; fourteen surgical operations have taken their toll; and Loretta Towse was arthritic. On March 17, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Towse discovered that there was no propane to cook breakfast with, so they put the empty tank into their customized, 1975 Dodge Tradesman 200 van. The tank, big enough to hold 239 pounds of water, stands 49 1/4 inches tall. Curtis Howard Jones, Jr., the next door neighbor who owned the tank and had made a loan of it to the Towses, regularly helped the Towses lift the tank, which weighed 71 pounds empty, into the van. After getting something to eat at K-Mart, Mr. and Mrs. Towse drove to respondent's place of business. On their way inside, Mr. Towse asked John Dahlem to fill the cylinder tank with propane. Mr. Dahlem, who can handle these tanks single-handedly, even when they are full, retrieved the tank from the van, filled it with liquefied petroleum gas, and replaced the filled tank in the van. Only he and Mrs. Towse witnessed this replacement and she is no longer alive. Mrs. Towse went inside to look at a stereo cassette recorder they were considering purchasing, then returned to the van without it. She climbed into the front seat on the passenger's side. Later she left the front seat of the van and moved, inside the vehicle, toward the cylinder tank. She may have heard gas escaping or seen liquid leaking. She may actually have reached the tank and turned the valve perhaps, inadvertently, the wrong way. When the explosion occurred, the tank lay horizontally across the bottom of the van, leaving only the carpet underneath to tell the color of the whole before the conflagration. A moan then a sigh, as Mrs. Towse breathed her last, followed the whoosh of the exploding fire, gasping for oxygen. The windshield and the skylight popped out. The frame buckled. The Pasco County Fire Service arrived at two o'clock and put the fire out. The tank was red hot. The valve lacked a half turn being closed. Forty- nine and a half pounds of liquefied petroleum gas had escaped to be consumed by the fire. Full, the tank had weighed 171 pounds. NO RECERTIFICATION The propane cylinder tank involved was manufactured in January of 1959. Mr. Dahlem filled this tank, No. 23860, with propane at least four times in the last three and a half years. It had never been recertified, even though "NFPA requires recertification 12 years after date of manufacture" (T. 41) and periodically thereafter. Recertification contemplates at least a visual inspection for rust, dents and gouges in the cylinder, and soaping the welds and valve to determine whether there are any leaks. If the cylinder passes the test, "they mark it `E' for external, then the month and the year that they do the inspection. It's stamped right in the top of the cylinder." (T. 41) NOT SECURED VERTICALLY The Towses' neighbor, Mr. Jones, who used to help lay the tank on its side in the van, also saw it lying on its side, ready for unloading, after having been filled and driven back, on at least three occasions. The tank was too tall to be made to stand upright in the van, Mr. Jones believed. Whether the tank is too tall in fact was unclear from the evidence. Measurements of the van after the fire suggest there would not have been room enough, but the fire caused buckling of the van's roof and maybe other changes. Measurement of another Dodge van with different customizing suggest that there may have been room enough to stand the tank vertically, after all, perhaps with as much as an inch clearance. The burn patterns leave no doubt that the cylinder lay on its side during the fire. The bottom of the tank, which has a diameter of 16 to 18 inches, was almost flush with the side of the van; the likelihood that the cylinder simply fell over is very small. Mr. Dahlem testified that, although the empty tank arrived lying down, he stood the tank upright in the van, after he filled it, but his testimony that he left the tank in a vertical position has not been credited. There is no dispute that he did not say anything to the Towses about securing it on March 17, 1983. DAHLEM ACTED FOR CORPORATION John Dahlem is the brother-in-law of one of the principals of Son-Mar, Inc. He has worked there for three and a half years. He cuts the grass, pumps gas and works on trucks in addition to filling propane tanks. Before he filled propane tanks himself, Mr. Dahlem watched it being done many times over a period of a year and a half. This was evidently the extent of his training. (T. 143-144) Mr. Dahlem testified that he had been instructed to check for certification but had failed to do so on the four occasions he refilled the tank the Towses used. At one time, but not on the day of Mrs. Towse's death, he did use soapy water to check for a leak, and discussed replacing part of the tank with the Towses: I had checked that tank previous when I . . . on the shroud because he had an option then. He could either have a standard valve put in, which would have been cheaper, because he would have bought just the cap; he wouldn't have needed the shroud. (T. 138-139). Mr. Berdeaux and Mr. Johnson, respondent's principals, told Mr. Dahlem he need not secure propane tanks he filled and placed in people's conveyances. "They had to tie the tank off themselves. . . I didn't have to tie it off. No, sir." (T. 143) STANDARDS The National Fire Protection Association publishes safety standards which include the following: 6115. Containers and their appurtenances shall be determined to be leak-free before being loaded into vehicles. Containers shall be loaded into vehicles with sub stantially flat floors or equipped with suitable racks for holding containers. Containers shall be securely fastened in position to minimize the possibility of movement, tipping over or physical damage. 6116. Containers having an individual water capacity exceeding 200 pounds shall be transported with the relief valves of containers in direct communication with the vapor space. * * * B-212. All containers, including those apparently undamaged, must be periodically requalified for continued service. The first requalification for a new cylinder is required within 12 years after the date of manufacture. Subsequent requalifications are required within the periods specified under the requalification method used. B-213. DOT regulations permit three alternative methods of requalification for most commonly used LP-Gas specification containers (see DOT regulations for permissible requalification methods for specific cylinder specifications). Two use hydrostatic testing, and the third uses a carefully made and duly recorded visual examination by a competent person. In the case of the two hydrostatic test methods, only test results are recorded but a careful visual examination of each container is also required. DOT regulations cite in detail the data to be recorded for the hydrostatic test methods, the observations to be made during the recorded visual examination method, and the marking of containers to indicate the requalification date and the method used. The three methods are outlined as follows: The water jacket type hydrostatic test may be used to requalify containers for 12 years before the next requalification is due. A pressure of twice the marked service pressure is applied, using a water jacket (or the equivalent) so that the total expansion of the container during the application of the test pressure can be observed and recorded for comparison with the permanent expansion of the container after depressurization. The following disposition is made of containers tested in this manner: Containers which pass the retest, and the visual examination required with it (see B-213), are marked with the date and year of the test (Example: "6-70", indicating requalification by the water jacket test method in June 1970) and may be placed back in service. Containers which leak, or for which the permanent expansion exceeds 10 percent of the total expansion (12 percent for Specification 4-E aluminum cylinders) shall be rejected. If rejected for leakage, containers may be repaired in accordance with B-220. The simple hydrostatic test may be used to requalify containers for 7 years before the next requalification is due. A pressure of twice the marked service pressure is applied but no provision is made for measuring total and permanent expansion during the test outlined in B-213(a) above. The container is carefully observed while under the test pressure for leaks; undue swelling or bulging indicating weaknesses. The following disposition is made of containers tested in this manner: Containers which pass the test, and the visual examination required with it (see B-213) are marked with the date and year of the retest followed by an "S" (Example: "8-715", indicating requalification by the simple hydrostatic test method in August 1971), and may be placed back in service. Containers developing leaks or showing undue swelling or bulging shall be rejected. If rejected for leaks, containers may be repaired in accordance with B-220. The recorded visual examination may be used to requalify containers for 5 years before the next requalification is due provided the container has been used exclusively for LP-Gas commercially free from corroding components. Inspection is to be made by a competent person, using as a guide Compressed Gas Association "Standards for the Visual Inspection of Compressed Gas Cylinders" (CGA Pamphlet C06, 1975), and recording the inspection results as required by DOT regulations. (Note: Reference to NLPGA Safety Bulletin Recommended Procedures for Visual Inspection and Requalification of ICC Cylinders in LP-Gas Service is also recommended). The following disposition is to be made of containers inspected in this manner: Containers which pass the visual examination are marked with the date and year of the examination followed by an "E" (Example: "7-70E," indicating requalification by the recorded visual examination method in July 1970), and may be placed back in service. Containers which leak, show serious denting or gouging, or excessive corrosion shall either be scrapped or repaired in accordance with B-220. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, NFPA No. 58 (1979 ed.). These provisions are adopted by reference in Rule 4B-1.01, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's license No. 0156030178. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Silverman, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Leslie King O'Neal, Esquire Markel, McDonough & O'Neal Post Office Drawer 1991 Orlando, Florida 32802 William Gunter, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue There are three legal issues which remain for determination: (1) Whether Florida Petroleum has standing in this case; (2) Whether proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(b), requiring constructive notice to residents or business tenants of real property into which the temporary point of compliance is allowed to extend is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes; and (3) Whether proposed rule 62-770.220(4), requiring additional constructive notice of the status of site rehabilitation is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes.i
Findings Of Fact On December 23, 2004, the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding amendments to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-770. In particular, proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(b) and (4), provides: Subsequent Notice of Contamination Beyond Source Property Boundaries for Establishment of a Temporary Point of Compliance (TPOC) - Prior to the Department authorizing a temporary extension of the point of compliance beyond the boundary of the source property (i.e., the location from which the contamination originates) in conjunction with Natural Attenuation Monitoring pursuant to Rule 62-770.690, F.A.C., or Active Remediation pursuant to Rule 62-770.700, F.A.C., the PRSP shall provide the following notices: * * * (b) Constructive notice to residents [if different from the real property owner(s) notified pursuant to paragraph 62- 770.220(3)(a), F.A.C.] and business tenants of any real property into which the point of compliance is allowed to extend. Such constructive notice, which shall include the same information as required in the actual notice, shall be provided by complying with the following: * * * Status Update 5-Year Notice - When utilizing a TPOC beyond the boundary of the source property to facilitate natural attenuation monitoring or active remediation, an additional notice concerning the status of the site rehabilitation shall be similarly provided every five years to [the classes of] those persons who received notice pursuant to subsection 62-770.220(3), F.A.C., unless in the intervening time, such persons have been informed that the contamination no longer affects the property into which the point of compliance was allowed to extend. * * * (The language in brackets was added pursuant to the Department's Notice of Change and "those" was deleted.) The proposed rule implements Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. The specific authority for the proposed rule is Sections 376.303 and 376.3071, Florida Statutes. On February 2, 2005, the Environmental Regulation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rules and approved the proposed rules with certain amendments. On February 14, 2005, Florida Petroleum filed a Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Proposed Rule (Petition) challenging the validity of proposed amendments to proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(b) and (4). The Petition was filed pursuant to Section 120.56(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, and in each instance, Florida Petroleum alleges that the proposed rule violates Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes. On March 4, 2005, the Department published a Notice of Change regarding the above-referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. With respect to the pending proceeding, the Notice of Change reflects revisions to language of proposed rule 62- 770.220(4), which are not subject to challenge. See Finding of Fact 1. On May 16, 2005, without objection, official recognition was taken of the Department's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Change. Florida Petroleum is a Florida voluntary, non-profit trade association, which comprise, in part, approximately 194 Marketer Members who own and/or operate petroleum storage system facilities in Florida. Florida Petroleum’s purposes include providing representation on behalf of its members in legislative and regulatory matters before the Florida legislature and agencies. Florida Petroleum routinely represents its members in rule development proceeding and other regulatory matters before the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Revenue, and Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Florida Petroleum’s By-Laws state that its purposes include advancing the business concerns of its members, pooling the energy and resources of its members, and communicating with elected officials at the national, state, and local levels of government. Towards those ends, Florida Petroleum has represented it members before the Florida Legislature in matters relating to the regulation of petroleum facilities under Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and has appeared before the Department in rulemaking proceedings involving the regulation of petroleum cleanups, and the various state restoration funding assistance programs. The subject matter of the rule at issue is within the general scope of interest and activity of Florida Petroleum, in particular, its marketer members, who own or operate facilities that store petroleum products for consumption, use, or sale. Florida Petroleum submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, objections, and proposed amendments to the Department and the Environmental Regulation Commission in connection with the rules at issue in this case. A substantial number of Florida Petroleum marketer members are "persons responsible" for assessment and remediation of one or more petroleum-contaminated sites. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-770, governs the remediation of petroleum-contaminated sites. A substantial number of Florida Petroleum’s marketer members are "persons responsible" for assessment and remediation of sites identified by the Department as "confirmed" or "suspected" sources of contamination beyond the boundary of the facility (i.e., "off-site contamination"). In certain instances, the Department's rules allow for the use of No Further Action with Conditions procedures in cases of petroleum contamination where applicable regulatory requirements are met because the use of conditions, such as institutional and engineering controls, may be more cost- effective than active remediation. As of February 2005, the Department estimated that it had reports of approximately 23,000 petroleum-contaminated sites. In 2004, the Department received an estimated 539 Discharge Report Forms in connection with petroleum storage facilities. As of March 2005, the Department had information indicating that approximately 2,000 "off-site" properties have been affected by contamination. Assessment Reports filed with the Department indicate that a substantial number of these sites may have been affected by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products. Petroleum discharges will in all likelihood continue to occur in the future at petroleum facilities. Petroleum discharges will in all likelihood continue to affect off-site properties in the future.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether a permit should be issued, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, authorizing TLA-Cambridge, LLC (“Cambridge”), to construct and operate a “waste processing facility” (“facility”) on a site (“site”) located in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners (Kate Wright, Joette Hill, and Jimmy Walker) are individuals who live in Miami-Dade County. The Respondent, DERM, is a division of Miami-Dade County. The Respondent, Cambridge, is a limited liability company authorized to do business in Florida. On January 4, 2008, Cambridge filed an application with DERM pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710, for the Permit authorizing the construction and operation of the facility. Cambridge’s application was reviewed by DERM pursuant to an agreement (“Operating Agreement”) that delegates certain authority from DEP to Miami-Dade County. The Operating Agreement requires DERM to follow DEP’s rules and procedures when determining whether to issue a permit for a waste processing facility. On August 18, 2008, DERM issued its ("Intent to Issue") the Permit to Cambridge. The Site Cambridge intends to construct and operate the facility on a site that is approximately 5.7 acres in size and located at 3250 N.W. 65th Street, in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, Florida. The site is owned by Florida East Coast Railway L.L.C. (“FEC”). Cambridge has entered into a 20-year lease agreement with FEC that authorizes Cambridge to use the site for the proposed facility. The site is located in an industrial warehouse district. Warehouses are adjacent to the north, south, and west sides of the site. The warehouses are served by trucks and railcars. A railroad track is adjacent to, and enters the south end of the site. Other warehouses, rail yards, and railroad tracks are located west of the site. The industrial district extends north, south, and west of the site. The eastern side of the site is bounded by N.W. 32nd Avenue, a four-lane road that runs in a north-south direction. Across the street from the site, on the east side of N.W. 32nd Avenue, is a business district. Even farther to the east is a residential area where the Petitioners live. The site previously was paved with asphalt and enclosed with a chain-link fence. An old gatehouse is located at the entrance to the site, where N.W. 65th Street dead-ends into the site. The Facility Cambridge intends to construct: (a) a one-story building (“transfer station”) that will be used to receive and process construction and demolition (“C&D”) debris; (b) a one- story office building; (c) a weigh station for weighing trucks; (d) extensions of the existing railroad tracks; and (d) a new railroad track that will pass through the transfer station. Cambridge also will renovate the gatehouse. The existing pavement on the site will remain intact, except where the new improvements will be located. The chain-link fence will be retained and enhanced to restrict access to the site. Trees and shrubs will be planted along N.W. 65th Street and N.W. 32nd Avenue to screen the public’s view of the facility and to help alleviate airborne dust. The Transfer Station will be approximately 30,000 square feet in size. It will have a roof, 4 walls, and a concrete floor that is 10 inches thick. The north side of the transfer Station will have 10 bay doors to allow access for trucks and one smaller utility door. There also will be one door on the southeast side and one door on the west side of the Transfer Station to allow railcars to move through the building. Proposed Operations C&D debris is the material that is generated when a building is constructed, renovated, or demolished. C&D debris includes concrete, lumber, wallboard, asphalt shingles, metal pipes, glass, plastic, and similar materials. Other types of solid waste cannot be accepted by the facility; they are prohibited by the Draft Permit. Cambridge’s customers will deliver C&D debris to the facility in trucks. The trucks will approach the facility from the west (i.e., the industrial district) on Northwest 65th Street and they will enter the site at the gatehouse. There will be no access to the site from Northwest 32nd Avenue. A trained attendant will perform a preliminary visual inspection of the trucks and interview the truck drivers at the gatehouse to determine whether the trucks are carrying C&D debris. If the gatehouse attendant determines that the truck is hauling garbage or other types of solid waste that cannot be accepted at the Transfer Station, the truck will be denied access to the site. Upon entering the site, some trucks will be weighed on the truck scales and then directed to the transfer station. Trucks that do not require weighing will proceed directly to the transfer station. A Cambridge employee will direct the truck to an appropriate bay door for entry into the transfer station. The truck then will back up an inclined grade into the transfer station, the tarpaulin (tarp) will be removed from the truck’s load, and the truck will dump the load onto the floor (i.e., “the tipping floor”) of the transfer station. The unloading and processing of C&D debris will only occur inside the transfer station. Cambridge will employ trained spotters and operators to process the C&D debris. DEP’s rules require that at least one spotter and one operator must be present whenever C&D debris is received at the facility. By comparison, Cambridge typically will have 4 to 6 spotters present whenever the facility is receiving C&D debris. Cambridge employees will spread the load on the tipping floor with mobile equipment and then determine how the load should be processed. “All incoming C&D debris shall be tipped, processed and stored entirely under roof in the enclosed building . . . and . . . evaluated through visual inspection by trained spotter(s) for any unacceptable solid waste (e.g., furniture, tires, etc.) or prohibited wastes (e.g., garbage, treated or painted wood, hazardous wastes, etc.)” in compliance with the Draft Permit. Unacceptable and prohibited wastes will be removed from the C&D debris and placed in separate containers (e.g., metal dumpsters), which will be removed from the site and taken to appropriate disposal facilities. Dense non-recyclable material (e.g., asphalt shingles) will be moved to an area on the tipping floor where it will be loaded directly into a railcar for transportation to a disposal site. Potentially recyclable material will be processed in a shredder, which will reduce the material to a size of approximately 12-inches by 12- inches. After the material is shredded, smaller pieces will be removed from the C&D debris with a mechanical screen and placed in a bunker with non-recyclable material. The remaining, larger materials will be placed on a conveyor belt. Recyclable materials (e.g., aluminum, copper, ferrous metal, clean lumber) will be removed from the conveyor by hand, placed in separate bunkers, and then hauled off-site and sold to recycling facilities. Materials that are not removed from the conveyor will be placed in a bunker with other non-recyclable materials. If necessary, Cambridge employees will drive a compactor over the non-recyclable materials to reduce the size and increase the density of the material. The non-recyclable materials will then be loaded into railcars inside the transfer station. The facility is designed to process C&D debris at a rate of 100 tons per hour, which equates to 1,000 tons (approximately 4,000 cubic yards) during a 10-hour operating day. The Draft Permit prohibits Cambridge from accepting more than 4,000 cubic yards per day. The facility has the capacity to process all of the C&D debris on the same day that it is delivered to the facility, so that the tipping floor can be empty at the end of each day. The Draft Permit requires Cambridge to process all of the C&D debris within 48 hours after it is delivered to the facility. . Recyclable and non-recyclable materials will be removed from the site quickly. Each container of recyclable material will be removed from the site when the container is filled, which typically will occur several times each week. When a railcar is filled with non-recyclable material, the railcar will be removed from the transfer station and staged on a railroad track on the south end of the site. The filled railcars will be removed from the site by FEC on a daily basis, Monday through Friday. The railcars will be taken to a landfill in Alabama where the C&D debris will be disposed. If rail service to the facility is interrupted and cannot be resumed in a timely manner, any railcars that are staged on the site will be taken back inside the transfer station. Cambridge will unload the cars and arrange for the C&D debris to be shipped by truck to an appropriate disposal facility. Under such circumstances, Cambridge will stop receiving C&D debris at the facility until rail service is resumed. Cambridge expects to recycle at least 9% of the C&D debris and hopes to recycle as much as 30%. The exact amount of material that will be recycled will depend on market conditions— i.e., whether there is a viable market for the materials in the C&D debris. Garbage The facility will receive only “de minimis” amounts of garbage as essentially accidental, very minor contents of loads of C&D debris. Cambridge’s gatehouse attendant and spotters will reject any truck that contains identifiable quantities of garbage. Nonetheless, a bag or small quantity of garbage may be hidden in a load of C&D debris that is dumped onto the tipping floor. If that occurs, the garbage will be removed from the C&D debris and placed in an enclosed container inside the transfer station. If garbage is mixed with a load of C&D debris on the tipping floor, the affected part of the load will be placed in an enclosed container. The garbage will be taken off-site for disposal, as quickly as necessary to ensure that the garbage does not generate objectionable odors. In all cases, Cambridge must remove the garbage (“Class I waste”) from the site within 48 hours, in compliance with the Draft Permit and related rules. Odors The facility will not cause objectionable odors in any off-Site areas because the C&D debris, recyclable materials, and non-recyclable materials received at the facility will not generate objectionable odors. Incidental garbage could be a potential source of objectionable odors, but garbage is prohibited at the facility, the facility will receive very little garbage, and Cambridge’s plan to segregate and quickly remove garbage will ensure that objectionable odors are not created inside the transfer station. In the unlikely event that objectionable odors occur outside of the transfer station, Cambridge will use a deodorizing or odor-neutralizing agent to treat any odorous portions of the tipping floor. If necessary, Cambridge also will use the "DustBoss," water-misting machines to spray odor control agents throughout the transfer station. The Petitioners’ expert witness, Joseph Fluet, agreed that Cambridge’s odor control plan, as described in the Respondent's testimony by Mr. Enriquez, would be adequate, if implemented. This is in addition to the operational plan proposed to DERMA and should be required to be implemented as a permit condition. Vectors The facility is not expected to attract rats, bugs, or other disease-carrying vectors because C&D debris is not a food source for vectors. Nonetheless, Cambridge will hire a professional pest control firm to take all necessary measures to control vectors on the site. These measures, combined with the other components of Cambridge’s operations plan, will control disease-carrying vectors on the site and thus ensure that the facility does not pose a public health hazard. Dust The Draft Permit provides that “dust resulting from the processing operation is not allowed beyond the property boundary [of the site].” The term “dust” in the Draft Permit is synonymous with “visible emissions” or “particulate matter” (“PM”). The Draft Permit also provides that a “dust control system shall be utilized to eliminate dust throughout the storage and working areas [inside the transfer station].” Cambridge will comply with these requirements by implementing a comprehensive dust control program at the facility. Dust Control Inside the Transfer Station The transfer station is fully enclosed on four sides and thus it can effectively control any dust that is generated by the activities conducted inside the transfer station. In order to minimize the potential for dust to escape from the transfer station, Cambridge will: (a) keep all of the transfer station’s doors closed at night and when the facility is not operating; (b) minimize the number of doors open during operations; and (c) require its staff to be judicious when deciding whether to open doors, and to give due regard to wind direction and velocity. Only three bay doors will be open during normal conditions when the facility is receiving and processing its maximum C&D volume of 1,000 tons per day (i.e., an average of approximately 15 trucks per hour). Fewer doors will be open when there are fewer delivery trucks or the wind hinders Cambridge’s ability to control the dust generated inside the facility. Cambridge will use two "DustBoss" machines to eliminate dust generated inside the transfer station. The DustBoss machines will spray a fine mist (fog) of water, which will physically impact and knock-down the dust in the air. The DustBoss machines will be deployed inside the transfer station, near the bay doors, but they can be moved within the building to where they are most effective. The DustBoss machines are fully adjustable--they can oscillate automatically or be directed toward a specific location where dust is being generated. The amount of mist generated by the DustBoss can be increased or reduced, as necessary. Each DustBoss machine is designed to blow mist up to 200 feet and control dust in an area up to 20,000 square feet. The two DustBoss machines in the transfer station will have the combined capacity to control dust in an area of approximately 40,000 square feet, which is substantially more capacity than is needed in the transfer station (30,000 square feet). Dust Control Outside Of The Transfer Station In order to minimize the potential for dust outside of the transfer station, Cambridge normally will require a hauler to keep its load of C&D debris covered with a tarp until the hauler’s truck is completely inside the transfer station. Cambridge may allow a hauler to remove its tarp immediately before the hauler’s truck enters the transfer station, but this will only occur if there are trucks waiting to enter and the winds are calm. The removal of a tarp, by itself, will not release a significant amount of dust because any dust that may have been on the tarp at a job site will be blown off while the truck is driving to the facility. To further minimize the potential for dust, Cambridge will use a piece of mobile equipment to collect and remove dust from the pavement outside of the building. This mobile equipment will be fitted with a moist broom and a water tank, thus allowing it to function like a street sweeper. Cambridge will use this equipment as often as necessary to control dust outside the transfer station. Mr. Fluet, the Petitioner's expert, agreed that using a "moist broom" to remove soil and mud on the site “would deal with virtually all the issues” concerning the control of dust outside the transfer station. Dust From Railcars Railcars will enter and leave the transfer station through two doors. These doors normally will be open only when Cambridge is bringing railcars into the building for loading or taking them outside after they are filled. The DustBoss misting system will prevent dust from escaping out of these railroad doors. The C&D debris will not be loaded above the sides of the railcars and thus will not be exposed to the wind when the railcars are taken outside the transfer station. In addition, the filled railcars will be covered with a mesh tarp before they are taken outside. The mesh tarp will prevent dust from blowing out of the railcars while they are staged on the railroad track next to the transfer station. The Ventilation System The transfer station will be equipped with an emergency ventilation system to prevent the build-up of carbon monoxide (“CO”) or nitrogen dioxide (“NO2”) on the tipping floor. The ventilation system will discharge CO and NO2 through exhaust fans located approximately 30 feet above the tipping floor on the north wall of the transfer station. Fresh air will be drawn into the building through louvers located approximately 27 feet above the tipping floor on the south side of the building. The ventilation system will turn on automatically if CO or NO2 sensors detect unsafe levels on the tipping floor. It is anticipated that such levels will not be reached and the ventilation system will operate “rarely, if ever.” The ventilation system also could be operated manually, but Cambridge does not intend to do so. Dust will not be emitted from the louvers at the transfer station. The DustBoss misting system will knock-down the dust inside the transfer station before the dust reaches the louvers, which are high above the tipping floor. Moreover, the louvers will be covered with a mesh that will further reduce the potential for dust emissions. Finally, the prevailing winds at the site are from the south/southeast and they will blow into the louvers (not out) most of the year, thus preventing dust from escaping. Reasonable Precautions To Prevent Fugitive Emissions DEP Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-296.320(4)(c), requires “reasonable precautions” to be used to control fugitive emissions of PM, such as the dust generated by truck traffic on the site. Cambridge will satisfy this requirement by: (a) having pavement on the site in areas where there will be truck traffic; (b) using mobile equipment and a moist broom to remove dust from the paved areas of the site; (c) planting vegetative buffers on the site; (d) placing mesh tarps on the railcars before the railcars are taken outside the transfer station; (d) limiting the height of the C&D debris in the railcars; and (e) keeping tarps on the delivery trucks when the trucks are outside the transfer station during windy conditions. Analysis Of Potential Airborne Emissions Dust may be generated inside the transfer station when C&D debris is unloaded, moved, processed, or loaded into trucks or railcars. Dust may be generated outside the station by vehicular traffic on the site. Cambridge quantified these potential PM emissions by using standard procedures and reference documents approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Cambridge’s analysis was based on conservative (“worst-case”) assumptions, which were designed to overestimate the actual emissions from the facility. Using this approach, Cambridge determined that the maximum emissions of PM from the entire facility will be approximately 4 pounds per hour during those hours when the facility is operating. Four pounds per hour is approximately one ounce per minute. The insignificance of this emission rate can be appreciated by imagining three people standing in the bay doors of the transfer station (i.e., one person in each of the three open bay doors during normal operations) while each person pours one-third of one ounce (1/3 oz.) of flour into the air over a 60 second interval. This emission rate will result in total annual emissions of approximately 6 tons per year (TPY), but the instantaneous emissions will be negligible. Facilities that emit less than 10 TPY of PM are exempt from the DEP requirement to obtain an air permit. Consequently, Cambridge will not need a DEP air permit for the facility. A comparable facility would be a fast food restaurant, which has airborne emissions from cooking, but is not required to obtain a DEP air permit. The facility’s emissions of PM will be so small that Cambridge will not be required by DEP to prepare an analysis of the facility’s impacts on ambient air quality. An impacts analysis would not be required unless the facility’s PM emissions were expected to be greater than 250 TPY. There are no ambient air quality standards or other DEP requirements applicable to the airborne emissions from the facility, except for the requirement to use reasonable precautions to control fugitive emissions in the areas of the site located outside of the transfer station. There are no DEP emission limits or other standards applicable to the CO and NO2 emissions, if any, from the facility’s ventilation system. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-296.711 governs crushing and grinding operations in certain areas of the state, but this rule is not applicable in Miami-Dade County. Similarly, DEP does not consider tailpipe emissions from mobile equipment and trucks on the site when DEP evaluates the airborne emissions from the facility. DERM will regulate the opacity (visible emissions) of the facility’s PM emissions (dust) at the property line. DERM also will regulate the mass emissions from the facility. The applicable DERM limit for opacity is 20% and the limit for mass emissions of PM is 40 pounds per hour. The facility will comply with these DERM standards. As noted above, there will be no visible emissions of PM at the property line or beyond and the mass emissions will be no more than 4 pounds per hour under worst-case conditions. The facility will have an insignificant impact on air quality on Northwest 32nd Avenue. The facility’s impacts on the ambient air quality on Northwest 32nd Avenue will not be measurable or discernable. The prevailing winds in Miami-Dade County are from the east and southeast most of the year. When the wind is from the east or southeast, the wind at the site will blow away from the Petitioners’ residences, which are located east-northeast of the site. For these reasons, it will be physically impossible for any dust or odor from the Site to reach the Petitioners’ residences approximately 90% of the time. The prevailing winds in Miami-Dade County blow from the north only about 4% or 5% of the year. Consequently, 95% or 96% of the time the facility will have no impact on the air quality at the Martin Luther King Park, which is located south of the site. Petitioners’ Allegations Regarding Dust The Petitioners’ witness, Mr. Fluet, acknowledged that “judicious use of the misters [DustBoss] and the door positions will effectively provide reasonable assurance” concerning the dust inside the transfer station. Nonetheless, the Petitioners are concerned because nothing explicitly prohibits Cambridge from opening more than three of the bay doors to the transfer station and causing excessive emissions of dust. The Petitioners’ concerns about this issue are not established by preponderant evidence, however, because (a) the Draft Permit prohibits Cambridge from causing visible emissions beyond the property boundary, (b) Cambridge has demonstrated that it will operate the facility in compliance with the Draft Permit, and (c) DERM will inspect the facility at least once each month to ensure that the facility is operated properly. Cambridge’s obligation to comply with the Draft Permit will effectively limit the number of doors that are open and the amount of dust that is emitted at any given time. Even if the bay doors are open, the enclosed design of the building prevents the wind from blowing through the transfer station. Further, Cambridge’s expert on air issues (David Buff) explained that, when the wind is calm, Cambridge will be able to control dust emissions effectively with the DustBoss machines, even if all the bay doors are open. His testimony in this regard, is accepted as persuasive. Mr. Fluet opined that Cambridge may manually turn on the ventilation system if the temperature inside the transfer station becomes too hot. Mr. Fluet acknowledged, however, that misting systems are used to cool the public at amusement parks and the mist from the DustBoss machines will have the same cooling effect in the transfer station. This acknowledgment somewhat belies his suggestion that the ventilation system will need to be activated. Mr. Fluet’s opinion also is countered by the fact that Cambridge’s application and witnesses have confirmed that the ventilation system will be used only for emergencies, and not for hot weather ventilation or evacuation of dust. Finally, even if it is assumed, hypothetically, that the ventilation system may be turned on for Cambridge’s convenience, the Petitioners failed to prove that the operation of the ventilation system will cause violations of any applicable air quality standard. Should such become the case, as revealed by the monthly inspections, the use of the filters referenced by Mr. Fluet should be implemented. Mr. Fluet expressed concern that contamination problems may occur if painted or treated wood is shredded at the facility. This concern has been alleviated because the Draft Permit and the Respondent's testimony shows that the acceptance for processing of painted or treated wood will be prohibited. Prohibited and unacceptable waste must be removed from the C&D debris stream and taken off-site for disposal. Leachate Water that comes in contact with C&D debris is deemed to be “leachate.” Since C&D debris is generally non-hazardous and not water soluble, C&D debris is not expected to produce leachate that is harmful to groundwater. The transfer station has been designed with a roof and four walls. The design of the station will minimize the potential for generating leachate and minimize the potential for standing water inside the facility. Cambridge’s “design strategy for the facility is to prevent contact between rainfall or stormwater and C/D materials [C&D debris] at all times, thereby entirely preventing the generation of leachate.” C&D debris is relatively dry material. If a container of C&D debris is exposed to rain before the container is brought to the facility, the rainwater typically will (a) be absorbed by the C&D debris or (b) leak out of the container before the container reaches the facility, because the containers used to collect C&D debris are not water-tight. Even if some liquid is spilled on the tipping floor with a load of C&D debris, the liquid will be absorbed by the C&D debris when the load is moved across the floor. Liquids normally will not be tracked into the transfer station by trucks. Trucks will enter the transfer station by slowly backing up an inclined grade, through the bay doors, and onto the tipping floor. Although some rainwater may be tracked into the station by the trucks or truck tires, it will only be a negligible amount. Even less water will be tracked out of the transfer station. The mist from the DustBoss machines is not likely to cause puddles to form on the tipping floor. The C&D debris will absorb any mist that lands on it. Mist landing on the tipping floor will be absorbed when the C&D debris is pushed across the floor. After each truck unloads, the tipping floor must be cleared to make space for the next truck. If there is a puddle on the floor, the C&D debris will be pushed through the puddle to absorb it. In the alternative, the puddle will be pushed into the C&D debris. Cambridge employees will monitor the tipping floor for liquids. The employees will use mobile equipment (i.e., a skid- steer) fitted with a rubber-edged blade to push the liquids, like a squeegee, if necessary. Since the facility will receive up to 1,000 tons of C&D debris per day, there will be a substantial amount of material available to absorb any liquids on the floor. The tipping floor will be equipped with a sump that can hold approximately 359 gallons of liquid. In the event there are liquids on the tipping floor, Cambridge’s employees can push the liquids into the sump by using the rubber-edged blade on the skid-steer equipment. The sump will be used rarely, if ever. One of Cambridge’s solid waste experts, Kenneth Cargill, testified that he had never seen liquids in the floor drain (sump) at a C&D debris transfer station in Ft. Myers, even though that transfer station is open on one side (170’ wide and 40’ high) and rain can blow onto the tipping floor. The sump in Ft. Myers is empty during the rainy season, as well as the dry season. If any liquids are collected in the facility’s sump, a third party contractor will pump the liquids out of the sump, as frequently as necessary, to ensure that the sump is never overtopped. Any liquids removed from the sump will be taken by the contractor to a permitted disposal facility, such as a wastewater treatment plant (“WWTP”). The liquid in the sump is not expected to upset the operation of the WWTP, so the DEP does not require the liquid to be tested before it is delivered to the WWTP. The railcars used to transport C&D debris from the facility will be fully sealed at the bottom. The railcars will not leak if rainwater falls into them. Mr. Cargill, Mr. Leonard Enriquez (Cambridge’s General Manager), and Mr. Hardeep Anand (the Chief of DERM’s Pollution Regulation and Enforcement Division (“PRED”)) collectively established that the Transfer Station is well-designed and has a generally satisfactory leachate control system. The leachate will be controlled and contained inside the Transfer Station by using an enclosed building, a concrete floor, a sump, a good operating plan, and diligent employees. Petitioners’ Contentions Regarding Leachate Mr. Fluet contended that (a) the leachate control system is not adequate, (b) leachate will escape from the transfer station and enter the environment, and (c) the tipping floor will not minimize standing water. According to Mr. Fluet, all of these problems will occur primarily because the tipping floor is flat—i.e., it is not sloped toward a drain and has no lip, berm or raised edge to contain liquids. It was undisputed, however, that the DEP rules do not require a sloped floor. Although Mr. Cargill always designs transfer stations with a sloped floor, he concluded that Cambridge’s transfer station is “well designed” and can be operated successfully by using conscientious employees. Indeed, even Mr. Fluet acknowledged he could operate the transfer station in compliance with the FDEP rules, without having a sloped floor. Mr. Fluet would install a “lip” (raised edge) around the tipping floor, but he agreed the transfer station could be operated in compliance with the applicable rules. Petitioners contend that the tipping floor must be washed weekly, and allege that this activity may result in water escaping from the transfer station. This contention is fatally flawed because (a) the DEP rules do not require routine washing of the floors at C&D debris transfer stations, (b) washing is not necessary to control odors, and (c) Cambridge plans to use other odor control measures, rather than washing, in the unlikely event there are odors at the facility. When asked whether Cambridge had provided reasonable assurances that it would minimize the amount of leachate produced in the Transfer Station, Mr. Fluet implied the answer is yes, “to a great extent by the fact that it’s [the transfer station] enclosed.” He also agreed that the design of the building (i.e., the roof) will minimize the amount of standing water on the tipping floor. Nonetheless, Mr. Fluet suggested that the use of the DustBoss machines may be inconsistent with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.710(3), which requires an applicant to minimize standing water in a waste processing facility. He raised the possibility that liquids may accumulate on the tipping floor because the two DustBoss machines are capable of using approximately 30,000 gallons of water per hour while producing mist. He acknowledged, however, that “a lot” of the mist (water) will evaporate before it reaches the tipping floor. Mr. Fluet’s concerns about this issue are not entirely supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Mr. Cargill and Mr. Enriquez established that the mist will evaporate or be absorbed by the C&D debris. Moreover, the DustBoss machines can be adjusted to reduce the amount of mist that is produced and thus reduce the potential for creating puddles on the tipping floor. The DustBoss machines presumably will not need to run continuously at maximum capacity because the two machines have the combined capacity to cover approximately 40,000 square feet of building space, and the transfer station is only about 30,000 square feet. On balance, in consideration of this testimony concerning flexibility in use and management of the DustBoss machines, and Mr. Fluet's concern about standing water on the tipping floor, reasonable assurances can best be established by a slight design alteration to provide for a lip or berm around the tipping floor. The fact that the rail track traverses the building also serves to render this appropriate. The permit should be so conditioned. Mr. Fluet postulated that the DEP rules will be violated if rainwater (a) drips off of the C&D debris in the delivery trucks while the trucks are on the site and then (b) flows into the stormwater management system on the site or enters the groundwater. According to Mr. Fluet, the rainwater will constitute leachate, because the water came into contact with C&D debris, and the DEP rules prohibit the mixing of any leachate with stormwater or groundwater. Mr. Fluet conceded, however, that the same problem occurs at every transfer station in Florida when rainwater/leachate drips from delivery trucks. Mr. Fluet claimed that the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County will contain more demolition debris and residential waste than the C&D debris in other parts of Florida and thus the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County will produce worse leachate. However, Mr. Fluet acknowledged the C&D debris in Miami-Dade County already is being handled in the County’s existing C&D debris facilities and he has no evidence of groundwater contamination at any of those facilities. Moreover, Mr. Fluet could not identify any C&D transfer station where there were violations of DEP standards for groundwater or surface water because of the scenarios he described, or the concerns he raised about Cambridge’s Facility. Mr. Fluet's opinions were based on his expertise and experience. The Petitioners offered no empirical data to support their claims or concerns. Mr. Fluet admitted that he did “not perform any studies, calculations, or engineering analyses” concerning the proposed Facility. Mr. Fluet and the Petitioners did not quantify the amount of leachate that allegedly will be released into the environment from the tipping floor, or the amount of leachate that will drip from delivery trucks, or the amount of water that may accumulate on the tipping floor when the DustBoss machines are operating. They presented no information concerning the chemical constituents or chemical concentrations in any of the liquids that allegedly will be released under any of their potential scenarios. No data was presented concerning the quality of the liquids collected in the sumps at other transfer stations. They did not present any evidence demonstrating that DEP’s groundwater or surface water quality standards will be violated as a result of the quantity or quality of the leachate that allegedly will enter the environment as a result of the facility’s operations. Mr. Anand explained that DEP does not evaluate the possibility that rainwater will drip from delivery trucks, or that trucks will track liquids out of a transfer station, when DEP is determining whether to issue a permit for a waste processing facility pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701. Even if these impacts were considered, the likelihood of these events causing contamination is “negligible.” Mr. Anand testified that DERM currently has eight (8) C&D debris transfer stations in Miami-Dade County. Groundwater monitoring data are collected at some of the sites, but DERM has no evidence of groundwater contamination at any of those sites. Similarly, Mr. Cargill was unaware of any cases in Florida where a transfer station for C&D debris caused contamination of groundwater or stormwater as a result of liquids dripping from the trucks that are entering or leaving the facility. C&D debris is not expected to be water soluble or hazardous. The leachate from C&D debris is not expected to cause groundwater contamination. Accordingly, the DEP rules do not require C&D debris to be placed inside water-tight containers when the C&D debris is stored at a job site. The DEP rules do not prohibit the permanent disposal of C&D debris in unlined disposal facilities. There is nothing to prevent rainwater from passing through the C&D debris and entering directly into the groundwater at a job site or an unlined C&D disposal facility. Given all of the foregoing facts, Mr. Cargill and Mr. Anand testified that the Cambridge Facility should have “little or no impact” on the quality of the soils, surface water, or groundwater at the site. Their testimony is credible, persuasive, and accepted. Comparison To Other Transfer Stations The design of the Cambridge Facility is a significant improvement over the typical design of a C&D debris transfer station. The measures that Cambridge will use to control dust and liquids at the facility are superior to the measures used to control dust and liquids at typical C&D transfer stations. There are 8 C&D debris transfer stations lawfully operating in Miami-Dade County. Only one of these facilities is enclosed. Some C&D debris facilities have a roof, but no walls. A transfer station within one mile of the site has no roof and no walls. At most transfer stations, dust is controlled by manually spraying the C&D debris with a hose. None of the transfer stations in Miami-Dade County use DustBoss machines to control dust. None of the facilities in Miami-Dade County use a moist broom and sweeper equipment on a routine basis to control dust. Although the existing facilities in Miami-Dade County comply with the DEP rules, the Cambridge facility has gone beyond the minimum requirements established by DEP. Stormwater Permits DEP issued an Environmental Resource Permit for the construction and operation of a stormwater management system serving the facility. Miami-Dade County issued a Class VI Drainage Permit for the construction and operation of an exfiltration trench that will handle the stormwater from the facility. No one challenged or otherwise appealed the DEP Environmental Resource Permit or the Miami-Dade County Class VI permit. Site Assessment A “Phase I” (preliminary) environmental assessment of the site was conducted by Cambridge and further investigations were recommended; however, Cambridge has not yet conducted a “Phase II” assessment or collected any field data. Mr. Fluet speculated about potential “indications” of contamination, but he had no data to prove that any contamination actually exists. In the absence of any field data, he admitted that “we don’t know” whether the site is a “Brownfield” site and “cannot speak” to whether the site is contaminated. Financial Assurance The cost of closing the facility was estimated by Cambridge to be approximately $231,000. Cambridge’s estimate did not include the cost of pumping the liquids (if any) out of the sump, which may be $2,000 to $3,000 (i.e., less than 1% of the financial assurance provided by Cambridge). This omission is insignificant, it can be corrected before Cambridge commences operations of the facility, and it does not warrant the denial of Cambridge’s application for the Permit. Irresponsible Applicant Cambridge Project Development, Inc., is the minority partner in Cambridge. TLA-Miami, Inc., is the managing partner. TLA-Miami, Inc., is an affiliate of Transload America, Inc. (“TLA”). None of these entities or their affiliates have previously owned or operated a solid waste management facility in Florida, or violated any environmental laws, permits, or other requirements in Florida. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.320(3), DEP considers the applicant’s prior operations in Florida when determining whether an applicant for a solid waste processing facility permit is an “irresponsible applicant.” The applicant’s operations in other states are not considered. In this case, DERM properly concluded that Cambridge is not an irresponsible applicant. Cambridge’s Operating Plan And Building Design Cambridge submitted a written operating plan (the “Operating Plan”) with its application to DERM. The Operating Plan sets forth Cambridge’s plan for operating the facility in compliance with the applicable DEP requirements. Additional details concerning Cambridge’s method of operation were provided by preponderant evidence at the hearing, in a de novo context. The Operating Plan satisfies the DEP requirements. During the hearing, Mr. Enriquez explained that the design of the transfer station will be better than the design initially proposed in Cambridge’s application to DERM. The sump will be bigger, the concrete in the tipping floor will be thicker, and the strength of the concrete will be greater than originally proposed. DEP’s Review Of Permit Applications The Petitioners contend that DEP and DERM should have evaluated a variety of issues that are of interest to the Petitioners. However, it was undisputed that DEP does not consider the following issues when deciding whether to issue a permit for a solid waste processing facility: zoning and comprehensive plan designations; land use compatibility; traffic; noise; public benefits; aesthetics; geotechnical issues, such as differential settlement; structural design issues, such as the structural design of a tipping floor or push wall; the adequacy of a fire control system; the adequacy of a ventilation system; the economic or ethnic makeup of the areas near a proposed site; whether the proposed location is the best site; or whether there is a need for the proposed facility. In the instant case, many of these issues were addressed by other governmental entities, such as the Building Department for Miami-Dade County. Public Notice Cambridge provided two notices to the public concerning the facility. On January 15, 2008, notice of Cambridge’s application was published. On August 26, 2008, notice of DERM’s proposed agency action was published. These notices satisfied the applicable DEP requirements. Reasonable Assurances Cambridge has provided reasonable assurances that the facility will be constructed and operated in compliance with all of the applicable DEP requirements in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-701, for a waste processing facility. Cambridge also has provided reasonable assurances that it will comply with all of the conditions contained in the Draft Permit, and established by the preponderant evidence.
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 Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order granting Cambridge's application to construct and operate the facility on the site, including the conditions contained in the Draft Permit and in the above findings and conclusions, to include a design alteration providing for a slight lip or berm around the tipping floor, as supported by the preponderant, persuasive evidence. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Quick, Esquire Michelle D. Vos, Esquire Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2009. Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L. 525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 700 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Peter S. Tell, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Miami-Dade County 111 Northwest 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128 David S. Dee, Esquire Young Van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael W. Sole, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is eligible for restoration funding (but not insurance coverage) under the Florida Pollution Liability Insurance and Restoration Program (FPLIRP) for cleanup of discharges from underground petroleum storage tanks (USTs) underlying Petitioners' real property.
Findings Of Fact Scott C. Miller, Richard D. Miller, Sr., and Richard D. Miller, Jr. as partners in "the Miller Partnership" (hereafter, Petitioners) acquired fee simple title to the site of a former gasoline station (active petroleum retail outlet) from Gulf Oil Corporation by a warranty deed dated January 30, 1984. None of Petitioners' principals have ever been in the business of storing or selling petroleum products. At the time of purchase, the site contained five 3,000 gallon underground petroleum storage tanks (USTs) and two 550 gallon USTs. These tanks had been in use by Petitioners' predecessor in interest Gulf/Chevron, until January 30, 1984, the date Petitioners bought the real property, and Petitioners knew of the presence of the tanks at the time of purchase. Pursuant to the deed, Petitioners also acquired title to the tanks. The deed contained a restrictive covenant specifically prohibiting Petitioners from using the storage tanks for a period of three years, but did not restrict Petitioners from removing the storage tanks. At the time Petitioners took possession, none of them intended to put the storage tanks back in service, and no Petitioner has ever used the tanks for any purpose. On May 21, 1984, the Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER's) Stationary Tanks Rules, Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. came into effect. None of the Petitioners' principals had actual knowledge of the substance or effective date of Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. until early 1989, shortly before they ordered the seven USTs removed from the subject property. At some time prior to March 8, 1989, Petitioners entered into negotiations with their tenant, Jack Bush, a used car dealer, to sell the subject property to Mr. Bush. During negotiations, Mr. Bush informed Petitioners that something would have to be done with the USTs on the property and made their removal by Petitioners a condition of sale. The Petitioners engaged Charles D. Chambers as an authorized agent of Petro Environmental Services, Inc. (Petro) to remove the storage tanks. Scott C. Miller understood that he had employed Mr. Chambers to do whatever was necessary to comply with DER regulations, but Petitioners' decision to remove the storage tanks was not based on any contact with DER or representations by any of its employees. Physical removal of the tanks was accomplished March 1, 1989. During the course of tank removal, Mr. Chambers discovered petroleum- contaminated soil on the site, which had not contained fuel for years preceding Petitioners' purchase, and Mr. Chambers notified DER on March 10, 1989 with a "Discharge Notification Form, 17-1.218(3)" (P-11). It is unlikely that the contaminated soil would have been discovered but for the removal of the USTs, but there is no evidence that removal of the tanks resulted in contamination of the soil or that they had leaked during any period of ownership by the Petitioners. The removal of the tanks was immediate and clearly within 90 days of discovery of the contamination, but not within 90 days of Petitioners' knowledge of existence of the tanks. See, 17-61.050(3)(c)1 F.A.C. Upon receipt of the "Discharge Notification Form," Tim Dohaney, an Environmental Specialist II with DER's Pollutant Storage Tank Program based in the DER Jacksonville District Office sent Scott Miller o/b/o Petitioners a Request notice (P-2) dated March 16, 1989 which requested, among other things, that Petitioners submit a registration form to indicate that the storage tanks had been removed. This notice specifically provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Upon reviewing the registration files for this facility it was determined that the facility has never been registered. Therefore, it is requested that you complete the enclosed tank registration form and tank installation form to show the removal of the tank systems. The completed forms should be returned to this office within ten (10) calendar days upon receipt of this notice. This request also listed several procedures necessary to bring the site into compliance. On June 26, 1989, Mr. Dohaney notified Petitioners of an inspection to be conducted on July 18, 1989. The letter - Notice of Inspection (P-3) requested, among other things, that an updated registration placard be available on the site. The specific language provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department is in receipt of a Discharge Notification Form completed on March 10, 1989 for the referenced facility. As required by Chapter 17-61, on the day of inspection, you should have available at the facility: 5) The updated registration placard. This letter also specified several other items that must be available during inspection to show that the site had been in compliance. On July 18, 1989, Dohaney, Scott Miller, and an attorney for Petitioners' predecessor in interest, Gulf/Chevron, met on the site. During the inspection, Dohaney informed the others that restoration coverage for the site might exist under FPLIRP, and Miller and the Gulf/Chevron attorney expressed interest in obtaining same. The conversation concerning FPLIRP was initiated by the attorney. At the time of the inspection, however, the USTs had still not been registered, although they had been physically removed from the site approximately three and a half months earlier by a method DER's tank expert and spokesman, Mr. Svec, acknowledged was permitted by DER's rules (TR-90-91). After the inspection, Mr. Dohaney completed and served on Petitioners a July 18, 1989 "Inspection Report Form" (P-4) which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The tanks remained on-site, improperly abandoned until 3-89 when they were removed. Violations - as shown on page 1 & 23 1) tanks are not/were not registered; 3,4) updated registration form not submitted upon tank removal; 49, 50, 51) cleanup has not begun - owner will be applying for restoration coverage under HB430. Thereon, under the heading, "13. Tanks properly abandoned? 17- 61.050(3)(c)," Mr. Dohaney had checked the column for "yes," but added, "Tanks had been on- site, improperly abandoned since approx. 1984," and checked the "yes" column for "removed." The inspection form also noted or reiterated improper abandonment, contamination discovered at time of 3-89 abandonment, lack of registration, and that groundwater had been contaminated. By way of a July 19, 1989 letter (P-5), Mr. Dohaney again requested that the tanks be registered and directed Petitioners and the attorney for Gulf/Chevron to contact DER's Tallahassee Bureau of Waste Planning concerning the possibility of restoration coverage, using the following language: Mr. Robert W. Wells, Jr., Attorney for Chevron USA and you expressed an interest in applying for restoration coverage and subsequent State Cleanup for your site under the guidelines of House Bill 430. Therefore, it is requested that you contact the tank regulation section of the Bureau of Waste Planning (BWPR) in Tallahassee at (904) 488- 3935 for information regarding the program and an affidavit that must be completed by you and returned to the Department. The registration/notification form that was given you during the inspection should be completed and returned to this office within ten (10) calendar days upon receipt of this Notice (Emphasis supplied). On August 1, 1989, Mr. Chambers subsequently submitted to DER an executed updated "Storage Tank Notification Form 17-61.090(3)" (P-11). Receipt of this form was acknowledged by Mr. Dohaney as an "updated registration form" for removal of the USTs in a letter dated August 10, 1989 (P-6). In this letter, Mr. Dohaney further notified Petitioners via their attorney as follows: As of this date, this office has no further requests regarding this location. However, as discussed, the district office is awaiting a determination by DER-Tallahassee on this site's eligibility status regarding the restoration program of the FPLIRP program. If the site is denied eligibility, an assessment and cleanup will be required by the responsible party. All DER witnesses at formal hearing acknowledged that they regarded the August 1, 1989 "Storage Tank Notification Form 17-61.090(3)" (P-11) as Petitioners' "registration," albeit late registration in their eyes. Mr. Scott Miller properly interpreted his July 18, 1989 conversation with Mr. Dohaney and all of the foregoing notifications to mean that DER found Petitioners' tanks to have been "properly abandoned." However, despite all of the foregoing written notifications, Mr. Scott Miller also interpreted his July 18, 1989 conversation with Mr. Dohaney and Mr. Dohaney's August 10, 1989 letter (P-6) as DER's assurance that Petitioners' site would qualify for restoration funding, and in that state of mind, he directed Petitioners' attorney to submit an application to DER for FPLIRP restoration benefits. Petitioners' decision to apply for coverage, however, was also based upon conversations with the Gulf/Chevron's attorney, with Mr. Chambers, and with Petitioners' own attorney. Petitioners' application for restoration funding was dated August 11, 1989 (P-8). DER subsequently denied eligibility for the site on the basis that the tanks were not in compliance with Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. in that they had been improperly abandoned in accordance with Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. and had not been registered in accordance with Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. Thereafter, by a "Warning Notice" (P-1) from Mr. Dohaney on November 27, 1989, DER attempted to fine Petitioners for noncompliance with Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. and for leakage, but this "Warning Notice" was withdrawn pending outcome of the instant proceedings (P-9). In interpreting its own rules and mission, DER does not view the act of tank removal by itself as constituting compliance with Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. Its standing operating procedure, according to Mr. Svec, a DER expert and agency spokesman, is to regard Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. as applicable to sites such as Petitioners' site even after physical removal of USTs (TR 93). In assessing eligibility, DER reviews tank compliance "history," including whether the tanks were properly abandoned in accordance with the time frames established within the Chapter. For eligibility, agency personnel interpret the statute and rules to require that a tank must be in continuous compliance with the rules and to further require that an updated registration be submitted within 10 days of tank removal. The agency also views a failure in registration to be such a major violation of the registration requirement imposed by statute and rules that it cannot be waived by the agency pursuant to the latitude granted it by Section 376.3072(3)(b) F.S.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order approving Petitioners' application for Florida Pollution Liability Insurance and Restoration Program restoration coverage. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-5251 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: Accepted: 1-4, 5-9, 10-11, 15-16, 20-26, 28-40, 45-47, 50. Irrelevant: 12-13. Immaterial: 14 (except that effective date is accepted), 17. 18 is rejected because it is stated as a conclusion of law; however, the age of the petroleum discharge is discussed in the Recommended Order. 27 is rejected because it is stated as a conclusion of law and as legal argument. Rejected as legal argument and not dispositive of the issue of rule interpretation in de novo proceedings. However, for all the reasons enunciated in the Recommended Order, proper abandonment has been found and concluded both in fact and in law: 41-44, 51-52. Subordinate and unnecessary: 48-49. There is no 19. Respondent's PFOF: Accepted: 1-9, 11, 13-25, 27-35, 36-41, 43, 50, 57. Rejected because stated as legal argument or as a conclusion of law: , 10,12, 26, 49, 51-56, 58-64. In most instances they are also direct quotations of agency witnesses' testimony and cumulative. Although the agency's interpretation of statutes and rules are to be accorded much weight, they are not required to be found as facts where, as they are here, cumulative or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative to the facts as found: 42, 44-48. COPIES FURNISHED: Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Turner, Ford & Buckingham, P.A. 1904 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Gary Early Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Phillips Petroleum Company, is the owner and operator of two retail gasoline stations situated at 2675 Volusia Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida and 13987 Walsingham Road, Largo, Florida. On July 6, 1989, Respondent's inspector, Ralph Myrick, made a routine inspection of the "super clean unleaded" gasoline at Petitioner's company-owned station at 2675 Volusia Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. A sample of the super clean unleaded fuel was taken by inspector Myrick and was analyzed by Respondent. The analysis revealed that the super clean unleaded gasoline was contaminated with diesel fuel. On June 20, 1989, Petitioner converted its 4,000 gallon diesel tank to a super clean unleaded gasoline tank. During the conversion, Petitioner used a transport carrier to drain the diesel from the tank to a transport carrier. Petitioner thereafter utilized a maintenance contractor to pump all residue from the bottom of the tank until it was dry. Petitioner thereafter flushed the lines with 100 gallons of new gasoline product before refilling the tank with 3,700 gallons of super clean unleaded gasoline. The diesel which was pumped out and the 100 gallons used for flushing was returned to Petitioner's Jacksonville terminal by a transport carrier. On July 3, 1989, Petitioner received another 1,300 gallons of super clean unleaded gasoline and stored it in the converted tank which had previously been used to store diesel fuel. At the time of Respondent's inspection of the Daytona Beach station on July 6, 1989, Petitioner had sold to the public, at retail, approximately 2,337 gallons of the contaminated fuel. At the time of inspector Myrick's inspection on July 6, 1989, Petitioner was advised of the contamination problem and a "stop order" was issued to correct the problem. In lieu of confiscation, Petitioner posted a refundable bond in the amount of $1,000 and retained the fuel. Petitioner had its transport carrier to again completely drain the converted tank and Petitioner returned 2,663 gallons to its Jacksonville terminal. Petitioner ordered 2,600 gallons of new product which was returned to the subject station for sale. On March 12, 1990, inspector Myrick made a routine inspection of Petitioner's retail station at 13987 Walsingham Road, Largo, Florida. A sample of the detroleum product was taken and analyzed. Respondent's analysis of the sample taken from Petitioner's Largo station revealed that the fuel was below standard. Petitioner's agent Switz admitted that more than 1,000 gallons of fuel had been sold to retail customers at a price at approximately $1.00 or more per gallon. Petitioner placed a $1,000 cash bond in lieu of confiscation to continue operating and to retain the fuel which was analyzed and found to be below standard at its Largo station.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a refund of the bonds posted in the subject cases. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: R. H. Switz Phillips Petroleum Company 3021 Landing Way Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services May Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John C. Whitton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection 3125 Conner Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of real property located at 726 North Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida, also known as DEP Facility No. 64-9100172. The Petitioner has been the owner of this site from 1982 to the present. From approximately 1984 and 1988, it was leased to a Mr. Jack Delaney. Apparently, during that time or before, the site was used as an AAMCO transmission repair shop and automobile repair facility. The Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP, Department), is an agency of the State of Florida responsible, in pertinent part, for the administration of Florida's Abandoned Tanks Restoration Program. Through an agreement with Volusia County, Florida, the county where the subject site is located, the Department has delegated to the Volusia County Environmental Control Division inspection and regulatory authority for purposes of cleanup of sites contaminated by petroleum, petroleum products or hydrocarbons. The facility in question included two 1,000-gallon underground storage tanks and three 550-gallon underground storage tanks (UST's). All of the tanks, when in service, had contained petroleum products of one form or another. The tanks at the front or "street-side" end of the facility property, tanks one and five, most likely contained gasoline, when in service, although at the time of inspection and remedial action, the tanks were filled with water. All of the storage tanks at the facility were removed under the supervision of the Volusia County environmental regulatory agency. The tanks were properly disposed of by a qualified subcontractor, and the contaminated soil at the site was removed and stored in a segregated, protected fashion, until shipment to a thermal processor to be burned and thus cleansed of its petroleum-related pollutants. The Volusia County Environmental Control Division made an inspection of the subject site and on September 10, 1987, informed Mr. Delaney, the lessee, that a considerable amount of soil contamination, due to petroleum or petroleum products, was present on the site. The Department maintains that the finding by the county agency was that the soil contamination was due to improper surface disposal of used oils. Mr. Ed Smith, who testified for the Petitioner, has been involved as a petroleum de-contamination contractor for such sites hundreds of times and was present throughout the cleanup operations conducted at the subject site. He established that, indeed, there were spillages of used and waste oils and petroleum products at the site but that a great deal of the contamination also resulted from underground leakage from the storage tanks, or some of them. Preponderant evidence was not adduced by the Department, merely through its reliance upon DEP Exhibit 1, Request No. 59, to show that the contamination at the site solely resulted from surface spillage, in consideration of the testimony of Mr. Smith, which is accepted. On or about September 19-20, 1990, five underground storage tanks were removed from the facility site by Hydroterra Environmental Services, Inc., a contractor at the site. Thereafter, an underground storage tank closure report (closure report) for the AAMCO transmission facility was prepared by Hydroterra Environmental Services, Inc. That report is in evidence as the Petitioner's Exhibit 20. The report and testimony reveals that a total of three 550-gallon underground storage tanks were removed from the facility. There were two 550- gallon underground storage tanks located in front of the facility, known as tanks one and five. When those two tanks were removed, both were found to contain water. It is not clear what originally was stored in those tanks, but they were, in all likelihood, utilized for the storage of gasoline. The closure report concerning tank one and tank five reveals that the fuel-dispensing capability of those tanks was discontinued many years ago. One of the tanks, tank one, leaked. It had holes caused by corrosion. An environmental consultant, however, utilizing an organic vapor analyzer (OVA), performed soil-monitoring tests during the excavation and removal of these two 550-gallon UST's, which were thought to have formerly contained gasoline (tank one and tank five). His single OVA reading at that site showed a "0 PPM" (parts per million) for that sampling location associated with the excavation of tank one and tank five near the front of the AAMCO facility. The environmental consultant also obtained a groundwater sample during excavation and removal of those two tanks. The sample was analyzed for the presence of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene (BETX). The parameters for BETX are utilized to determine the presence of petroleum contamination. The analytical results for that sample for the tank one and tank five excavation site indicate that the parameters for those hydrocarbon compounds were all below detectable limits. Analytical results for the water sample, however, did indicate the presence of chlorobenzene. Chlorobenzene is associated with solvents, is an aromatic hydrocarbon compound and is a form of petroleum, that is, it is made from crude oil derivatives. With regard to these two tanks and, indeed, all of the tanks excavated, there was an absence of "free product" on the water table. That is, gasoline, waste oil or other forms of petroleum or petroleum products were not separately identified and existing on the surface of the groundwater table. Upon visual inspection, as shown by the Petitioner's Exhibit 20, the closure report, the testimony of Mr. Smith, as well as the photographs in evidence, tanks one, five, four, and six had multiple holes from small "pinhead size" to one inch in diameter. The tanks thus would have leaked any contents contained therein. Upon excavation of the tanks from the site, they were cleaned, de-commissioned, and transported to Jacksonville, Florida, to a subcontractor for disposal as scrap. Tanks two and three were determined to be intact, with no apparent holes. Tank one had one or more holes. The evidence shows that that tank was suspected of containing gasoline during its useful life, although when it was excavated, it was found to be full of water. The OVA and groundwater tests taken in conjunction with the removal of tanks one and five from the site near the front of the facility do not show excessive contamination, however. This is corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Smith, testifying for the Petitioner, who is a licensed pollutant storage tanks specialty contractor and a general contractor. He has removed hundreds of underground storage tanks and conducted many such cleanup projects. He himself supervised the removal of the tanks and was on site virtually every day. With regard to the removal site for tanks one and five, which were in close proximity to each other, he confirmed that he felt that the site was "clean". Thus, it has not been demonstrated by preponderant evidence that tanks one and five contributed to the contamination of groundwater and soil at the site. In the rear of the AAMCO transmission facility, there were two 1,000- gallon UST's. One of them had been used for storage of waste oil and transmission fluid (tank two). The second 1,000-gallon UST, tank three, had been used for storage of new transmission fluid. Tanks two and three were located on either side of a concrete apron at the rear door of the transmission shop. Tank two was excavated separately from tanks three, four and six. There is no evidence that tanks two and three, the two 1,000-gallon tanks, had holes or other sources of leakage. During the excavation and removal of tank two, an OVA was used to perform the soil monitoring tests. A single reading of 328PPM was recorded for the sampling location associated with the excavation and removal of tank two. A groundwater sample (MW-SB No. 3) was obtained from the tank pit, where tank two was excavated and removed. That sample indicates that there was a "odor of solvents". The analytical results for that groundwater sample indicate an analysis for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene, showing that the parameters for benzene and ethylbenzene were below detectable limits. However, the analytical results for that sample indicate that chlorobenzene and 1,4- dichlorobenzene were above detectable limits, with significantly-elevated readings, representing excessive contamination with these constituents. These are consistent with the presence of aromatic solvents. Such compounds are hydrocarbons, being derived from petroleum. The groundwater sample related to tank three also showed very high levels of xylene, chlorobenzene, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene; volatile, aromatic hydrocarbon compounds derived from petroleum. The excavation pit for tank three yielded a groundwater sample of similar quality, in terms of the odor of solvents and elevated levels of the above-mentioned hydrocarbon compounds associated with solvents. Tank six, a 550-gallon tank, was located immediately adjacent to and in close proximity to tank three, between tank three and the concrete apron at the rear door of the transmission shop. It contained water at the time it was excavated and inspected. However, it had been used for storage of petroleum or petroleum products of unknown nature. Because of the nature of the business located at the site, the petroleum products contained in the other nearby tanks and because of the petroleum products saturating the soil in the area immediately surrounding and beneath the tank, it is inferred that the tank contained waste oil, transmission fluid, or solvents at various times and occasions. The excavation for tanks three and six, as well as "tank No. four", which was actually the 55-gallon oil and water separator, was one continuous excavation. The water sample taken with regard to the location of tank six shows significantly-elevated levels of chlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and xylene. The Department's witness, Mr. Register, acknowledged that elevated levels of pollutants in the pit associated with tanks four, three and six were consistent with the presence of solvents and waste oil or "oils and greases". Mr. Smith, the certified pollution specialty contractor supervising and conducting the project, described in his testimony how one can recognize contaminated soil in the field and that soil is saturated when one can squeeze petroleum compounds out of the soil with the hand. This shows excessive contamination of soils at such a site, as was acknowledged by Mr. Register, the engineer for the Bureau of Waste Cleanup for the Department, who testified. Mr. Smith thus established that the soils in the pit at the rear of the facility were saturated with petroleum or petroleum products. These were derived from waste oils and greases, consisting of waste oil and transmission fluid, as well as solvents. The pollutants leaked from tanks six and four, although Mr. Smith acknowledges in his testimony that tank four is not really considered to be a storage facility but, rather, a 55-gallon drum used as an oil/water separator, connected by a clay pipeline to a catch basin immediately in the rear of the apron and rear door of the building. In summary, through Mr. Smith's testimony, it was established that there was excessive contamination at the site, as shown by the saturation of the soils in the excavation pits from which the tanks were removed, in the manner described above. Under Mr. Smith's supervision, all appropriate remedial action was done at the site, all contaminated soil was removed and cleansed at an appropriate thermal treatment facility. The site was declared "clean" by the county agency referenced above, which had supervision of the project under its agreement with the Department. The initial remedial action task undertaken by the Petitioner, as shown by Mr. Smith's testimony, included removal of excessively-contaminated soils, as defined under Section 62.770.200(2), Florida Administrative Code, concerning the excavations at the rear of the transmission shop. Tank six is the only storage tank shown to have been leaking at the rear of the shop, but the spread or diffusion rate and area of contamination which leaked from that tank through the excavation area is not precisely definable. In any event, a significant portion of the soil in the excavation area at the rear of the transmission shop, including that occupied by tank six, was shown to be excessively contaminated and much of it emanated from tank six, especially evidenced by its central location in the contaminated portion of the site. Removal of that contaminated soil was part of the initial remedial action task. Likewise, the removal of the tanks was part of the performance of the initial remedial action task. In fact, all of the excess contamination could not be removed by removal of the soil without removing the tanks first, to get access to the excessively-contaminated areas beneath the surface grade. There is, however, no evidence that the initial remedial action task, with regard to each tank and tank site, which included removal of the tanks and excessively- contaminated soils, included any necessity to recover "free product" with regard to any of the tanks or tank locations. Finally, it is shown that transmission fluid and waste oil, as well as the other, solvent-related constituents of the contamination at the site, are petroleum or petroleum products. They can be, and are used, as a mixture amounting to a "liquid fuel commodity made from petroleum" and such waste petroleum products are often used in Florida, particularly for boiler fuel to fire industrial-type boilers. These compounds found at the site are both petroleum and petroleum products and are hydrocarbons, as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes. It was thus demonstrated that the contamination at the facility was the result of a discharge of petroleum products, from a petroleum storage system, in the manner and for the reasons delineated more particularly above. On or about January 30, 1991, the Petitioner filed an abandoned tank restoration program application form with the Department. The Department issued the Petitioner an "order of eligibility" under that program for the abandoned tank restoration, which final order was entered on August 16, 1991. That order of eligibility is limited to "contamination related to the storage of petroleum products, as defined in Section 376.301(10), Florida Statutes. On February 14, 1992, the Petitioner filed a reimbursement application for all allowable costs with the Department. On or about April 28, 1993, a "final order of determination of reimbursement" for allowable costs was issued by the Department, which denied all reimbursement of cleanup costs associated with contamination of the property. That action was the result of the Department's position that the contamination resulted from improper disposal of petroleum products at the AAMCO transmission facility and not due to contamination of the site from the storage tank system.
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 RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Protection awarding reimbursement for the cleanup of DEP Facility No. 64-9100172 in accordance with the considerations, findings and conclusions made above. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 93-3313 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-7. Accepted. 8. Rejected, as constituting argument and not a proposed finding of fact. 9-10. Accepted. 11. Accepted, as to those tanks delineated more particularly in the Hearing officer's findings of fact. 12-13. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted. 3. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. 4-12. Accepted, but not all of which are materially dispositive. 13-19. Accepted, but not necessarily materially dispositive. 20-23. Accepted. 24-25. Accepted, but not material. 26. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-29. Accepted. 30. Accepted, but not materially dispositive. 31-34. Accepted, but not in themselves materially dispositive. 35-36. Accepted. 37-39. Accepted, but immaterial. 40-45. Accepted, but not in themselves materially dispositive. 46-49. Accepted. 50. Accepted, only as an indication of the Department's position. 51-55. Accepted. 56-64. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 65. Accepted. 66-69. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, and erroneous as a matter of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Owens & Riggio, P.A. 125 North Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1980, Respondent converted one of its service station fuel tanks from gasoline to diesel. The tank was cleaned by Garrison Petroleum Equipment Company at Pinellas Park. Respondent paid $67.08 for this service. That same day, Respondent received 5,176 gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel from Jack Russell Oil Company, Inc., of Clearwater, a Union 76 dealer. On March 18, 1980, a standards inspector employed by Petitioner took samples from the Respondent's gasoline and diesel pumps. These samples were delivered to Petitioner's portable laboratory in Clearwater where they were analyzed. The gasoline was found to be satisfactory, but the diesel sample showed fuel contamination. The tests were conducted in accordance with the methods and standards established by Rule 5F-2.01(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the "flash point" of the diesel sample was 88 degrees F, but must be 125 degrees F or above to meet the established standard. Petitioner's inspector then returned to the Pronto Car Wash station where he issued a stop-sale order to Respondent. Subsequently, the inspector accepted Respondent's cash bond in lieu of fuel confiscation. This procedure, agreed to by both parties, allowed Respondent to pay $865.36 to the State of Florida and retain the contaminated fuel. Respondent originally paid $5,286.25 for 5,176 gallons of diesel fuel. He had sold 736 gallons of this amount at the time of the stop-sale order on March 18, 1980. Total sales of this diesel fuel amounted to $865.36, which was the amount of bond demanded by Petitioner. Respondent paid $200 to Patriot Oil, Inc., to remove the contaminated fuel, but received a $3,225 credit for this fuel. Respondent does not deny that the fuel was contaminated, but seeks to establish that he acted in good faith. Respondent had the tank cleaned prior to the diesel changeover and dealt with established tank cleaning and fuel wholesaling companies. In addition, he kept the tank locked at all times after delivery of the fuel. Respondent does not contest forfeiture of his bond, but seeks refunds of state and federal taxes paid on the unsold fuel. However, Respondent was correctly informed that refund of tax payments will require him to communicate with agencies which are not parties to this proceeding.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter its order declaring forfeiture of Respondent's $865.36 bond posted in lieu of confiscation of contaminated diesel fuel. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephenson Anderson Pronto Car Wash 220 34th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Whitton, Chief Gasoline and Oil Section Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-8584
