The Issue Whether Petitioner's service station site known as Siesta Key Exxon Village, at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, is eligible for state administered cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Weeks Oil Company, Inc., owns and operates a service station, Siesta Key Exxon, located at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. On December 21, 1988, Petitioner applied, pursuant to the Early Detection Incentive Program (EDI), for state assistance due to a suspected discharge of gasoline at the facility. The application indicated that a manual test of a monitoring well, conducted on December 16, 1988, detected contamination. After free product was discovered in the monitoring wells in December, 1988, subsequent monitoring well reports for the months of January - May, 1989, indicated the presence of free petroleum product. The January, 1989, monitoring report indicates six inches of free product; the February, 1989, monitoring report indicates twelve inches of free product; the March, 1989, report failed to indicate the presence of free product; and both the April and May, 1989, monitoring reports indicate the presence of sixteen inches of free product. Purity Well Company, the monitoring well contractor retained by Weeks Oil, bailed free product out of the monitoring wells once a month during the period January through May, 1989. On May 23, 1989, Richard Steele of the Sarasota County Pollution Control Division conducted an Early Detection Incentive Program Inspection at Siesta Key Exxon, 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, DER Facility #588521170. During the inspection, Mr. Steele examined the monitoring well reports for Siesta Key Exxon for the months of January through May, 1989. Evidence of contamination was indicated by each month's monitoring well report, and the amount of free product indicated by the monitoring well reports increased over time. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele observed a minimum of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three. As part of the Early Detection Incentive Program inspection, Mr. Steele requested inventory records for Siesta Key Exxon, which records were provided on June 7, 1989. Inventory records for January, February, March and April, 1989, indicated a total shortage of 441 gallons of gasoline. Mr. Steele's inspection report of May 22, 1989, indicates that no initial remedial action other than the bailing of monitoring wells occurred subsequent to the December, 1988, EDI application. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele was neither provided with any evidence of repairs to the petroleum storage system made for the purpose of acting upon monitoring well reports, nor did he visually observe any evidence of repair. By letter dated May 24, 1989, from Richard Steele to Weeks Oil Company, Mr. Weeks was informed of the presence of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three and specifically requested a tank tightness test. The May 24, 1987, letter requested Mr. Weeks to send the results of the tank tightness test to the Sarasota County Pollution Control Office or the Department of Environmental Regulation district office. Mr. Weeks discussed with Steele the fact that the contaminants appeared to come from tanks no longer in service, which tanks were scheduled for relining. Mr. Weeks did not consider it practicable to test tanks scheduled for relining and thought Steele agreed that he could delay the testing until the tanks were refitted. Mr. Steele never made such a commitment, and the tank test was never conducted. On October 20, 1989, the tanks at Siesta Key Exxon were excavated and fiberglass coated. The August 22, 1989 ineligibility determination cites as the reason for denial, the failure of Weeks Oil to conduct a tank tightness test as requested by Sarasota County or otherwise immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, The ineligibility letter concludes that failure to immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, shall be construed as gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system, which precludes participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program. A tank tightness test should be performed by the owner or operator of a petroleum storage system where there are any discrepancies in inventory records or monthly monitoring system checks. Rule 17-61.050(4)(c) 3., Florida Administrative Code, requires upon discovery of an inventory discrepancy that investigation of the system "shall not stop until the source of the discrepancy has been found, the tank has been tested, repaired, or replaced, or the entire procedure has been completed." Pursuant to Rule 17-61.050(6), Florida Administrative Code, the owner or operator of a storage system shall test the entire storage system whenever the Department has ordered that such a test is necessary to protect the lands, ground waters, or surface waters of the state. Specifically, the Department may order a tank test where a discharge detection device or monitoring well indicates that pollutant has been or is being discharged. Given the inventory record discrepancy and the amount of free product continually observed in the monitoring wells at Siesta Key Exxon, it was appropriate for Mr. Steele to request a tank tightness test. The bailing of a contaminated monitoring well is not an appropriate method of determining the source of petroleum contamination. The failure of Weeks Oil Company, Inc., to timely conduct a tank test as requested by Sarasota County, acting on behalf of the Department, creates a risk of or the potential for greater damage to the environment because a continual unchecked discharge leads to the release of more petroleum product into the environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet D. Bowman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2400 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 James B. Weeks, Jr. Weeks Oil Company Post Office Box 100 Sarasota, FL 34230 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a gasoline station located at 4625 U.S. 27 North, Davenport, Florida. The site was constructed in late 1986 and opened in early 1987. The underground tanks storing the gasoline are connected by pipes running underground to the pumps from which the gasoline is dispensed. A small portion of the underground supply pipe is accessible from the surface through a manhole. The excavated area exposing the pipe and what appears to be a valve are separated from the surrounding soil by a large, cylindrical corrugated pipe laid perpendicular to and above the underground supply pump. The leak in question was caused when the lower edge of the corrugated pipe cut into the underground supply pipe for the premium gasoline. The cut was caused by the cumulative effect of vehicular traffic driving over the manhole cover, placing pressure on the corrugated pipe, and eventually forcing the edge of the corrugated pipe to rupture the underground supply pipe with which it was in contact. Petitioner owns and operates a large number of gasoline stations. This incident is the first time that a corrugated pipe has cut into an underground supply pipe. The use of the corrugated pipe is not at issue in the present case. Pursuant to company policy, station employees complete a daily recap each day and forward the recap document to Petitioner. Part of the recap document is devoted to "gas inventory." The daily recap, which covers the preceding 24 hours, requires that an employee determine the amount of gasoline in each underground storage tank, adjust the figure for amounts sold and delivered, and then compare the figure to the amount determined to have been in the tank 24 hours earlier. This reconciliation is normally completed by mid- to late-morning each day. A station employee "sticks" each tank to determine how much gasoline it contains. The procedure requires that the employee insert a pole into the bottom of an underground tank. By observing the length of the pole dampened by gasoline, the employee can calculate approximately the amount of gasoline in the tank. Although stick reading results in an approximation, the results are fairly accurate, leaving at most, in the case of this 12,000-gallon tank, a margin of error of 50 gallons. "Sticking" normally takes place daily between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. On the morning of March 6, 1988, which was a Sunday, the employee sticking the tank calculated that the premium tank held 5419 gallons. There had been no deliveries during the preceding 24 hours. During the same period, the station had sold 914 gallons of premium gasoline. However, the last sticking 24 hours earlier had disclosed 7989 gallons. A total of 1656 gallons were thus unaccounted for. The recap document requires that the station notify Respondent's "Dist. Mgr. immediately if shortage of 500 gallons or more appears." The employee failed to do so. On the morning of March 7, 1988, the employee sticking the premium tank calculated that it held 2147 gallons. During the preceding 24 hours, there had been no deliveries and 826 gallons of premium gasoline had been sold. Consequently, 2446 gallons were missing, for a total of 4102 gallons over the past two stickings. As soon as the reconciliation was completed, the employee contacted Respondent's management, which ordered that the pump be shut down during the afternoon of March 7, 1988. Comparing the sales of premium gasoline for the 24- hour period ending March 8 with those ending March 7, which are comparable because the sale of regular gasoline on those two days is almost identical, the station sold about 39% of a normal day's sales of premium gasoline. Reflecting the shutdown of the premium pumps on March 7, the employee sticking the tank on the morning of March 8, 1988, found 593 gallons. During the preceding 24 hours, there had been no deliveries and sales of 321 gallons of premium had been sold, leaving 1233 gallons unaccounted for. The total over the three stickings was 5335 gallons lost. The station had previously not experienced losses even approaching this magnitude. The daily recap for the 24-hour period ending on March 5, 1988, showed no significant loss. Although fluctuations in volume may occur shortly after deliveries due to temperature differentials, such fluctuations could not reasonably have accounted for these vast discrepancies. Theft, measurement errors, and recording errors may also account for variations in readings, but not of the magnitude and repetition involved in this case. Between the time of the reconciliation on the morning of March 6 and the system shutdown on the afternoon of March 7, the system continued operating and, thus, leaking for 28-30 hours. Given that 2446 gallons were lost during the 24-hour period ending on March 7 and 1233 gallons lost during about 9 hours on March 8, at least 100 gallons per hour were escaping from the pipe during these last 28-30 hours, for a total of between 2800 and 3000 gallons. For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the actions and omissions of the station employees following the reconciliation of inventory figures on March 6 constituted gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. These actions and omissions were in the scope of employment. During the relevant period of time, none of Respondent's employees performed monthly checks of the monitoring wells to determine the presence of leaks. This failure was due to ignorance and was not wilful. This failure in no way contributed to the leak or to any delay in discovering the leak. During the relevant period of time, the monitoring wells had not been properly grouted to prevent introduction of surficial contamination. However, this failure was unknown to Petitioner, which had hired a contractor to construct the wells and reasonably had relied on the contractor to grout properly the monitoring wells. The improper grouting in no way contributed to the leak or to any delay in discovering the leak. During the relevant period of time, Petitioner was not performing weekly or five-day averages of inventory records concerning gasoline. The failure to perform these reconciliations in no way contributed to the leak or to any delay in discovering the leak. Following the discovery of the leak, Petitioner notified Respondent on March 8. Petitioner requested approval to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program by filing a Notification Application dated March 29, 1988. On July 14, 1988, Respondent completed the Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form and Early Detection Incentive Program Compliance Verification Checklist. These documents indicate that Respondent was not monitoring monthly its monitoring wells, failed to grout properly its monitoring wells, was not performing the weekly or five-day averages of inventory (although it was taking daily inventory and reconciling opening and closing inventories), and did not immediately investigate the 1600-gallon shortage disclosed on the morning of March 6, 1988. By letter dated September 30, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner that its site was ineligible for state-administered cleanup under the Early Detection Incentive Program. The letter cited as reasons the wilful failure to perform monthly checks of the monitoring well, the failure to immediately investigate discrepancies in inventory records while the system continued to operate after initial discovery of the 1600-gallon loss, and the improper construction of the monitoring well with respect to the improper grouting. The letter concludes that these items constitute gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system, which precludes participation in the program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1561 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-4: adopted. 5-6: adopted in substance. 7-16: adopted. 17: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 18-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: to the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Petitioner was performing the five-day or weekly averaging, rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. However, in view of the findings and conclusions contained in the Recommended Order, rejected as unnecessary. 22-26: adopted. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1-4: rejected as conclusions of law. 5-6: adopted. 7-16: rejected as subordinate. 17: rejected as an inference unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 18-26: adopted. 27: rejected as irrelevant. 28-29 and 31: rejected as legal argument. 30: adopted. 32: adopted. 33: adopted except that the system was shut down at some point into the day of the second sticking showing a significant shortage. 34-38: adopted or adopted in substance. 39: rejected as speculation. 40: rejected as irrelevant. 41-42: adopted. 43: rejected as irrelevant. 44-45: rejected as subordinate. 46: adopted. 47-49: rejected as subordinate. 50: adopted. 51-53: rejected as vague with respect to reference to "Racetrac." 54: adopted. 55: rejected as cumulative. 56-57: rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Steven M. Mills Decker & Hallman Suite 1200 Marquis II Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue Atlanta, GA 30303 Michael P. Donaldson Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether to approve an application by Respondent, Dan R. Hughes Company, L.P. (applicant or Hughes), for an oil well drilling permit authorizing the drilling of an exploratory oil well in Collier County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Mosher resides on a three-acre lot at 4695 26th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida. His residence is around 2,500 feet west of the proposed wellsite, but Mosher says that the eastern edge of his lot "might be 2,000 feet" from the drilling site. He has not, however, measured the actual distance to confirm this assertion. Preserve is a Florida non-profit corporation whose purpose is to educate the public on issues affecting the preservation and protection of the environment, particularly the environment of south and southwest Florida. It was formed in response to Hughes' intention to drill for oil in the area. The corporation is not a membership organization; rather, it has around 25 non-member, active volunteers, six member directors, and an unknown number of donors. Excluding Mosher, the other member directors live between three and ten miles away from the proposed wellsite. The record does not show where the 25 volunteers reside. The corporate representative testified that four directors, including Mosher, regularly use the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) to observe wildlife and habitat. However, the public access point to the Refuge appears to be at least several miles from the wellsite. Based upon an email survey, he stated that a "substantial number [around 36] of donors and volunteers utilize the panther refuge," but he was unaware of when, or how often, this occurred. About every six weeks, meetings are conducted at Mosher's home, which are attended by some, but not all, of the directors and volunteers. Schwartz's primary residence is in Lake Worth (Palm Beach County) where he serves as the unpaid executive director of the South Florida Wildlands Association.3 He sometimes provides paid tours in the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp and has led "numerous" free hikes into panther habitat to look for signs of panthers. These hikes are limited to the hiking trails in the southeast corner of the Refuge, which is the only area that can be accessed by the public. He represented himself as an advocate for the protection of wildlife habitat in the greater Everglades, with a particular interest in the Florida panther. Hughes is a Texas limited partnership engaged in the business of oil and gas exploration, which is registered to do business in the State of Florida. Hughes has applied for a permit to drill an exploratory well for oil in Collier County. If the well is commercially viable, Hughes must apply for an operating permit at a later time. The Department has jurisdiction to issue permits for the drilling and exploring for, or production of, oil under part I, chapter 377. Pursuant to that authority, the Department reviewed the oil and gas well drilling permit application. The Application and Project After the application was deemed complete by the Department, it was distributed for comment to a number of local, state, and federal agencies. While some commented on the application, no agency had any unresolved concerns at the end of the application process. Hughes met all rule requirements for performance bonds or securities, and it provided all information required by rule. The proposed site is located on the southeast corner of an active farm field in the Big Cypress Swamp watershed, just north of a speedway now used as a test track. Surface holes for oil wells are commonly located on farm land, and farm fields are compatible with oil wells. Based upon a mineral lease between Hughes and the owner of the land, Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., Hughes has the right to locate and drill the well at the proposed surface hole location. The Refuge was established by Congress in 1989 to protect the Florida panther and its habitat and is located approximately 20 miles east of Naples. Around 98 percent of the Refuge is closed to any public activity. The project is consistent with the comprehensive conservation plan for the Refuge prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in that the plan recommends "slant drilling" off of the Refuge. Although Mosher and Preserve argue that the drill hole should be moved further east into wetlands, and Schwartz contends that it should be moved further west away from the Refuge, the proposed location of the drilling pad and project site is reasonable with respect to the nature, appearance, and location of the proposed drilling site. Likewise, the location is reasonable with respect to the type, nature, and extent of Hughes' ownership. The proposed activity can best be characterized as a "resource play," where an operator drills toward a known resource. This is distinguished from a wildcat operation, where the operator is drilling in an unproven area. Hughes proposes to target the rubble zone (i.e., the lower zone) within the lower Sunniland formation, a geologic formation thousands of feet below the ground surface that runs through southwest Florida. Hughes will first drill a vertical pilot hole and then drill horizontally from the hole bottom in a southeast direction toward a formerly drilled oil well known as the Tribal Well. In order to increase the probability of locating commercially available petroleum, Hughes plans to proceed from west to east in order to arrive at a perpendicular direction of existing limestone fractures as the drilling approaches the Tribal Well. When that well was drilled vertically into the rubble zone in the 1970s, oil rose to the ground surface. Thus, the indicated presence of oil is sufficient to warrant and justify the exploration for oil at this location. The proposed depth of the pilot hole is 13,900 feet measured depth (MD/13,900 feet true vertical depth (TVD)), which will allow assessment of the upper Sunniland, lower Sunniland, and Pumpkin Bay Formations. If the evaluation determines that the well will likely be commercially productive, Hughes will complete a 4,100-foot horizontal leg in the lower Sunniland rubble zone with a landing depth at 12,500 feet MD/12,064 TVD and a total depth of 16,600 feet MD/12,064 feet TVD. The footprint for the drilling pad will be 225 feet by 295 feet, or 2.6 acres, with a two-foot earthen berm around the perimeter of the operating area to contain all water on the site. A secondary containment area within the perimeter of the site will be covered by high-density polyethylene to contain and collect any accidental spills. A drilling rig, generators, and other drilling equipment will be on the pad during drilling operations. A maximum of 20 persons will be at the site, and then only for one day of operations. At all other times, Hughes anticipates there will be a five-person drill crew plus support personnel on site. After drilling, Hughes will remove its equipment. Once the access road is built and the equipment put in place, the drilling activities will take place 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and will be completed in approximately 60 to 70 days. The on-site diesel generators will run simultaneously 24 hours per day while drilling is taking place. The pad will be illuminated at night with lights on the drilling derrick and throughout the pad. Construction of the drilling pad will require trucking around 12,000 to 14,000 cubic yards of fill to the drilling location. Additional traffic for bringing in fill, piping, and related equipment will occur, but the exact amount of traffic is unknown. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) previously approved an environmental resource permit (ERP) to allow the construction and operation of a surface water management system on Camp Keais. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) also permitted the same system under the Clean Water Act. The latter permit requires mitigation for wetlands and Florida panther habitat compensation. Based on the proposed wellsite, the SFWMD modified the ERP to allow a culvert and access to the proposed wellsite. In addition to the oil drilling permit application, Hughes has applied for two water well drilling permits from the SFWMD, and an injection well drilling permit. Petitioners and Intervenor's Objections The challengers have raised a number of objections that they assert require denial of the application. Conflicting testimony was presented on these issues, which has been resolved in Respondents' favor as being the more credible and persuasive testimony. Mosher and Preserve Mosher and Preserve raise two broad objections. First, they contend that hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S) is likely to be encountered in the drilling of the proposed well. They further contend that the H2S contingency plan submitted by Hughes is not sufficient to evacuate the public in the event of an incident where H2S is uncontrollably released under pressure. Second, they contend that the Committee did not review the application under the process contemplated by section 377.42(2). Except for these two objections, they agree that no other issues remain. See TR., Vol. I, p. 33. Within the petroleum industry, drilling operators create H2S plans when there is reason to believe that the operator may encounter H2S while drilling. This practice is codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-27.001(7), which requires a contingency plan only when H2S is "likely" to be encountered while drilling. The plan must "meet generally accepted industry standards and practices," and it must contain measures "for notifying authorities and evacuating civilians in the event of an accident." Id. See also rule 62C-26.003(3), which requires a contingency plan "if appropriate." The plan is prepared for two main users: the personnel working at the drilling site; and local emergency management officials, who must plan and train for the implementation of emergency activities. The parties agree that the "generally accepted industry standards and practices" for the oil and natural gas industry are found in the operating standards and recommended practices adopted by The American Petroleum Institute (API), a trade association for the oil and natural gas industry. Recommended Practice 49 (API 49) is the generally accepted industry standard for oil and gas drilling operations likely to encounter H2S and was relied upon by all parties throughout the hearing. The standard includes guidance on personnel protection measures, personnel training, personnel protection equipment, and community contingency planning. API 49 recommends the use of a community warning and protection plan when atmospheric H2S exposures beyond the well site could exceed potentially harmful exposure levels and could affect the general public. Mosher/Preserve's expert opined that H2S might be encountered at levels as high as 21 percent (210,000 parts per million (ppm)) in southwest Florida, and that "it's quite likely" H2S would be encountered at the proposed wellsite. At the same time, however, he agreed with the assessment of Respondents' experts that the likelihood of encountering H2S at this site was merely "possible," "sporadic," and "unlikely," and that there was "zero" potential of a severe H2S release under high pressure. Florida has two major oil producing areas: the Sunniland Trend in southwest Florida and the Smackover formation near Jay, Florida, in the northwest part of the state. Unlike the Smackover formation which has higher temperatures and pressures and a high concentration of H2S, the Sunniland Trend has normal temperatures and pressures and a sporadic presence of H2S. Less than two percent of wells in southwest Florida have been reported to contain H2S, and those reports relate to production wells where bacteria (biological contamination) was likely introduced into the formation during production. Of over 300 oil wells drilled in southwest Florida, only six were reported to have encountered H2S. Notably, the Tribal Well, located 1.5 miles to the southeast of the proposed site, encountered relatively low pressure during drilling and had no H2S, and another well located 12 miles to the north likewise had no high pressure or H2S. It is unlikely that Hughes will encounter high pressure or H2S if it drills at the proposed site. Even though it is unlikely that high pressure or H2S will be encountered during the drilling of this proposed well, Hughes still submitted an H2S contingency plan as part of the drilling application. The Department determined the plan provided an effective design to detect, evaluate, and control any hazardous release of H2S. In response to public concerns, in January 2014 Hughes revised its plan to provide more protections. The revised plan exceeds the guidance provided in API 49. The revised plan clarifies and adds multiple protections, including implementing the plan at a vertical depth of 9,000 feet, which is 2,700 feet before the zone that Mosher claims could contain H2S; clarifying that an H2S alarm notification at 15 ppm would result in an instant well shut-in (i.e., closure of the well) to prevent the escape of H2S; instituting a reverse 911 call system to allow local officials to notify the public by telephone of any incident; creating an air dispersion model to understand the likelihood of public exposure; and adding H2S scavengers to the drilling mud. Adding H2S scavengers in the mud is a protective measure. Specifically, the zinc oxide scavengers will react with H2S to create benign zinc sulfide and water. Even if H2S is present in the formation, the H2S scavengers will neutralize the H2S before it could reach the surface. The H2S scavengers will effectively eliminate the likelihood of H2S escaping from the well during drilling operations. The drilling plan requires the Trinity C formation (which Hughes estimated will begin at a depth of around 11,850 feet) to be cemented off and sealed once drilled. This formation will not be encountered in the first 15 or 20 days of drilling. Once encountered, the formation will be exposed for only four to six days. Even if H2S were encountered during this short exposed duration, all of the protections included in the revised plan would be in place, including overbalanced drilling mud, H2S scavengers, blowout preventers, H2S monitors, and alarms. When wells are drilled, there are numerous personnel monitoring the drilling fluid, or mud, which is designed not only to carry cuttings to the surface, but more importantly to act as a barrier to keep fluids or gasses in the geologic formation. The mud is weighted with additives to combat reservoir pressures. Drill operators want the same amount of mud pumped into the hole as the amount flowing back up. If more fluid is flowing back up, then the mud is not heavy enough to hold back the fluids or gasses encountered. If this imbalance occurs, the well is shut- in immediately and the mud weight is adjusted. A shut-in can be accomplished in just a few seconds. Anything in a shut-in well will stay in the well. Hughes' normal drilling plan is to slightly overbalance the mud weight. This ensures that nothing unintentionally escapes from the reservoir. Mosher and Preserve contend that if H2S is encountered, dangerous concentrations of H2S would leave the wellsite. In response to this type of concern, as part of the revised plan, Hughes conducted an air dispersion model using the methodology provided by API 49. The API 49 model is a Gaussian model with default values reflecting the worst-case exposures. The peer- reviewed and conservative model calculated by Dr. Walker looked at H2S concentrations of 10, 15, and 100 ppm. At the extreme case, a 100-ppm release at the well would be reduced below 10 ppm within about 20 feet from the well and further reduced to one ppm within 60 feet from the well. Although H2S is unlikely to escape the well, 100 ppm was selected as a precautionary level because this level is an immediate danger to human life and health. Reaching 100 ppm is highly unlikely because at an instantaneous reading of 15 ppm, the well is immediately shut-in. The air dispersion model results demonstrate that atmospheric H2S exposures beyond the wellsite could not exceed potentially harmful exposure levels nor could exposures affect the general public. Thus, even though the plan includes a community warning and protection provision, it is not required under API 49. In an abundance of caution, however, the plan provides for a public notification zone of 2,000 feet in case of an H2S release. This zone is two orders of magnitude beyond the 20- foot, 10 ppm distance dispersion of H2S based on the modeled worse case release and exceeds any required notification zones in other states. The notification boundary is conservative, as compared with industry standards. While Mosher's expert recommended more stringent standards than API 49, he knew of no contingency plan for an oil drilling permit in the United States that included his recommended standards. Mosher's expert testified that based on his review of literature, the lowest observable adverse effect from H2S was at concentrations of 2.1 ppm. Based on a worst case scenario release of 100 ppm of H2S, the gas would disperse to a concentration of 2.1 ppm in less than 40 feet from the well. The property boundary abutting the neighborhood to the west is over 800 feet from the well. API 49 expressly provides that wellsite personnel should be provided protection devices if concentrations of H2S exceed 10 ppm for an eight-hour time-weighted average. The revised plan requires wellsite personnel to don a self-contained breathing apparatus if the monitors encounter an instantaneous reading of 10 ppm H2S. Instantaneous readings are more protective of human health than the time-weighted averages proposed by Mosher's expert. Using an instantaneous trigger is another area where the revised plan exceeds the recommendation of API 49. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the H2S contingency plan meets or exceeds guidance of API 49. The revised plan requires hands-on training for public officials and fire/rescue staff before reaching the depth of 9,000 feet. The revised plan further requires hands-on training and drills related to the procedures for use, and location of, all self- contained breathing apparatus and evacuation procedures. The plan is a complete and accurate contingency plan that will assist operators and local emergency management in the unlikely event of an H2S escape. It exceeds the degree of caution typically employed in industry standards. Mosher and Preserve contend that the plan fails to include specific instructions and training for nearby residents in the event of an emergency. However, emergency plans are designed for use by operators at the facility and the local emergency management officials rather than nearby residents. Thus, the Department did not require the applicant to provide specific instructions for those residents. Mosher and Preserve also contend that the plan fails to adequately describe the evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. However, evacuation routes and the potential closure of roads are normally in the domain of local governments, as the operator and Department have no control over this action. Mosher and Preserve contend that the plan does not include complete and accurate information for all property owners in the area. This is understandable since some property owners either failed to respond to inquiries by Hughes when it assembled the information for the plan or were reluctant to provide any personal information. Recognizing this problem, the Department reviewed the website of the Collier County property appraiser to complete the information. To the extent information on certain parcels may not be complete, Hughes can update that aspect of the plan on an on-going basis before operations begin. If a permit is issued, the Department will continue to coordinate with Collier County and other local emergency management officials for the purpose of planning to implement the contingency plan. Based on the foregoing, the evidence establishes that the probability of a dangerous release of H2S beyond the wellsite is highly remote and speculative in nature. The revised contingency plan is consistent with industry standards and satisfies the requirements of the rule. Schwartz Like Mosher and Preserve, Schwartz agreed that except for the concerns expressed in his amended pleading, no other issues remain. Schwartz first contends that Hughes did not demonstrate sufficient efforts to select a proposed location for drilling to minimize impacts as required by rule 62C-30.005. Subparagraph (2)(b)1. requires that drilling sites be located "to minimize impacts on the vegetation and wildlife, including rare and endangered species, and the surface water resources." In particular, Schwartz is concerned about the potential impact on the Florida panther, an endangered species. Hughes selected the proposed site primarily because of its proximity to the Tribal Well, which had a significant show of oil. In order to increase the chances for commercial production, the horizontal segment of the well needs to be perpendicular to the natural fractures in the limestone. In this location, Hughes must drill horizontally from west to east in the direction of the Tribal Well. Hughes was unable to locate the well on the automotive test track directly south of the agricultural field and west of the Tribal Well because of objections by Harley-Davidson, then the owner of the track. A second proposed location just east of the test track was considered but Harley-Davidson would not grant access from the track to the upland sites on the adjacent location. A third option was to construct a lengthy access road from the north to one of the upland sites just east of the test track. However, this alternative would have resulted in significant impacts to wetlands and native vegetation. The proposed site offers the least amount of environmental impact. It is 1.5 miles from the Tribal Well. It has no federal or jurisdictional wetlands on the site, and groundwater modeling submitted with an application for a water use permit demonstrated that the proposed use of water will not adversely affect surrounding wetlands. The proposed access road and drilling pad will not impact any cypress-mixed forest swamps, hardwood hammocks, mangrove forests, archeological sites, or native ceremonial grounds. Nor will they adversely affect known red-cockaded woodpecker colonies, rookeries, alligator holes, research sites, or pine uplands. The evidence establishes that Hughes chose a site that minimized environmental impacts. Schwartz also contends that the wellsite activities will directly decrease the recovery chances of the Florida panther. According to Schwartz, this decrease will occur because the activities involve creating an access road, truck traffic, noise, lights, and vibrations. He also asserts that the proposed wellsite will result in a small amount of direct habitat loss when the cattle field is converted to a drilling pad. The USFWS has developed a panther scientific habitat assessment methodology. It relies upon peer-reviewed studies that found that panthers will select land cover types while avoiding others. The methodology ranks the value of land cover types from zero to ten based on the potential for panther selection. Applying the USFWS' scoring to the proposed wellsite, an improved pasture area has a value of 5.2, which means the land cover is neither actively selected nor avoided by panthers. The areas to the south and east of the proposed wellsite are forested wetlands and forested uplands, which have substantially higher values that range from 9.2 to 9.5. If converted to an open water reservoir under the Camp Keais ERP, the site value would be zero, the land cover type most avoided by panthers. The underlying USACE permit specifically required panther habitat compensation. Hughes' expert established that the proposed site minimizes impacts on wildlife by avoiding habitat selected by panthers such as wetlands, forested uplands, saw palmetto thickets, fresh water marshes, prairies, and native habitats. Based on a dozen visits to the site for the purpose of conducting vegetation mapping and wildlife surveys, the expert concluded there are no panthers currently known to be living, breeding, or denning on the site. A home range for a panther is the area providing shelter, water, food, and the chance for breeding. The typical home range for a male panther is 209 square miles, and female home ranges average around 113 square miles. The evidence establishes the proposed drilling activity will not interfere with the panthers' use of the site. Approval of the permit will not remove or push any panthers out of their home range. Hughes' expert opined that the four male panthers, which historically traversed the area within a mile of the proposed wellsite, would only likely move through the area every 15 or 20 months or longer. The temporary nature of the drilling activities means the panthers may not even be near the location during that time. If a panther is near the location and frightened by any activities, it will avoid the area, but will eventually return. Based on the large home range of the panther, the temporary activities will not increase the likelihood of intraspecies aggression or decrease panther survivability. The more persuasive evidence is that panthers are adaptable. They are habituated to the drilling operations in southwest Florida based on over a hundred thousand telemetry data points taken near 93 oil wells in the primary zone. Panthers are not threatened by the presence of humans. In fact, they live and den in and around residential communities and active agricultural operations. Panthers need prey, water, and shelter. The drilling activities will not adversely affect prey availability or impact water resources. The proposed wellsite's location within a disturbed agricultural field will not impact the panther's ability to shelter. During the permit review process, the Department requested input from the USFWS, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), and other interested parties regarding the proposed drilling permit. No formal comments were offered by the USFWS, and its biologist for conservation planning indicated informally that the surface impacts from an oil well are "very minor." Likewise, the FFWCC offered no formal comments on the application. The evidence supports a finding that the proposed permit activities will not affect the panther's use of, or travel to and from, the Refuge. The activities will not affect the panthers' availability of prey or increase panther competition for food or home range territory. The drilling will not adversely affect the panther's breeding, survivability, or the recovery of the species. The only other threatened or endangered species found in the vicinity of the proposed site was an eastern indigo snake, which was located two and one-half miles away and would not travel to the proposed wellsite, as its home range is up to a maximum of 450 acres. Schwartz further contends that section 377.242 requires that the permit be denied because the proposed wellsite is within one mile from the seaward (western) boundary of the Refuge. The Refuge is located entirely inland and does not have a seaward boundary, as contemplated by section 377.242(1)(a)3. Therefore, no drilling will be located within one mile of the seaward boundary of any state, local, or federal park, aquatic preserve, or wildlife preserve. This is consistent with the Department's routine and long-standing interpretation of the statute. Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee Petitioners and Intervenor initially contended that the permit should be denied because a meeting of the Committee was never convened pursuant to section 377.42. The Committee, however, met on March 11 and 31, 2014. Although a majority of the Committee voted to recommend that the Department deny the permit on various grounds, the recommendation of the Committee is not binding on the Department, and after consideration, was rejected. In their Proposed Recommended Orders, the opponents now contend that the permit should be denied because the Committee did not meet before the Department issued its proposed agency action. For the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, this contention is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order issuing Permit No. 1353H, without further modifications. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2014.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's site is eligible for state- administered cleanup under Respondent's Early Detection Incentive Program.
Findings Of Fact Nana's Petroleum, Inc., owns and operates a service station at 251 East Main Street, Pahokee, Florida. The facility is located within two or three blocks of Lake Okeechobee, which is a Class I drinking water supply. On October 19, 1988, Petitioner applied pursuant to the Early Detection Incentive Program for state assistance due to a suspected discharge of gasoline at the facility. The application indicated that a monitoring well had approximately one-quarter inch of product in it, but that the source of that contamination, though suspected to be from a leak in a line, was unknown. As of the date of the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner still had not performed an investigation to determine the source of the contamination. Failure to investigate the source of a discharge results in the possibility of the discharge continuing. A continual discharge results in the loss of more product from the system, increases the threat to drinking water supplies, and creates other environmental concerns. A discharge of fuel has the ability to harm people or property due to the resulting contamination of groundwater. Once the contamination has reached the groundwater, it can migrate to adjacent surface waters or potable water wells. The failure to stop a discharge, therefore, results in a greater threat to groundwater and to drinking water due to the greater amounts of product in the groundwater. Inventory is taken by inserting a calibrated pole into the storage tank and measuring the level of product in the tank. Due to the angle of the pole, fluctuations in volume due to heating and cooling of the product, and other factors, accuracy is only possible to 1/8 of an inch. One-eighth of an inch equates to 17 gallons in a 10,000-gallon tank. Inventory is accurate only for determining whether large or medium leaks are occurring and is not accurate for the detection of small leaks. Reviewing inventory records is not an acceptable method of investigating the source of a discharge. Only in the last few months has Petitioner been making monthly monitoring system checks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's Early Detection Incentive Notification Application. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of February, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with. the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-5912 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 9 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-8, 10-17, 20, and 21 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 18 and 19 have been rejected as unnecessary for determination. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Thornton 315 Southeast 8th Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 33472 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Alachua County Environmental Protection Department discriminated against Tilak B. Shrestha based upon his race or national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, by releasing Mr. Shrestha from his temporary assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department and by not hiring Mr. Shrestha for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist within the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida funds the Petroleum Cleanup Program (Petroleum Program) which is focused on removing petroleum contaminants from various sites within the State of Florida. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) administers the Petroleum Program, also known as the Underground Storage Cleanup Program. In 12 counties, including Alachua, Florida contracts with the county to manage the Petroleum Program. The Alachua County Environmental Protection Department (Alachua DEP) manages the Petroleum Cleanup sites in Alachua County. Mr. Chris Bird has been the director of the Petroleum Program since 1993. He has worked with Alachua County since 1986. In the 1994-1995 fiscal year, the Florida Legislature was facing a deficit; therefore, the Legislature significantly reduced the funding for the Petroleum Program. As a result, DEP froze the Petroleum Program, and dropped several active sites. The lack of funding resulted in downsizing at both the county and state levels at the beginning of 1995. At the beginning of 1995, the Alachua DEP had three funded positions in the Petroleum Program. Mr. Alex Vieira occupied the position of full-time Professional Engineer. The Alachua DEP also had funding for an administrative position and a full-time Environmental Engineer/Geologist. The Environmental Engineer/Geologist position was vacant at the beginning of 1995. The Alachua DEP originally advertised for the position. However, when the State reduced funding for the Petroleum Program, the Alachua DEP decided not to fill the position with a permanent employee and ultimately froze this permanent position. In order for the Petroleum Program to continue at a minimum level of operation, the Alachua DEP hired temporary employees through Temp Force, a temporary employment agency. Temp Force served as an independent contractor for the Alachua DEP. Temp Force provided Mr. Tilak Shrestha and Mr. Mike Shuler to the Alachua DEP Petroleum Cleanup Program. Mr. Shuler began working at the Alachua DEP through Temp Force two months prior to Mr. Shrestha's Temp Force assignment to the Petroleum Program. At the time of the assignment through Temp Force, Shrestha was not credentialed as a Ph.D. Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler were employees of Temp Force, received their paychecks from Temp Force and acquired no benefits from Alachua County. Mr. Shrestha worked as a Temp Force employee for six months at Alachua DEP and was assigned to various projects at the Alachua DEP. As supervisor for the Petroleum Program, Mr. Vieira assigned projects to both Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler. Mr. Shrestha described his working conditions during his assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua DEP as "good, no complaints," and "good on average." In 1995, the Florida legislature ultimately reduced funding for the Petroleum Program from $1.2 million to approximately $250,000. When the Alachua DEP received notice of these funding cuts, Mr. Bird advised Mr. Vieira that he needed to release one of the Temp Force employees from his assignment with the Alachua DEP. Mr. Vieira retained Mr. Shuler and informed Mr. Shrestha that he would no longer be working on the Petroleum Cleanup assignment through Temp Force. Mr. Shrestha's assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua DEP was terminated on August 10, 1995. During Fall 1995, the legislature substantially changed the law and administration pertaining to the Petroleum Program, both at the county and state levels. In October 1995, Ms. Pegeen Hanrahan became the Petroleum Program supervisor following Mr. Vieira's resignation. Ms. Hanrahan earned a Bachelor's degree in Environmental Engineering and Sociology and a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering. She is a registered Professional Engineer and a certified Hazardous Materials Manager. She began working for Alachua County in 1992 as an Environmental Engineer and later served for three years as Hazardous Materials Program Supervisor for Alachua County. When Ms. Hanrahan became supervisor of the Petroleum Program in Fall 1995, the Petroleum Program had essentially entered a "stand-by" mode. The Alachua DEP declined to send any additional work to its sub-contractors. Therefore, the technical duties involved in the Petroleum Program were reduced and the administrative duties became more important. During the Fall of 1995, there were no permanent employees on staff. Mr. Shuler remained as the only temporary employee in the Petroleum Program and according to Ms. Hanrahan was doing a "perfectly adequate job." Based on the new and reduced Petroleum Program budget for the 1995-1996 fiscal year, the Alachua DEP acted in October 1995 to establish the position of Senior Environmental Specialist in lieu of the Environmental Engineer/Geologist position. The position was advertised in December 1995. The main role of the Senior Environmental Specialist was to assist the Professional Engineer in the area of the administration involved in the Petroleum Program. The duties included filing reports, tracking sites, and submitting task orders and invoices to the office in Tallahassee. Due to the increasing changes in the Petroleum Program, the Alachua DEP required a Senior Environmental Specialist who understood the Petroleum Program's administrative tasks, as well as the State policies pertaining to the Petroleum Program. The Senior Environmental Specialist candidate was required to have a technical background in fields including, but not limited to, engineering, biology or geology. The Professional Engineer, not the Specialist, was assigned the technical review of the Petroleum Program. An applicant's understanding of the technical and administrative duties was necessary. In 1995, the Alachua DEP advertised the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, which included printing an advertisement in the local newspaper, per the County regulations. The Alachua DEP described the administrative tasks of Senior Environmental Specialist to include: preparing reports; making recommendations; receiving and investigating complaints; conducting performance evaluations; counseling, hiring and terminating employees. The Alachua DEP described the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the Senior Environmental Specialist to include: thorough knowledge of the technical methods and procedures involved in the administration of environmental regulations, programs, and policies; knowledge of local, state, and federal rules, regulations, and ordinances related to environmental protection; ability to create concise, clear, and succinct technical reports; and ability to research technical problems, formulate recommendations, and compile related reports. The Alachua DEP described the minimum qualifications for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist as: Bachelor's degree in environmental or natural science, civil or environmental engineering, geology, or hydrology, or related field, and two years' professional level environmental-related experience; or any equivalent combination of related training and experience. The County received 14 applications for the position as Senior Environmental Specialist from applicants, which included Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler. Ms. Hanrahan was supervisor of the Petroleum Program in January 1996 and responsible for the hiring of the Senior Environmental Specialist. She received an Application Referral Document from personnel, stating that each of the applicants met the County's minimum requirements for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Upon receipt of the re?sume's and applications, Ms. Hanrahan initially screened the applicants for those who had petroleum-related experience. She narrowed the applicants to four individuals, who included Mr. Shrestha, Mr. Shuler, and two others. On January 22, 1996, Ms. Hanrahan conducted a telephone interview of each of the four applicants who passed the initial screening. The telephone interview was customary hiring practice within the Alachua DEP. During the telephone interview, Ms. Hanrahan asked each applicant the same series of ten questions, designed to test the applicant's level of knowledge regarding technical and administrative aspects of the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Mr. Shrestha answered five out of a possible eleven answers correctly. This was the second highest score out of the four applicants. Shuler achieved the highest score, answering eight-and-one-half out of eleven answers correctly. Three interview questions specifically addressed administrative issues. Question six asked, "What does RBCA stand for?" Question seven stated, "This year the Florida Petroleum Cleanup Program has adopted a new mechanism for review and approval of work on petroleum contaminated sites. Can you tell me what that program is called?" Question nine stated, "Give two examples of policy decisions under RBCA." Mr. Shrestha failed to answer question six, seven or nine correctly. Mr. Shrestha's failure to correctly answer each of the administrative questions indicated to Ms. Hanrahan that he was unaware of the changes within the Petroleum Program. Another purpose of the telephone interview was to assess the applicants under pressure. Ms. Hanrahan also sought to evaluate how the applicants responded to her authority. During the telephone interview, Mr. Shrestha challenged Ms. Hanrahan regarding the relevance of the questions to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist and she noted his argumentative attitude during the interview. He conceded at the hearing that he did ask her about the relevancy of the questions. Based upon his argumentative tone, Ms. Hanrahan questioned Mr. Shrestha about his ability to accept her supervisory decisions. She decided not to hire Mr. Shrestha for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist based on his limited knowledge of the administration of the Petroleum Program, a factor essential to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, and his inability to accept her authority as supervisor. Ms. Hanrahan was also aware of critical statements that Mr. Shrestha allegedly had made to female co-workers during his assignment through Temp Force at the Alachua DEP. Ms. Robin Hallbourg is currently employed as Senior Environmental Specialist with the Alachua DEP. Ms. Hallbourg has been with the Alachua County DEP for 15 years. Ms. Hallbourg worked with Mr. Shrestha at the Alachua DEP during Mr. Shrestha's assignment through Temp Force. Ms. Hallbourg testified that Mr. Shrestha told her that "she should be home with her child" and that she "should allow a man to have her job." After this conversation, Ms. Hallbourg discussed his statements with others in the Alachua DEP, including Ms. Hanrahan. Ms. Hanrahan recalled the discussion with her. Ms. Hanrahan hired Mr. Shuler for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist because he proved himself to be the most qualified candidate during the interview process. Ms. Hanrahan kept an interview log on which she noted Mr. Shuler's strong qualifications for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. She noted his "excellent experience in the Petroleum Cleanup Program and his significant applicable training and experience in program administration." Ms. Hanrahan also noted that his "application and interview showed strong computer skills." Mr. Shuler's Bachelor's degree in Microbiology met the education requirements for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Moreover, at the time of Shuler's application, there had been a growing emphasis placed on bi-remediation, which is currently a regularly used process. Given Ms. Hanrahan's education, training,and experience as a Professional Engineer, she determined that a Bachelor's degree in Microbiology was an appropriate background for the position. In addition, Mr. Shuler had the technical knowledge of processes, performance of groundwater sampling, and drilling, as well as other relevant technical knowledge pertaining to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Additionally, due to his continued assignment in the Alachua DEP, he was aware of the new administrative duties required of a Senior Environmental Specialist. Ms. Hanrahan had personally observed Mr. Shuler from October 1995 until January 1996, and was extremely satisfied with his performance. As part of the usual hiring process, Ms. Hanrahan submitted her interview log, personnel action form, and applications to the personnel department to support her hiring decision. Mr. Bird approved the hiring decision in his capacity as director, and the personnel department, budget department, and Equal Employment Office then approved the decision. Since his hire, Mr. Shuler has been commended by the Alachua DEP and his supervisors. Ms. Hanrahan informed Mr. Shrestha that he had not been hired for the position during a telephone conversation on January 23, 1996. She did not base her decision to hire Mr. Shuler over Mr. Shrestha on the basis of race or national origin. Ms. Hanrahan is fully aware of Alachua County's Equal Employment Opportunity policy through her position as advisor on the Equal Opportunity Advisory Committee. There is no evidence of any discriminatory hiring decision. In fact, on the same day that Ms. Hanrahan hired Mr. Shuler for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, she also hired Mr. Gus Olmos for the position of Environmental Engineering Supervisor. Mr. Olmos is from Panama and is Hispanic. Moreover, Dr. Prasad Kuchibhotla is a Professional Engineer with a Bachelor's, Master's and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. He is from India and is Asian. Alachua County hired Dr. Kuchibhotla in 1997 and is the current Petroleum Cleanup Program Manager for Alachua DEP. Dr. Kuchibhotla currently has a Senior Environmental Specialist working for him within the Petroleum Program. As was the case in December 1995, the current Specialist's primary duty is to assist him with the detailed administrative tasks involved with the Petroleum Program. On January 27, 1997, Mr. Shrestha filed a formal Charge of Discrimination. The charge was date stamped as received by the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 30, 1997. Mr. Shrestha is currently employed with Bell South in Atlanta, Georgia. He earns $47,000 per year and receives health benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Tilak B. Shrestha is not entitled to any relief relating to his charge of discrimination under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilak B. Shrestha 3579-C Meadowglen Village Lane Doraville, Georgia 30340 Robert M. Ott, Esquire County Litigation Attorney Post Office Box 2877 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether CJC Properties, Ltd. (CJC), is eligible for state restoration funding assistance under the Petroleum Contamination Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program for one or more discharges of gasoline at DEP Facility No. 378943938 (“the facility”).
Findings Of Fact The Facility CJC is a Florida Limited Partnership. It is the current owner of property located at 5691 U.S. Highway 27 North, in Tallahassee. Prior to CJC’s acquisition of the property, the property was owned by Carolyn J. Chapman, John W. Chapman, Jane Chapman Latina, and Carolyn Chapman Landrum (“the Chapmans”). The property was leased to various entities and operated as a gas station. The tanks and dispensers remained in service until November, 1995. The last operator of the facility was Lake Jackson 76, Inc. There were five underground petroleum storage tanks at the facility. Before 1991, one of the tanks at the facility was used for regular, leaded, gasoline. When leaded gasoline was phased out, the tank was used for unleaded gasoline. Site Assessments and Sampling Data On November 30, 1995, the Chapmans employed Petroleum Contractors, Inc., to remove the five storage tanks. During the tank removal, Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists, Inc. (“EGS”) performed an assessment to determine whether the facility was contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. The Underground Storage Tank Removal Report prepared by EGS noted that all five tanks appeared to be intact. Soils in the tank pit wall and bottom were not discolored. No significant contamination was observed directly below the tanks. Soil from the tank pit was stockpiled on the site. EGS observed no significant signs of contamination of this soil. The soil stockpile was also screened with a Flame Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). No organic vapors were detected. An OVA detects any organic vapor, but is used as a screening tool to find petroleum vapors. Department rules require that an OVA reading be performed both unfiltered and filtered. The filtered reading screens out everything but methane and is “subtracted” from the unfiltered reading to determine the presence of petroleum vapors. Twenty-four soil samples were taken from various depths at nine locations in the tank pit. These samples were tested using an OVA. Nine of the soil samples, taken from four locations, had corrected OVA readings indicative of petroleum contamination. EGS concluded that “soil contamination detected in the tank pit is likely the result of a leak in the piping” between the dispensers and the tanks. Soil samples were also taken from three borings in the vicinity of the dispenser island and OVA-tested. In boring D-2, organic vapors were detected from the surface to a depth of approximately seven feet. The OVA readings from D-2 declined with depth. EGS reported that “some contamination was detected beneath a dispenser; however, it does not ‘appear’ to significantly extend below six (6) feet.” EGS did not report both filtered and unfiltered OVA readings for the soil samples taken from the dispenser area, as it had done for soil samples taken from the tank pit and the stockpile. For the dispenser area soil samples, EGS reported a single OVA reading for each sample, without indicating whether the reading was “corrected” after filtering. For this reason, the Department contends that these data are unreliable. CJC points out that EGS stated in the text of its report that the soil samples were filtered. CJC also argues that, because the filtered OVA readings for soil samples taken from the tank pit area were not different from their unfiltered readings, the OVA readings for the soil samples from the dispenser area would not have changed after filtering. The preponderance of the evidence is that the contamination in the dispenser area was petroleum. Based on EGS’ findings during the tank removal in November 1995, Petroleum Contractors, Inc., filed a Discharge Reporting Form on December 1, 1995, stating that there had been a discharge of unleaded gasoline at the facility. In January 1996, the Chapmans applied to participate in FPLRIP based on the discharge reported on December 1, 1995. By order dated January 26, 1996, the Department determined that the reported discharge was eligible for state-funded remediation assistance under FPLRIP. In 1997, another consultant, Levine Fricke Recon (LFR) conducted a site assessment at the facility and submitted its Interim Site Assessment Report to the Department. As part of its own soil sampling at the site, LFR collected a “direct push” soil boring in the dispenser island area, near the place where EGS had reported organic vapors. The boring data showed no petroleum vapors until the interval 16-to-20 feet below ground surface. LFR also collected and analyzed groundwater samples from the site. It reported that a sample taken from beneath the former diesel dispenser contained lead. Because lead occurs naturally in soils, its presence in a water sample does not confirm that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. In 1998, LFR conducted a second assessment of the facility site. It installed and sampled four shallow monitoring wells, designated MW-1S through MW-4S, and three deep monitoring wells, designated MW-2D through MW-4D. Groundwater samples from MW-3S and MW-3D were analyzed for lead, ethylene dibromide (EDB), and 1,2-Dichloroethane. All three substances are usually detected in a groundwater sample contaminated with leaded gasoline. On August 28, 1998, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment II to the Department, which shows lead and EDB were found in a sample taken from MW-3S, but not 1,2-Dichloroethane. LFR did not conclude or express a suspicion in either of its two assessment reports that leaded gasoline had been discharged at the facility. The deadline for submitting a Discharge Reporting Form or written report of contamination was December 31, 1998. A site assessment report received by the Department before January 1, 1999, which contained evidence of a petroleum discharge, was accepted by the Department as a “report of contamination.” The petroleum discharge information received by the Department before January 1, 1999, consisted of the Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, the FPLRIP claim, the Interim Site Assessment Report, and the Interim Site Assessment Report II. Post Deadline Site Assessment Data After the statutory deadline, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment III. This report includes January 1999 groundwater sampling data from four monitoring wells which show the presence of low levels of EDB. When EDB is found in a groundwater sample, it is a common practice to re-sample the well from which the sample was taken. Of the wells that showed the presence of EDB, only MW- 10D was re-sampled, after January 1, 1999. There was no EDB present in the groundwater when MS-10D was re-sampled. In June 2000, as part of the remediation of the contamination at the facility, an area of contaminated soil was removed to a depth of 14 feet. The area of soil removed included the former dispenser area. In January 2003, the Department notified CJC that the $300,000 FPLRIP funding cap would soon be reached. In March 2003, CJC signed a Funding Cap Transition Agreement, acknowledging that “At no time will the DEP be obligated to pay for cleanup of this discharge any amount that exceeds the funding cap.” CJC further acknowledged that it “is responsible for completing the remediation of the discharge in accordance with Chapter 62-770, F.A.C.” In 2005, CJC re-sampled one of the monitoring wells for lead and EDB. Neither substance was present. The site is not currently being actively remediated. Periodic groundwater sampling indicates that concentrations of contaminants are dropping. No further active remediation has been proposed. The cost to complete remediation is a matter of speculation. The record evidence is insufficient to make a finding about future remediation costs. Eligibility Determinations On September 2, 2003, CJC submitted a PCPP Affidavit to the Department, seeking state funding under PCPP. On October 30, 2003, the Department denied CJC eligibility for PCPP funding on the basis that the contamination was covered under FPLRIP and, therefore, was excluded from funding under PCPP. The Department has never granted PCPP eligibility for the cleanup of a discharge previously being funded under FPLRIP. Apparently, in 2005, CJC hired Glenn R. MacGraw, an expert in the assessment of petroleum-contaminated sites, to review the EGS and LFR assessments. In a letter to CJC’s attorney dated August 19, 2005, MacGraw expressed the opinion that “at least 2 discharges have occurred on this site, one in the former tank area, and one in the former dispenser area.” MacGraw’s opinion that there had been a discharge of leaded gasoline was based on the detection of EDB and lead in the groundwater. He also thought the presence of methyl tetra-butyl ether (MTBE) in groundwater samples taken from the tank pit area showed a tank leak of unleaded gasoline. CJC requested FPLRIP funding for the other alleged discharges at the facility. On March 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter formally stating its disagreement that there were other reported discharges and denying eligibility for FPLRIP funding. On March 30, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Ineligibility under PCPP. The amended order added a second ground for denial, that the reported discharge was not shown to have occurred before January 1, 1995. Whether There Was A Second Discharge Eligible for Funding CJC argues that the presence of lead and EDB in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3S shows that there was a discharge of leaded gasoline at the facility. However, LFR reported that the well screen for MW-3S had probably been damaged during installation, because a significant amount of filter sand was observed in the purge water. The Department contends, therefore, that the source of the lead detected in the groundwater sample from MW-3S could have been (naturally) in the soil that entered the well. The Department also discounts the detection of EDB in the groundwater sample because EDB is an ingredient of some pesticides and can show up in groundwater when pesticide has been applied to the overlying land. Furthermore, EDB was not detected in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3D, a deeper well located near MW-3S. MacGraw does not think the EDB came from a pesticide application, because the EDB contamination at the site occurs in an elongated “plume,” in the former dispenser area, whereas one would expect to see EDB distributed evenly over the site if the source was a pesticide application. MacGraw mapped the plume of EDB by using data obtained after the discharge reporting deadline. Michael J. Bland, a Department employee and expert in geology and petroleum site assessment, believes the data from the facility are insufficient to confirm the presence of EDB or its distribution. LFR reported in its Interim Site Assessment that no significant soil contamination was found near the dispenser island. Groundwater samples from MW-3D, a deep monitoring well near MW-S3, showed no EDB, lead, or 1,2-dichlorothane. Bland opined that, if the detection of EDB in the shallow well was reliable, EDB would have been detected in the deep well, too, because EDB is a “sinker.” EDB is persistent in groundwater, so when it is not detected when a well is re-sampled, reasonable doubt arises about the detection in the first sample. Of all the wells sampled in 1999 that showed EDB, only MW-10D was re-sampled in 2003. When the well was re-sampled, there was no EDB. CJC contends that EDB was not found in the re-sampling of MW-10D because of the soil removal in 2000, but the Department contends that the soil removal would not have affected the presence of EDB in MW-10D, because the well is significantly down-gradient of the area of soil removal. It was undisputed that the presence of 1,2- dichoroethane in MW-S3 was not reliably determined. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the contamination reported in the dispenser area is the source of contamination which persists at the facility. The reported contamination only affected the top six feet of soil. The soil removal to a depth of 14 feet in that area in 2000 should have fully remediated the reported contamination. The data upon which CJC relies in claiming eligibility under FPLRIP or PCPP for a second discharge are, at best, incomplete and ambiguous. CJC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. CJC also failed to prove that the reported contamination in the dispenser is associated with a discharge that still exists to be remediated with state assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that CJC is ineligible to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program for the discharge reported to the Department on December 1, 1995, and that CJC has not demonstrated eligibility to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program for any other discharges. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Since 1984, the Department has been the state agency charged with the responsibility to establish rules and regulate underground pollutant storage facilities in Florida. In 1988, the Legislature added the administration of the newly enacted Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program to the Department's duties. The program was to be established on or before January 1, 1989. The Applicant is the owner of a petroleum storage system in Jacksonville, Florida. Since 1984, it has been subject to the rules regarding underground pollutant storage facilities promulgated by the Department. On September 18, 1989, an odor indicative of possible petroleum contamination was discovered at the site during the installation of monitoring wells. A Discharge Notification Form was sent to the Department by the Applicant on October 23, 1989. The form advised that there were no leaks in the system. It was suggested that the odor may have resulted from surface spill at the site over a number of years. In response to the notification, an inspection of the site was completed by the Department on December 5, 1989. The inspection revealed the following on-site violations: Registration requirements were not being met. The forms had not been updated to include the presence of monitoring wells and overfill protection at the facility. Two underground tanks had not been properly abandoned. Inventory and reconciliation records had not been properly maintained, as required by rule since 1987. This violation was reviewed, and discussed in detail with on-site representatives of the Applicant. The monitoring wells were not installed by the time deadlines set forth in the Department's rules regarding stationary tanks. Since the wells were installed in September 1989, samples had not been taken for visual signs of petroleum contamination. The purpose of the system is to allow the owner of the storage tanks to learn if there is a leak in the tanks that can be quickly controlled to limit contamination. The day after the inspection, the Applicant applied for a determination of eligibility for participation in the restoration coverage portion of the new Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Liability Program. An affidavit was signed stating that all of the Department's rules regarding stationary tanks were being complied with by the Applicant. Six days after the inspection, the Department sent the Applicant written notice of the results of the inspection. The Applicant was given time frames and instructions for correcting the listed violations that could be corrected. A contamination assessment and clean up were also required in the letter. This letter did not address the issue of eligibility for the restoration funding program because that was a matter unrelated to the inspection results. On March 7, 1990, the Department determined the facility was ineligible for participation in the restoration funding provided by the Florida Petroleum Liability and Coverage Program. The following reasons were given: Failure to properly abandon underground storage tanks, pursuant to Section 17-61.050(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to maintain inventory records, reconciliations, and significant loss/gain investigation as per Section 17-61.050(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to install monitoring system and overfill protection by the dates set forth in Section 17-61.06(2)(c)2, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to properly monitor leak detection system, pursuant to Section 17-61.050(5)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The 10,000 gallon fuel oil tank and the 3,000 gallon waste oil tank present at the facility were abandoned in March 1990. The notice issued by the Department after its inspection in December 1989, gave the Applicant sixty days after receipt of the notice to properly abandon the tanks. The Applicant substantially complied with this requirement after the written notice was received. Although the Applicant failed to maintain the inventory records, reconciliations, and significant loss/gain investigations required by the Department rules, some of these violations had been corrected prior to the Department's inspection in December 1989. Correct inventory recordkeeping was discussed during the inspection, and the need to immediately implement the proper recordkeeping practices was emphasized in the post-inspection notice of violations. All of the recordkeeping violations were not cured until August 1990. The records kept by the Applicant during the noncompliance period from 1984 to August 1990, did not provide a substantially equivalent degree of information regarding possible leak detection or prohibited discharges as the required recordkeeping procedures. Two underground stationary storage tanks on the site have been part of the Applicant's petroleum storage system since 1970 and 1975, respectively. The monitoring wells and overfill protection for these tanks should have been in place by December 31, 1987. Neither monitoring system was installed until September 1989. The Applicant began the contract negotiations for installation in September 1988. The Applicant did not demonstrate that the facility contained an alternative procedure between December 31, 1987 and September 1989, that provided a substantially equivalent degree of protection for the lands, surface waters, or groundwaters of the state as the established requirement for monitoring wells and overfill protection. In December 1989, the Department's notice advised the Applicant that the monitoring wells should be sampled monthly for visual signs of petroleum contamination. Since April 1990, the Applicant has been completing the monthly sampling in the monitoring wells as part of its leak detection system, as required by the Department's rule regarding underground stationary tanks.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for restoration coverage in the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program at the Jacksonville location. DONE and ENTERED this 28 day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 _28_ day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are addressed as follows: Rejected. Improper interpretation of law. As for the facts in the first sentence, they are accepted. See HO #8. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #9. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9 and #11. Rejected. Contract to fact. See HO #11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12 and #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Improper shifting of duty ad legal responsibility. Rejected . Improper application of law. The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #4 and #10. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #3 and #12. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Not established by evidence. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William Chadeayne, Qualified Representative 8933 Western Way, Suite 16 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Janet E. Bowman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's site, Circle K General, Inc., Store #2375, located at U.S. #1 and Pennekamp Park, is eligible for restoration pursuant to the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program (FPLIRP) set forth in Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Circle K General, Inc., Store #2375 owns and operates a petroleum storage site located at U.S. #1 and John Pennekamp Park, Key Largo, Florida. The DER Facility ID Number for the site is 448624728. Circle K operates at the site three 10,000 gallon fiberglass tanks which contain gasoline. The tanks currently operated at the site were installed in 1987. Four monitoring wells for the site were installed at the same time as the Circle K tanks were installed in 1987. Monthly monitoring well reports were completed each month beginning on December 12, 1987, and ending on July 30, 1989, by Professional Services Industries on behalf of Circle K. Steve Belin is the individual at Circle K responsible for reviewing or supervising the review of the monitoring well reports for Store #2375. The November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring well report indicated the presence of petroleum odor in all four of the monitoring wells at the site. After receipt of the November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. After receipt of the November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K undertook steps to investigate the source or cause of the petroleum odor. The monthly monitoring report dated March 20, 1989, indicates the presence of a petroleum odor in one of the four monitoring wells. After receipt of the March 20, 1989, monitoring well report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. After receipt of the March 20, 1989, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K undertook steps to investigate the source or cause of the petroleum odor. The July 30, 1989, monthly monitoring well report indicates the presence of petroleum product in all four monitoring wells. The July 30, 1989, monthly monitoring well report was not received by Steve Belin until September, 1989. On July 31 and August 1, 1989, Combustion Engineering installed a set of four new compliance monitoring wells. Circle K contracted for the installation of new monitoring wells because the four existing monitoring wells were only 15 feet deep and were dry. By letter dated August 17, 1989, Combustion Engineering notified Steve Belin that a petroleum odor was detected in the soils retrieved while drilling one of the new monitoring wells and that a petroleum odor was also detected in one of the old monitoring wells. On August 21, 1989, Steve Belin filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department for Circle K Store #2375. After the discharge notification was filed on August 21, 1989, none of the tanks were taken out of service. After the filing of the August 21, 1989 Discharge Notification Form, Circle K inspected the inventory records for the site beginning in October, 1988, through September, 1989, and detected no significant loss of petroleum product. On October 6, 1989, an inspection of Circle K Store #2375 was conducted by Leslie Rueth of the South District Office of the Department of Environmental Regulation. At the time of the October 6, 1989, DER inspection, free product was noted in two of the four new monitoring wells, and all of the wells contained a petroleum odor. On October 19, 1989, the South District Office of Department of Environmental Regulation notified Steve Belin of the October 6, 1989, inspection results and requested (1) that a tank and line tightness test be performed to determine if there was a leak in the petroleum storage system and (2), if free product was present, that an initial remedial action (IRA) be implemented as defined in F.A.C. Rule 17-70.006. An Initial Remedial Action consists of the removal of free product through the bailing or pumping of free product off the water table and may include the removal of excessively contaminated soil. On October 30, 1989, Steve Belin submitted tank tightness test results for the three 10,000 gallon tanks located at Circle K Store #2375. All three tanks passed the tank and line tests. By letter of October 17, 1989, Steve Belin requested ATEC Associates, Inc. to have all of the monitoring wells of Store #2375 bailed of free product once a week for one month. The free product present at Store #2375 resulted from old tanks and piping installed by Circle K's predecessor, U Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17 presence of a layer or odor, or the positive report of a laboratory that the monitoring well sample contains pollutant, shall be treated as a discharge. A properly installed monitoring well should have at least one foot of water in the well in order to be able to take a water sample from the well. If a foot or less of water is present in a monitoring well, a vapor monitoring device should be used to test the wells. From December, 1987, until July, 1989, the Circle K monitoring wells were usually dry. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17 wells must be constructed such that the bottom of the casing is at least five feet below the water level at the time of drilling but no deeper than 25 feet. The monitoring wells constructed at Circle K Store #2375 did not meet the construction specifications set forth in Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-61.050(b)(6) requires discharges to be reported to the Department within three working days of discovery. DER was not notified of a discharge subsequent to either the November 26, 1988, or the March 20, 1989, monitoring well reports, nor did Circle K contain the leak.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for site restoration pursuant to the Florida Petroleum Liability and Insurance Program (FPLIRP). DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2065 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the Respondent's proposed findings of fact (the Petitioner not having filed any): 1.-27. Accepted and incorporated. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate to facts found. 30.-33. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 34.-38. Accepted and incorporated. 39. Cumulative. 40.-41. Accepted and incorporated. 42. Accepted but subordinate to facts found and unnecessary. 43.-44. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Conclusion of law. Accepted but unnecessary. 47.-48. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 49. Cumulative and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Belin The Circle K Corporation Regional Environmental Director 500 South Faulkenburg Road Tampa, FL 33619 Janet E. Bowman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Reimbursement Program The Florida Legislature created the Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Program to encourage responsible persons with adequate financial ability to conduct site rehabilitation and seek reimbursement in lieu of the state conducting cleanup. Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes (1993). Site owners and operators or their designees become entitled to reimbursement from the Inland Protection Trust Fund (IPTF) of their allowable costs at reasonable rates after completing a program task. Section 376.3071(12)(b), Florida Statutes. The costs of site rehabilitation must be actual and reasonable. Section 376.3071(12)(d), Florida Statutes. "Allowable" costs are those which are associated with work that is appropriate for cleanup tasks, i.e. whether the cost represents work that is technically necessary for the program task and otherwise not in violation of reimbursement limitations prescribed by statute or rule. In order for costs to be reimbursable, an applicant must convert charges in an application into applicable units and rates. Rule 17-773.100(5), Florida Administrative Code. DEP has a predominate rate schedule to determine whether a specific allowable cost is reasonable. DEP bases its predominate rates on a study of average rates that contractors charge for a particular task. In addition, DEP reviews each application to determine whether the overall cost and the methods used to perform the work are reasonable. DEP must also evaluate each application to determine whether a charge is an actual cost of a project. Contractors or subcontractors do not actually incur a fully reimbursable cost when they promise the site owner or its designee that they will perform work for an amount less than other professionals would charge, then allow the site owner or its designee to file a claim for reimbursement at or near the predominate rate. Such an agreement creates a back flow of funds to the site owner or its designee. This is true even though the charges are within the range of DEP's predominate rates. DEP never intended the rate schedule to create an entitlement to reimbursement regardless of the cost that contractors and subcontractors actually incur. Requests for reimbursement must apply to costs which are "integral" to site rehabilitation. Rule 17-773.100(2), Florida Administrative Code. "Integral" costs are those which are essential to completion of site rehabilitation. Rule 17-773.200(2)(11), Florida Administrative Code. After integral costs have been identified and incorporated on a units and rates basis in an invoice, the invoice may be marked up at two levels. These markups are subject to certain limitations: There can be no more than two levels of markups or handling fees applied to contractor, subcontractor or vendor invoices (Rule 17-773.350(9), F.A.C.); There can be no markups or handling fees in excess of 15 percent for each level of allowable markup applied to contractor, subcontractor or vendor invoices (Rule 17-773.350(10), F.A.C.); and There can be no markups or handling fees applied to invoices between any two entities which have a financial, familial, or beneficial relationship with each other (Rule 17-773.350(11), F.A.C.). In order to be reimbursable, costs must have been actually "incurred." Rule 17-773.700, Florida Administrative Code. "Incurred" means that allowable costs have been paid. Rule 17-773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code. A contractor must pay all invoices generated by a subcontractor at 100 percent of their face value prior to submission of an application in order to qualify those invoices for reimbursement. When a contractor pays a subcontractor's invoices, the contractor paying those invoices may apply the first-tier markup. Prior to submitting a reimbursement application, a funder or "the person responsible for contamination site rehabilitation" (PRFCSR) must pay the contractor for its invoices and markup. Then, the funder may apply the second- tier markup and submit the reimbursement application to DEP. DEP does not contest the second level of markup in these applications. DEP rules restrict reimbursement when parties within the usual "chain" of reimbursement (PRFCSR or funder, contractor and subcontractor) have financial, beneficial or familial relationships with each other or the site owner. These terms are defined in Rules 17-773.200(1), 17-773.200(6), 17- 773.200(7), Florida Administrative Code. The application form requires disclosure of such relationships through the Program Task and Site Identification Form. DEP's rules and written guidelines do not address or apply to activities, including financing arrangements, occurring outside of the chain of reimbursement if an applicant does not include charges for such activities in an application. Heretofore, DEP has not deducted finance costs that an applicant does not include as a line item in a reimbursement application. DEP must perform financial audits to ensure compliance with Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and to certify site rehabilitation costs. Rule 17- 773.300(1), Florida Administrative Code. DEP performs this audit function: (a) to establish that the PRFCSR incurred the cost; (b) to determine that adequate documentation supports the claimed costs as incurred; and (c) and to review the reasonableness and allowance of the costs. The audit staff interprets the term "incurred" to mean that the applicant paid the costs included in the reimbursement application. DEP's audit staff usually does not inquire as to the level of a PRFCSR's financing where the application contains no line-item financing charges. However, the audit staff makes appropriate inquiries depending on the facts and events surrounding an individual application. Pursuant to Rule 17-773.350(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, "[i]nterest or carrying charges of any kind with the exception of those outlined in Rule 17-773.650(1), F.A.C." are not reimbursable. The exceptions to the payment of interest set forth in Rule 17-773.650(1), Florida Administrative Code, are not at issue here. An interest rate charge on short-term borrowed capital from an unrelated third-party source is a "cost of doing business." DEP's predominate rates are fully loaded. They include a variable for all direct and indirect business overhead costs such as rent, utilities and personnel costs. DEP includes the cost of short-term borrowed capital in the direct and indirect overhead components of the fully-loaded personnel rates. Rule 17-773.700(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners PRFCSRs are entitled to make application for reimbursement of allowable markups and costs of site rehabilitation that they incur. In these consolidated cases, the site owners or operators designated either Petitioner ET or Petitioner SEI as PRFCSR. The PRFCSR is typically referred to as the "funder" in the reimbursement chain. Petitioner ET is a trust formed in 1993 and domiciled in Bermuda. It acts as American Factors Group, Inc.'s (AFG discussed below) conduit for funds that finance activities associated with Florida's petroleum contamination site cleanup program. The named beneficiaries of the trust are those contractors and subcontractors entitled to payment of costs for activities integral to site rehabilitation and for allowable markups of such costs. The sole trustee of ET is Western Investors Fiduciary, Ltd. (WIFL). WIFL is also the owner and a beneficiary of ET. Any profit that ET derives from funding petroleum contamination site cleanup flows through WIFL to investors who provide funds to finance site rehabilitation. American Environmental Enterprises, Inc. (AEE, discussed below) provided the investment funds for the reimbursement applications at issue here. WIFL is a limited liability corporation created and domiciled in Bermuda. The officers of WIFL are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Peter Bougner, Secretary. The directors and shareholders of WIFL are: William R. Robins, John G. Engler, Paul H. DeCoster, Alec R. Anderson and Nicholas Johnson. Petitioner SEI is a corporation incorporated and operating under Florida law. Organized in 1994, SEI acts as AFG's conduit for funds to finance activities associated with Florida's petroleum contamination cleanup program. The officers and directors of SEI are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Executive Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. William R. Robins is the sole shareholder of SEI. ET filed the petition for administrative hearing on behalf of SEI in at least four cases: Case Numbers 96-405, 96-425, 96-433, 96-437. Respondent DEP is the agency charged with the duty to administer the IPTF and Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. Financing Entities American Factors Group, Inc. (AFG) is a privately held corporation incorporated and operating under New Jersey law. AFG is not a party to this proceeding. AFG, acts as the servicing agent for contracts associated with factoring activities and other types of financing operations. AFG, through one of its divisions, Environmental Factors (EF), entered into factoring contracts with: (a) Gator Environmental, Inc. (Gator), general contractor; and (b) Tower Environmental, Inc. (Tower), prime subcontractor. Through these agreements, EF or its assignee bought the rights of Gator and Tower to future reimbursement payments at a percentage of the face value of the relevant invoices. The officers of AFG are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Bleak House, Inc. (Texas) owns the stock of AFG. American Environmental Enterprises, Inc. (AEE) is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. AEE is not a party to this proceeding. AEE, as the assignee under the EF contracts, is a third-party provider of capital to various entities in the reimbursement process. The officers of AEE are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Bleak House, Inc., (Nevada) owns the stock of AEE. Bleak House, Inc., (Nevada) is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. Bleak House, Inc. (Texas) is incorporated and operating under Texas law. Officers of both corporations are William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Magazine Funding, Inc. owns the stock of both Bleak House corporations. Magazine Funding, Inc. is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. Officers of Magazine Funding, Inc. are William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Family Food Garden, Inc. owns the stock of Magazine Funding, Inc. Family Food Garden, Inc. is incorporated and operating under Massachusetts law. Officers of Family Food Garden, Inc., are William R. Robins, President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Six shareholders own the stock of Family Food Garden, Inc. None of these shareholders are related by familial ties to the officers or directors of the aforementioned companies or any relative thereof. Each of these companies -- ET, SEI, WIFL, AEE and AFG (including EF) share common officers and directors. Each of the companies maintain their own books and business records, file their own tax returns, and maintain records in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which they were established. They operate pursuant to their respective bylaws or trust documents. ET, WIFL, and SEI do not have common assets with AEE or AFG (including EF). ET, WIFL and SEI do not have a beneficial, financial, or familial relationship with AEE or AFG (including EF) as Rule 17-773.200, Florida Administrative Code, defines those terms. Despite the facial organizational and structural integrity of ET, WIFL, SEI, AEE and AFG, the officers and directors of AFG and/or AEE created ET, WIFL, and SEI, in large part, for the benefit of AFG and/or AEE as a means to invest funds in petroleum contamination site cleanup programs. The officers and directors of AFG specifically created SEI to meet the needs of AFG's Florida investors. The purpose of each funder is to maximize the profits of AFG and its investors. AFG has other investment vehicles (funders) which it uses at times depending on the needs of its investors. AFG waits until the last instance before deciding which entity it will designate as funder in any particular factoring scenario. AFG usually does not make that decision until the day AFG's designated funder issues a funder's authorization to the general contractor. At the hearing, Mr. Stephen Parrish, a vice president of AFG, testified as the party representative for ET and SEI. ET, WIFL and SEI have no employees. EF or AFG responded to DEP's request for Petitioners to provide additional information about the financing scheme utilized here using stationary bearing EF's or AFG's letterhead. At least five of these letters written on SEI's behalf, refer to ET, an affiliate of AEE, as the funder. Nineteen of the letters written on ET's behalf refer to ET, an affiliate of AEE, as the funder. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that AFG and/or AEE negotiated less than arms-length contractual agreements with ET, WIFL, and SEI. Petitioners admit that they are "affiliates" of AEE and AFG through contractual agreements. However, there are no written factoring contracts between Petitioners and AFG such as the ones that exist between AFG, Gator and Tower. The only documented evidence of agreements between Petitioners and AFG are transactional based bills of sale representing the sale to AEE of Petitioners' right to receive reimbursement from IPTF. AFG created these bills of sale for bookkeeping purposes. AFG did not even go to the trouble of tailoring the form for the bills of sale for their stated purpose. For all practical purposes, Petitioners are under the management and control of AEE and AFG. Petitioners and AFG disclosed their affiliation in meetings with DEP staff and through correspondence and other documentation, including but not limited to: (a) letter to DEP dated July 13, 1994 from AFG's counsel; (b) Addendum to Certification Affidavit signed by a certified public accountant in each application; (c) funder's authorization form; (d) letters sent to DEP between August 14, 1995 and November 19, 1996. Factoring and the Factoring Transactions Factoring is the purchase and sale of an asset, such as an account receivable, at a discount. An account receivable reflects the costs that a business charges after rendering a service but before the entity responsible for payment pays for that service. When a contractor completes a rehabilitation task, the contractor's invoice is an account receivable until it receives payment. In these consolidated cases, AEE provided short-term capital to Gator and Tower at an interest rate equal to the discount percentage of the relevant invoice (account receivable). Gator and Tower did not sell their account receivables to AEE. Instead, AEE, as the assignee of EF, purchased a contractual right to receive Gator's and Tower's reimbursement payments. In exchange, AEE advanced them a discounted amount of their invoices. The discounted amount of each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Gator and Tower. The difference between the face amount of the invoices and the discounted amount of the invoices represents interest. A discount percentage and an interest rate are equivalent. The amount of the discount represents interest on the loans or advances provided by AEE. It is an interest expense to the contractor or subcontractor. The amount that Gator and Tower actually incurred is the discounted amount of their invoices. The Factoring Agreements On or about April 25, 1994, EF and Tower entered into a Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement which set forth the terms under which EF or its assignee would finance Tower's site remediation work. At that time, the parties to the contract anticipated that EF would retain a general contractor to perform on-site remediation services with Tower acting as prime subcontractor. In the contract, Tower agreed to sell to EF its right to receive payments from the general contractor at a percentage of the underlying invoices. Subsequent to the execution of April 1994 Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement, Tower experienced financial difficulties resulting in its inability to pay subcontractors for work that they performed under non-EF contracts. These financial difficulties made it impossible for Tower to meet its payroll that was due in two weeks. Tower and its subcontractors under the non-EF contracts approached AFG and EF requesting financial assistance to resolve Tower's financial difficulties and to ensure that the subcontractors would be paid for their work. At that time, the program tasks under these non-EF contracts were complete or substantially complete. Given the preexisting contractual relationship between EF and Tower on other projects, AFG determined that it could use a similar financing arrangement to resolve Tower's financial problems. Such an arrangement also would protect AFG's investment in projects being conducted under the EF-Tower contracts. On or about July 8, 1994, EF and Tower executed an addendum to the April 1994 Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement. This addendum applied to projects that were not covered by the original Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement. The addendum required Tower to sell to EF Tower's right to receive payments from the general contractor. In return, EF agreed to advance Tower a discounted amount equal to 97 percent of the face amount of Tower's invoices. Tower agreed to pay EF 100 percent of the face amount of the invoices upon receipt of payments from the general contractor. The discounted amount of each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Tower. Late in 1993 or early in 1994, Gator began negotiating a contract with EF to provide general contracting services for on-site remediation work on unspecified Florida projects being financed by EF. Gator began serving as general contractor on some of these unspecified projects prior to the execution of a contract. On or about July 8, 1994, EF and Gator entered into a General Contractor Factoring Agreement. In this contract, EF agreed to provide financing for projects on which Gator served as general contractor. Gator agreed to sell to EF its right to receive payments from the funder (ET or SEI) at a percentage of Gator's underlying invoices. On or about July 13, 1994, EF and Gator entered into an Addendum to the July 8, 1994 General Contractor Factoring Agreement. This addendum applied to projects which were not covered under the original General Contractor Factoring Agreement. The addendum required Gator to sell to EF Gator's right to receive payments from the funder (ET or SEI). In return, EF agreed to advance Gator a discounted amount equal to 88 percent of the face amount of Gator's invoices. Gator agreed to pay EF 100 percent of the face amount of the invoices upon receipt of payments from the funder. The discounted amount on each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Gator. Gator and Tower negotiated the respective factoring contracts and addenda thereto at arms-length. Pursuant to the terms of these contracts, EF assigned to AEE the rights to payments due to Tower from Gator and to Gator from ET or SEI. ET and SEI were not named parties to these contracts. The factoring contracts and the corresponding addenda apply to the reimbursement applications at issue here. Pursuant to those agreements, the following interrelated transactions took place though not necessarily in this order. First, Tower provided EF with a Site Certification Affidavit for a certain project. Tower also sent Gator a complete reimbursement application for the project and an invoice for Tower's services and the services of its subcontractors and vendors. Next, EF designated either ET or SEI as the funder. The funder then sent Gator a funder's authorization form. This form acknowledged that EF was an affiliate of the funder. It is the only documented evidence of a contract between the funder and Gator. Gator's receipt of the form constituted authorization for Gator to perform work on the project subject to reimbursement for all reimbursable costs and paid subcontractor invoices. Within two days of receiving the funder's authorization for a project, Gator issued Tower a subcontract/purchase order. Gator notified EF and the funder of such issuance. Upon receipt of the subcontract/purchase order, Tower sold to AEE (at a discount) Tower's right to receive full payment from Gator. A bill of sale evidenced this transaction. Tower agreed to repay AEE the face amount of Tower's invoice upon receipt of payment from Gator. Tower executed an agreement indemnifying the funder and guaranteeing the performance of all services and the delivery of all goods. Tower agreed to a reserve trust fund deposit as security for the ultimate reimbursement payment from the IPTF. Within four days of receiving the complete reimbursement application from Tower and within two days of receiving the funder's authorization, Gator and a certified public accountant (retained by EF) were supposed to review all supporting documentation on the project. The stated purpose of this review was to determine whether the invoices of Tower and its subcontractors were reimbursable under DEP guidelines. As to 30 of the instant applications, Tower completed the on-site work before Gator became involved. In those cases, Gator performed a minimal due diligence review, if any, of Tower's on-site work. This included comparing Tower's technical and administrative files with the applications prepared by Tower. Without Gator's minimal review and risk assessment on these 30 applications, EF would not have included them as projects covered by the addenda to the factoring contracts. As to 15 of the instant applications, Petitioners claim that Gator not only reviewed Tower's work product but also, issued subcontractor/purchase orders selected and scheduled subcontractors, and made on-site visits. However, there is no persuasive record evidence as to the specific activities or the level of Gator's involvement in on-site work on any one of these 15 applications. When Gator and EF's certified public accountant completed their assessment, Gator prepared a deficiency letter and sent it to all parties. The report advised EF, the funder and Tower whether any of Tower's charges were in excess of the reimbursable amount. Tower could accept or reject any disallowance set forth in the deficiency letter. If there was no problem with a disallowance or within five days of Tower's acceptance of a disallowance, AEE advanced Tower an amount equal to 97 percent of Tower's invoice. Tower used these funds to pay subcontractors and vendors. The discounted amount of Tower's invoice represents the actual cost that Tower incurred. Tower signed a repayment agreement in which it promised to repay AEE the face amount of Tower's invoice upon receipt of payment from Gator. When Tower received the discounted cash advance from AEE, it had to contribute the reserve deposit (to cover any reimbursement shortfalls) to a reserve trust, domiciled in Bermuda, which was affiliated with EF. Tower was a beneficiary of the reserve trust to the extent of its contribution less any monies it owed AEE after the IPTF reimbursed the funder. Meanwhile, Gator sold to AEE (at a discount) Gator's right to receive full payment from the funder. A bill of sale evidenced this transaction. Gator agreed to repay AEE the face amount of Gator's invoice upon receipt of payment from the funder. AEE advanced Gator an amount equal to 88 percent of the face amount of Gator's invoice. The discounted amount of Gator's invoice represent the amount that Gator actually incurred. Gator used these funds to pay Tower the face amount of its invoice. Tower in turn repaid AEE in full. Gator signed a repayment agreement in which it promised to repay AEE the face amount of its invoice upon receipt of payment from the funder. For the 45 applications at issue here, the addendum to the General Contractor Factoring Agreement did not require Gator to deposit any amount in the reserve trust which was domiciled in Bermuda and affiliated with EF. Next, Gator prepared an invoice for its services and the services of Tower and its subcontractors including a 15 percent markup and an application preparation fee. Gator's invoice could not include a charge for "management time." Then, Gator forwarded its invoice and Tower's invoice to the funder together with the complete reimbursement application. In the meantime, ET and SEI sold AEE their right to receive reimbursement from the IPTF at a discount equal to 87 percent of their total invoice amount. A bill of sale for each transaction is the only documented evidence of an agreement between the funders and AEE. ET and SEI agreed to repay AEE for the face amount of their invoices upon receipt of payment from IPTF. The funder prepared an invoice for the face amount of Gator's and Tower's invoices plus a 15 percent markup. Upon receipt of ET's or SEI's invoice, AEE advanced them the discounted amount as agreed. ET or SEI used the funds advanced by AEE to pay Gator the face amount of its invoice. Gator in turn repaid AEE in full. When ET or SEI receive a reimbursement payment from the IPTF, they will remit the total payment to AEE. The total cost for each project increased as the discount percentage and the face amount of each invoice passing up through the chain grew larger. In regards to some applications, the relevant dates on the subcontract/purchase order, Gator invoice, and Tower invoice are the same. It is clear that the turn around time on all of the above referenced transactions, including the time between the payment of the advances by AEE to Gator and Tower and their subsequent repayment of 100 percent of the face amount of an invoice to AEE, was very short--a matter of days or weeks. In Summary, the financing of the pending reimbursement applications involved the following interrelated transactions but not necessarily in this order: AEE as the assignee of EF purchased the right of ET, SEI, Gator and Tower to receive reimbursement for their services at a discount. ET, SEI, Gator and Tower agreed to repay AEE in full. Tower prepared and submitted to Gator an invoice for services provided by Tower and its subcontractors. Tower also prepared and submitted to Gator a reimbursement application for the program task. AEE advanced Tower the agreed upon discount amount. Tower used these funds to pay its subcontractors and vendors. AEE advanced Gator the agreed upon discount amount. Gator used these funds to pay Tower. Tower repaid AEE in full. Gator prepared an invoice for services provided by Gator, Tower and Tower's subcontractors including a 15 percent markup and submitted it with the reimbursement application either to ET or SEI. AEE advanced ET or SEI the discounted amounts as agreed. ET or SEI paid Gator in the full amount of Gator's invoice plus markup. Gator repaid AEE in full. ET or SEI prepared an invoice for its services plus the services of Gator, Tower, and Tower's subcontractors and a 15 percent markup. ET or SEI submitted the reimbursement application to DEP. When ET or SEI receives reimbursement from the IPTF, they will remit the total payment to AEE. The Applications Petitioners filed the 45 applications that are the subject of this proceeding between July 18, 1994 and February 17, 1995. The financing scheme that Petitioners utilized in these applications was unique. Prior to receiving these applications, DEP never had reviewed reimbursement applications using the type of financing scheme at issue here. In fact, the instant cases present a scenario never contemplated by DEP when promulgating rules and developing written policies. DEP has established a list by which it determines whether an applicant is charging a "reasonable rate." DEP developed that list in accordance with Petroleum Cleanup Reimbursement (PCR) Guideline Number 1. PCR 1 establishes a "predominant rate" for costs involved in the site rehabilitation process. The predominant rate may be exceeded by up to 30 percent for personnel charges, and by up to 50 percent for non-personnel charges. Within these ranges, DEP evaluates each application and determines whether the PRFCSR is entitled to reimbursement for "allowable cost" at "reasonable rates." The work performed by Tower was at or near DEP's "predominant" rate. In no instance were Tower's rates near the upper limits of the reasonable rate ceiling. Tower's invoices appear to represent work that was integral to site rehabilitation which was broken down into appropriate units and rates. There is no evidence of "price fixing" between any entities engaged in site rehabilitation. There is no evidence that Tower intentionally inflated the costs of cleanup or of the scope of cleanup services to cover the cost of financing. There are no familial, beneficial or financial relationships, or any other form of affiliation between Tower and its subcontractors. A certified public accountant (CPA) attestation accompanied the applications indicating that Petitioners incurred (paid) all relevant costs. The applications did not include charges associated with the financing arrangements as line items. The CPA attestations referenced an addendum to the Certification Affidavit. The addendum indicated that "American Environmental Enterprises, Inc., an affiliate of the Environmental Trust, has provided financing to certain contractors and subcontractors by factoring invoices which are included within this application." The CPA provided the reference to the addendum in the CPA attestation as an "emphasis of the matter" statement rather then an "exception," or a modification of the CPA's attestation that Petitioners had incurred all costs in the application. The CPA firm performing the attestation services previously informed DEP of its intent with regard to "emphasis of the matter" reports. Nevertheless, the difference between the face amount of an invoice and the discounted amount of that invoice clearly represents interest. This interest was not allowable as an actual and reasonable cost of site remediation because Gator and Tower agreed to accept a lesser amount for their services prior to submittal of the applications. Therefore, they did not actually incur the amount reflected in the face amount of their invoices. DEP's predominate rates and units are fully loaded. Interest rate charges on borrowed capital from unrelated third-party sources are a "cost of doing business." DEP's fully-loaded rates include a variable for all direct and indirect business overhead costs such as rent, utilities and personnel costs. The direct and indirect overhead components of DEP's fully-loaded rates include the cost of short-term "working" capital. However, DEP never intended the predominate rate schedule to entitle an applicant to reimbursement for costs that it did not actually incur. In the instant cases, funds that passed down through the chain from ET or SEI to Gator or from Gator to Tower flowed directly and immediately back to AEE who was affiliated with the funder. Any profit derived by the funder, ET or SEI, will flow directly to AEE and its investors. The amount that Petitioner's actually incurred before they submitted the applications was the amount that AEE advanced to Tower and/or its subcontractors for integral site work plus the actual cost of Gator's allowable services, if any, which were separate and distinct from Tower's work, plus any allowable markup(s). Factoring Policy At the time that Petitioners submitted the subject applications for reimbursement, there was no rule or written guideline governing financing transactions, including factoring, occurring outside of the usual chain of reimbursement. DEP normally did not inquire about such financing so long as an applicant did not pass the costs of such financial transactions to DEP in the application as a line-item cost. There was no policy disallowing reimbursement for the face amount of the invoices when an applicant sold the right to payment, i.e. the receivable, at a discount to a disinterested third-party in an arms- length transaction. Commencing on August 31, 1994, DEP began to develop a policy regarding the use of factoring as a financing mechanism in the reimbursement program. DEP staff exchanged numerous documents regarding the subject of factoring. In one of those documents, Charles Williams, DEP's Reimbursement Administrator indicated that "we absolutely need to have a Big Meeting to decide what to do once and for all." In a November 1994 telephone conversation, DEP provided AFG's counsel with an informal opinion of how DEP would handle a factored application as described by Will Robins of AFG in an earlier meeting with DEP staff. The statement was: that the difference between the amount that a contractor accepted in payment for his services, which was a discounted amount after factoring, . . . and the face value of the invoice which was claimed and marked up in the application was determined to be a carrying charge or interest, which is specifically disallowed for reimbursement in the reimbursement rule. American Factors Group. Inc. and the Environmental Trust v. Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 95-0343RU, Final Order issued July 24, 1995. DEP advised AFG's counsel that it would deal with factored applications involving other entities on a case by case basis. On December 20, 1994, John Ruddell, Director of DEP's Division of Waste Management, sought permission from DEP's Policy Coordinating Committee to promulgate a rule amendment to Chapter 62-773, Florida Administrative Code (formerly Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code.) A draft rule accompanied the request. The draft rule was developed in compliance with Chapter 94-311, Section 6, Laws of Florida, which required DEP to revise its reimbursement rule. The draft rule provided that: nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to authorize reimbursement for the face amount of any bill or invoice representing incurred costs when the receivable has been sold at a discount. In all such cases, reimbursement shall be limited to the actual discounted amount accepted by the provider of the goods or services . . . . The draft rule had the effect of prohibiting factoring as a mechanism for financing site rehabilitation work. It did not single out any other type of financing mechanism. DEP did not promulgate the draft rule because the problems with the program were too numerous to correct in a timely fashion by rulemaking. Instead, DEP focused on drafting proposed legislation. In the meantime, DEP requested that Petitioners furnish additional information regarding the instant applications. Between March 1, 1995 and November 17, 1995, ET and SEI responded to DEP's requests with letters bearing AFG's or EF's letterhead. The letters state that prior to filing the applications, ET or SEI paid Gator for the face amount of Gator's invoices plus Gator's markup. Gator then paid the subcontractors for the face amount of their invoices. Prior to these payments, AEE an affiliate of ET, or SEI purchased the right to receive the amount due to Gator from ET and the right to receive the amount due to subcontractors from Gator. In each case, AEE bought the right to receive at a discount. According to the financing scheme, ET or SEI received sufficient funds from AEE to make the payments to Gator. ET or SEI, in turn, were obligated to pay AEE following their receipt of the funds claimed in the reimbursement application. On April 21, 1995, DEP issued a memorandum to DEP application reviewers to guide them in the processing of reimbursement applications. The memorandum indicated that: invoices from subcontractors, vendors, suppliers and/or the general contractor which were paid a factored (e.g., discounted) amount by a third party capital participant (e.g., funder) represents the actual amount incurred by that entity and subsequently by the general contractor. The memorandum directed reviewers to deduct costs in an amount equal to the difference in the face value of an invoice or application and the amount paid for the right to receive payment under that invoice or application. DEP did not direct the policy set forth in the April 21, 1995 memorandum towards any individual company. DEP intended the policy to apply to "any combination of a general contractor, management company, funder and responsible party" in any situation in which a third-party capital provider paid any program participants a factored (discounted) amount of their invoices." The April 21, 1995, policy did not condition DEP's position on factoring on any affiliation between any parties. Between August 14, 1995 and January 19, 1996, DEP took action on the 45 applications that are the subject of this proceeding. As reflected in those notices, DEP denied reimbursement of costs claimed in those applications "as a result of factoring of the supporting invoices" and because "the difference between the face amount of the supporting invoices and the amount factored represents interests or carrying charges which are specifically excluded from reimbursement pursuant to Rule 62-773.350, F.A.C." The notices properly reflect a basis of denial of costs that is consistent with DEP's policy as reflected in the December 20, 1994 draft rule and the April 21, 1995 memorandum. DEP has proven that its policy on factoring is consistent with its legislative mandate to deny reimbursement of costs which are not actual and reasonable. Affiliation Policy Not all out-of-chain affiliations between entities constitute a problem with regard to reimbursement. However, the instant cases presented DEP with unique facts as to the relationship between AEE, AFG, ET, WIFL and SEI which DEP's rules and written policies do cover. The mere existence of common corporate officers does not, in and of itself, cause AFG/AEE, ET, WIFL, and SEI to lose their integrity as separate legal entities, or make them "one and the same." Common officers of corporations are not an element of the term "financial relationship," nor does the concept of common corporate officers appear in the definitions of beneficial relationship, familial relationship, indirect interests, material interests, or sources of income. DEP's position at hearing that "affiliation" is a major key to it's position with regard to factoring does not appear in any of the documents in which DEP has either discussed or disseminated information regarding factoring. There are no requirements in DEP's application forms to disclose the nature of the relationships between an applicant and an applicant's source of financing. DEP makes no standard inquiry of funders to disclose the nature of any affiliation between the funder and the provider of capital. Nevertheless, the record supports DEP's position that it can deny reimbursement for costs when a PRFCSR has an "affiliation" with a factoring company outside of the chain of reimbursement under the facts of these cases. It is not contested that ET, WIFL, SEI and AFG and its sister company AEE are affiliated. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that this affiliation goes beyond a mere contractual agreement. AFG, AEE, WIFL (which owns ET and is a trust beneficiary), and SEI have common officers and directors. These officers and directors created ET and SEI primarily for the benefit of AFG and AEE as conduits for investment of funds in Florida's petroleum contamination site rehabilitation program. AFG has other investment vehicles, in addition to ET and SEI, which it can designate as a funder depending on the needs of its investors. AFG usually waits until the last instance to select the funder that it will use in any particular case. AFG often selects the funder on the same day that the funder issues its authorization to the general contractor. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that AFG and/or AEE and the Petitioners did not negotiate the contractual agreements between them at arms-length. A bill of sale evidencing the sale of Petitioners' right to receive reimbursement on each application is the only documented evidence of agreements between Petitioners and AFG or AEE. Any profit derived by ET flows back to AEE through WIFL. ET and SEI are under the management and control of AEE and AFG's officers and directors. For all practical purposes ET and SEI are "one and the same" as AEE and AFG. The affiliation between AEE, AFG, WIFL, ET and SEI is especially troublesome here where AEE advanced the discounted amount of invoices to: (a) Tower so that it could pay its subcontractors in full; (b) Gator so that it could pay Tower in full; and (c) its affiliates, ET and SEI, so that they could pay Gator in full. Gator's and Tower's immediate repayment in the face amount of the invoices to AEE is a back flow of funds (interest) to an entity affiliated with Petitioners. All of these transactions took place before Petitioners filed the instant applications or within a few days thereafter. They create a paper trail indicating that the parties within the "chain" at each level incurred the face amount of the next lowest level. However, the only amount actually incurred at the time Petitioners submitted the applications was the discounted amount of the invoices. Interest or Carrying Charges "Incurred" means that "allowable costs have been paid." (Rule 17- 773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code) Under DEP's rules, the facial meaning of the term is that persons must receive due return for their invoiced goods and services, billed on a units and reasonable rates basis, for allowable costs of site rehabilitation. A finance charge usually does not effect DEP's determination of charges that were "incurred" unless that charge appears as a line-item cost which is not the case here. However, these consolidated cases presented DEP with a new scenario in which Gator and Tower immediately repaid the face amount of their invoices to AEE retaining only the discount amount of their invoices to pay the actual costs of the level below them before submitting the applications. Moreover, they included the carrying charges in the applications as having been "incurred." Case Number 95-403RU, Pick Kwick No. 143, DEP Facility No. 528515448 is a typical example showing how the entities in the chain paid interest charges and included them in the application. In that case, Gator provided Tower with a subcontract/purchase order on July 8, 1994. Tower provided Gator with an invoice in the amount of $17,556.43 on July 8, 1994. Tower's invoice represented services performed in connection with the initial remedial action task at the Pick Kwick No. 143 facility including $269.90 for application preparation. On or about July 8, 1994, Gator provided ET with an invoice in the amount of $20,149.41. This invoice included Gator's 15 percent markup in the amount of $2,592.98 and $269.90 for application preparation. On August 4, 1994, AEE purchased Gator's right to receive payment from ET. AEE advanced Gator $17,696.44 or 88 percent of Gator's invoice. The interest charge on the advance was $2,452.97. On August 4, 1994, AEE purchased Tower's right to receive payment from Gator. AEE advanced Tower $17,029.74 or 97 percent of Tower's invoice. The interest charge on the advance was $526.69. On August 10, 1994, AEE purchased ET's right to receive payment from IPTF. AEE advanced ET $20,831.41 or 87 percent of ET's invoice. The interest charge on the advance was $2,981.93. On August 15, 1994, ET filed the reimbursement application in the amount of $23,813.34. This amount included ET's 15 percent markup on the face amount of Gator's invoice. Prior to filing the application, ET paid Gator, $20,149.41. Gator then paid Tower $17,556.43. Following receipt of payment from ET, Gator repaid AEE $20,149.41. Following receipt of payment from Gator, Tower repaid AEE $17,556.43. Gator and Tower made these repayments within a matter of weeks of the time that AEE advanced funds to them. Calculating simple interest, the annualized interest rate on the loan from AEE to Gator was approximately 144 percent. The annualized interest rate on the loan from AEE to Tower was approximately 36 percent. These were the interest rates, as predetermined by the discount percentage in the addenda to the factoring contracts (Gator at 88 percent and Tower at 97 percent), in approximately 30 of the 45 applications. In the other 15 applications, the Gator sold its right to receive payment at a discount percentage between 87 to 89 percent of the face amount of the invoice. In those cases, Tower sold its right to receive payment at a discount percentage between 95 and 72 percent of the face amount of the invoice. There is no evidence that Petitioners made adjustments to the costs in the applications where Gator and Tower sold their right to payments for a discount percentage at an amount other than as stated in the addenda to the factoring contracts. Analysis of the transactions involved in each of the subject applications clearly shows that the financing scheme utilized here was not equivalent to a "plain vanilla" loan from a disinterested third-party capital provider such as a bank. DEP properly deducted costs from Petitioners' applications that represented interest which Gator and Tower agreed to repay to Petitioners' affiliate, AEE, before Petitioners submitted the applications. The only costs that Gator and Tower actually incurred was the net amount that they received after factoring their invoices. That amount includes the difference between the face amount Gator's and Tower's invoices and the amount that AEE advanced to them. Gator and Tower did not actually incur allowable costs in the amount of the interest paid to AEE when they : (a) agreed to accept reimbursement for their services at a discount; (b) accepted the full amount of their invoices from the next highest level; and (c) passed the full amount of their respective invoices back to AEE. DEP did not envision this type of elaborate factoring plan when it created its simple definition of "incurred" as meaning allowable costs have been paid. It is important for participants in the program to know the "rules of the game." Applicants have to make technical and financial decisions regarding site cleanup. They have to pay all contractors and subcontractors prior to submitting an application. In this case Petitioners' attempts to win DEP's pre-approval of their various factoring proposals were unsuccessful because DEP did not have enough information about the transactions and the relationships of the entities involved. After DEP received additional information from Petitioners, it became abundantly clear that the rules were insufficient to cover the financing scheme presented here. As early as November 4, 1993, Petitioners acknowledged that "the provisions of Rule 170773, F.A.C. do not specifically address the types of situations that arise when providing capital for cleanup activities through funding groups such as AFG." Petitioners revealed their final plan in July of 1994 just before they began filing the applications. At that time, Petitioners knew DEP's concerns. They also knew DEP could not make a decision on an application until they filed the application with DEP. Inconsistent Application of Statutes, Rules and Written Guidelines DEP has authorized financial transactions by which other applicants, after incurring (paying) all costs and filing their applications, sold or pledged their right to future payment to an entity outside the usual reimbursement chain. In those cases, DEP did not deduct interest associated with such transactions. DEP's approval of such transactions came before Petitioners filed their applications in this matter. There is no evidence that those transactions involved the factoring of invoices and an agreement to repay interest before the PRFCSR submitted the applications. Likewise, there is no evidence of an affiliation and less than arms-length negotiation between the funder and the financing company in those cases. The record contains no evidence of an inconsistent application of DEP's statutes, rules or written policies before or after Petitioners filed the instant applications. Reservoir Capital On March 14, 1994, DEP met with Reservoir Capital Corporation (Reservoir) to discuss a change of address notice directing reimbursement orders and checks for Clean America Financial, Inc. (Clean America) applications to a Baltimore, Maryland address. During that meeting Reservoir's counsel informed DEP that Reservoir "paid a percentage, not the full cost, for each application." DEP representative, Paul DiGuisseppe, informed Charles Williams of that conversation by memorandum dated March 15, 1994. Mr. DiGuisseppe later spoke with a representative of Clean America (the funder) and advised him to provide a list of facilities pledged to Reservoir for which notices and payments were to be sent to the Baltimore, Maryland address. On March 30, 1994, Clean America wrote to Charles Williams and Doug Jones, providing a list of sites pledged to Reservoir and directing DEP to send payments to the Baltimore, Maryland address. Among the sites pledged to Reservoir were Curry Station, DEP Facility No. 309103537 and Scardo Automotive, DEP Facility No. 428511319. On June 17, 1994, DEP issued a reimbursement order to Scardo Automotive at the Baltimore, Maryland address. On July 1, 1994, DEP issued a reimbursement order to Curry Station at the Baltimore, Maryland address. These orders did not contain a denial of costs or deductions of interest based upon the disclosed fact that Reservoir had purchased the applications for an amount less than their face value. However, there is no evidence that either of the applicants sold the right to receive reimbursement before submitting the application. Additionally, there is no evidence that Reservoir was affiliated with Clean America. On April 11, 1996, DEP revisited the Reservoir Capital factoring mechanism. In that instance, DEP reviewed a situation in which Reservoir Capital directly paid a subcontractor's invoice in an application that All American Funding (All American) filed. Reservoir had purchased the receivable of All American, and applied part of the purchase price to directly pay a subcontractor. There is no evidence of any "affiliation" between Reservoir and any other entity in the reimbursement chain. Prior to the meeting with Reservoir, DEP intended to deny those costs since it appeared that Reservoir actually paid them rather than the applicant, All American. As a result of that meeting, DEP requested additional information from Reservoir. At the time of hearing in these cases, DEP had not made a decision in that case pending receipt of the requested information. Governor's Bank On March 9, 1994, Governors Bank wrote to Charles Williams requesting that DEP directly remit to Governors Bank any reimbursement due on an application filed by Clean America due to the fact that Clean America "secured its borrowings from the bank with any rights to payment which CAFC has in connection with certain reimbursement applications." On March 30, 1994, Clean America sent a letter to Charles Williams and Doug Jones requesting that the DEP honor the March 9, 1994 letter directing payment to Governor's Bank. On November 4, 1994, Clean America advised DEP that DEP was to remit additional final reimbursements to Governors Bank. The letter advised DEP that "based upon a loan relationship Governor's Bank established with Clean America . . ." reimbursement payments had been assigned to Governors Bank and therefore "all payments and proceeds must be remitted to Governor's Bank." There is no record evidence that Clean America entered into a loan agreement with Governors Bank prior to submittal of the application or that the applications included claims for interest paid to the bank. There is no evidence of any affiliation between Clean America and the bank. The financing mechanism that Petitioners used for these 45 applications is not similar to a "plain vanilla" bank loan where a lender advances funds after an applicant files an application and directs DEP to forward reimbursement payments to a bank lock box. Barriston Environmental Investors L.P. On March 11, 1993, Barriston Environmental Investors, L.P. (Barriston) wrote to John Ruddell, Director of the DEP's Division of Waste Management and described a mechanism of financing by which Barriston (the funder) would obtain funds, at least partially through bank debt, for the payment of subcontractors' site rehabilitation invoices. In the Barriston proposal, the subcontractor would remit an "investment banking fee" of 5 percent of the value of the invoices back to the funder upon payment of 100 percent of the invoices. Barriston's letter acknowledged that this fee would not be reimbursable under the program. In addition, the Barriston funder would receive a commitment fee from the site owner which the Barriston funder would not include in the reimbursement claim. A reference in the letter to the payment of interest on funds advanced on the site owner's behalf does not specify the time frame in which interest would be paid, i.e. before or after the filing of an application. The letter sought DEP's approval and assurance that the payment of 100 percent of the invoices would entitle Barriston to full reimbursement including both markups. Barriston's letter requested an informal response because it realized that DEP had no authority to take official agency action without the submission of an application. On April 9, 1993, DEP responded to the Barriston letter. In its response, DEP stated that the arrangements appeared to be consistent with current statutes and rules and would be eligible for the full reimbursement allowed by DEP's rules. However, there is no record evidence of any official agency action on an application submitted in accordance with Barriston's proposal. Interest Indemnification Interest indemnification encompasses a situation in which a contractor pays interest directly back to a funder during the period of time after submittal of an application but before reimbursement by the IPTF. In June 1995, a DEP employee contacted Petitioners' certified public accountant (CPA) inquiring about the practice and seeking copies of his other clients' interest indemnification contracts. After that conversation, the CPA discussed the matter with another DEP employee to confirm his understanding that financing issues were outside of the scope of DEP's review so long as an applicant did not include such charges in the application. Since the June 1995 discussions, DEP has reimbursed applications which were financed through interest indemnification without adjustments for the payment of interest. However, the interest indemnification payments applied to applications after the applicants filed them with DEP to replace long-term interest that IPTF is no longer paying. The applicants were not seeking reimbursement of those payments as incurred costs. Petitioners have not established their entitlement to reimbursement for the factored amounts of their invoices. DEP presented competent evidence to support its "factoring" and "affiliation" policies as applied here. In addition, the evidence indicates that DEP has not inconsistently applied such policies to other similarly situated reimbursement applicants. Petitioners have failed to prove that DEP's denial of costs based upon factoring is not reasonably related to the purpose of reimbursement review and otherwise unsupported by competent evidence. The April 21, 1995 policy statement is a rule as defined in Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes. DEP was not aware of the need for such a rule when it made the last substantive amendments to Rule 17-773, Florida Administrative Code, in 1993. Nevertheless, DEP demonstrated that the non-rule policy is a reasonable interpretation of Sections 376.3071(12)(b) and 376.3071(12)(d), Florida Statutes. DEP provided an evidentiary basis to support its factoring policy in these consolidated cases. The difference between the face amount of the invoices and their factored amount did not represent allowable costs which were actual and reasonable. DEP deducted the amount of the relevant discount percentage (on a prorated basis) from each invoice submitted by Tower and its subcontractors. There is a discrepancy between the amount that DEP deducted from each invoice (itemized) and the total deduction based on a lump sum in 33 of the 45 cases which DEP did not explain during the hearing. Therefore, before DEP enters a Final Order, it should review the supporting documents to determine the correct deduction in each application. "Value Added" Policy Funders and contractors are entitled to take a markup of paid contractor and subcontractor invoices for allowable costs at reasonable rates. The invoices must represent actual and reasonable costs which are integral to site remediation. Contractors are entitled to a first-tier 15 percent markup for supervising and/or coordinating on-site remediation, for investing capital while awaiting reimbursement by paying subcontractors invoices, and for assuming liability for the performance of the subcontractors. Funders generally are entitled to a second-tier 15 percent markup as an incentive to provide funds to finance the work. Markups are expressly subject to limitations set forth in Section 17- 773.350(9), (10) and (11), Florida Administrative Code. There are no other specific or implied limitations on markups in the rules or written guidelines. Requiring each entity that receives a markup in the reimbursement chain to pay contractor, subcontractor, and vendor invoices helps ensure that each level in the reimbursement chain pays the participant at the next lowest level. In these cases, each level in the reimbursement application chain "technically" paid the next lowest level. DEP policy in effect at the time Petitioners submitted the instant applications for reimbursement was to allow markups of paid invoices at two levels. However, prior to the submission of the instant applications, DEP was not aware of a case where a general contractor claimed a markup for work that was complete before the general contractor became involved in the project. With regard to all of the pending reimbursement applications, Gator applied a 15 percent markup to all of Tower's invoices including the invoices of Tower's subcontractors. With regard to a minimum of 30 of the 45 sites, Gator clearly did not supervise, manage or direct site remediation activities performed by Tower or its subcontractors. In fact, Gator did not become involved until after Tower completed these tasks. In at least 30 of the instant cases, Tower was acting as the general contractor when all of the on-site remediation took place. However, Tower could not apply a 15 percent markup to the invoices for its own services. Gator made it possible for Petitioners to claim the markup on Tower's invoices. As to the 15 sites at which Gator allegedly had some type of involvement with on-site remediation activities, there is no persuasive evidence regarding the specific activities or the level of Gator's involvement on any particular project. On September 1, 1994, Restoration Assistance, an entity under contract with DEP to review reimbursement applications, issued a memorandum to its reviewers directing them to complete their review and do a "total denial" on "Gator Environmental packages." The memorandum advised the reviewers that "Bruce" was drafting canned language to use in DEP's denial statement. On or about April 21, 1995, DEP presented its reviewers with a memorandum setting forth an initial overview of a "value added" policy for markups taken by a "management company" involved in site remediation activities. According to the memorandum, DEP would allow reimbursement of claims for actual project management work and value-added services. The memorandum further provided that DEP would allow markups to a management company which only provided cash-flow services for a majority of the program task period even if the management company performed no other service. However, DEP would deny a markup if the management company provided such services during a "one month time period." DEP intended for the April 21, 1995 memorandum to acquaint DEP reviewers with the emerging DEP policy on markups. DEP's rules and written guidelines do not address the distinction made in the April 21, 1995 memorandum regarding the timing during which a management company could provide cash flow services and still be entitled to a markup. On October 20, 1995, Charles Williams issued a DEP policy memorandum for reviewers to use in reviewing reimbursement applications. Through that memorandum, DEP finalized and implemented the "value added" policy. The memorandum states that: if the 'GC' [general contractor] was involved with the management of the project during the course of the actual work by subcontractors, [DEP] rules do not preclude them from applying a markup. However, if the 'GC' came along after the work was completed by other contractors and their involvement was more of a due diligence exercise to faciltiate (sic) a funding arrangement by a third party, then the 'GC' markup would not be justified, though a markup by the actual funder listed as the PRFCSR could be allowed. Prior to the establishment of the "value added" policy on October 20, 1995, DEP made no inquiry as to whether a contractor provided value added services in order for the contractor to be entitled to a markup. DEP applied the "value added" policy to all pending applications (including the ones at issue here) resulting in a deduction of Gator's markup in all of the subject cases. The Department of Banking and Finance reviewed and issued a report (Comptroller's Report) on the Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Reimbursement Program on November 29, 1994. This report addressed the issue of markups in the reimbursement program. The Comptroller's Report recognized that DEP found the multiple markup structure to be beneficial in that it "attracts the involvement of companies whose role in cleanup projects is limited to providing funds to finance the work [and] attracts investors who provide funds which might not otherwise be available--thus facilitating cleanup of contaminated sites." The Comptroller's Report describes a two-tier arrangement involving a "prime contractor engaged to manage the cleanup project" and a "funding entity." The report acknowledges that the prime contractor "might have only limited direct involvement in the cleanup, having engaged subcontractors for most or all of the actual work." The example in the Comptroller's report did not state what DEP's policy would be if a subcontractor had completed all of the actual work before the contractor became involved. Even without this consideration, the report was critical of DEP's allowance of markups on either level. The Petroleum Efficiency Task Force (PETF) issued its final report on financing contractors on August 17, 1994. This report discussed DEP's policy of allowing two markups. In this discussion, the PETF recognized that "funders must be able to rely on the skills and knowledge of contractors to minimize reimbursement shortfalls." The PETF recommended for future consideration that "the Department should provide in rulemaking that contractors who take the first-tier 15 percent markup on subcontracted work must adequately supervise the work." When the PETF issued its report, there was no existing rule that established any level of on site supervision or any other specific criteria for applying one of the two allowable levels of markup, other than paying invoices for integral site rehabilitation work. DEP's rules and written guidelines did not substantively change with regard to the "value added" policy from the April 22, 1993 revision of Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code, to the October 20, 1995 memorandum which established a non-rule limitation on the ability of an entity to apply a markup to paid invoices. Because the rules and written guidelines do not reflect the "value added" policy, a participant in the program would not be aware of it even if the participant requested program information. Gator technically paid 100 percent of the face value of Tower's invoices. Without Gator's involvement, AFG and AEE would not have financed these applications. However, DEP presented persuasive evidence at the hearing to support its position that Gator was not entitled to a markup because Gator's services added no value to site remediation projects. In the instant cases, Gator performed some type of a minimal due diligence review of Tower's site work. Gator allegedly reviewed Tower's technical and administrative files, cross-referenced technical and administrative files with the applications which Tower prepared, made visits to some job sites, and prepared a deficiency letter to determine the appropriateness of the scope of Tower's work. However, all of these functions were repetitious of the work that was performed by Tower and the certified public accountant attesting to the Certification Affidavit. Gator limited the deficiency letters to the question of whether the scope of Tower's services were reimbursable. However, there is no evidence that Tower's deficiency letters resulted in adjustments to costs in the applications as filed by Petitioners. The deficiency letters served only to adjust the discount percentage set forth in the addenda to the factoring contracts. Tower was a qualified engineering consulting firm that employed its own engineers and geologists. Gator's employee that reviewed the technical information in Tower's files was not a Florida professional engineer. He was not qualified as a certified public accountant to determine whether a charge was within DEP's reasonable rates. The Gator employee was a Florida professional geologist but he did not sign and seal the deficiency letter as such. There is no reference in DEP's rules or written policies to a deficiency letter. AFG required Gator to prepare the deficiency letter within two days of the date on which EF provided Gator with the opportunity to review a completed task. This two-day turn around time allegedly afforded efficiency of payment. Gator did not begin its review of an reimbursement application until after Gator received an invoice from Tower. The relevant subcontract/purchase order issued by Gator to Tower, the Tower invoice and the Gator invoice were often prepared on the same day. Gator technically paid Tower's invoices with funds that AEE advanced. Tower used these funds to repay AEE. When Gator received payment from ET or SEI, it passed the funds back to AEE before ET or SEI submitted the applications to DEP or immediately thereafter. Pursuant to the addenda to the factoring contracts, Tower, not Gator, contributed to a reserve trust account which AEE will use to cover any reimbursement shortfalls. Gator indemnified AEE and guaranteed its own work but did not assume a risk of loss on Tower's work. On most if not all of the applications, Gator performed no meaningful management or supervisory functions. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Gator's primary purpose in these consolidated cases was not to afford AFG a level of comfort as to the appropriate scope of the individual program tasks but to ensure that third-party investors maximized their profits. The "value added" agency statement has the effect of a rule which DEP did not contemplate when it promulgated its rules and written policies. Nevertheless, DEP's decision concerning the value added policy is within the scope of its delegated legislative authority. DEP has proven that reimbursement for Gator's services was not allowable as actual and reasonable costs of site remediation. Therefore, it is not entitled to a first-tier markup. Computer Costs Prior to January 1, 1995, DEP determined the reimbursability of computer costs based upon a "units and rates basis" as provided by Rules 17- 773.100(5), and 17-733.700(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code. DEP evaluated computer costs "as a certain number of hours [at] a reasonable rate." Pursuant to the units and rates rule provisions, there was no rational basis for DEP to deny the computer costs contained in applications filed prior to January 1, 1995. On January 1, 1995, DEP established a policy by which it would disallow in full any computer costs greater than $750. Under that policy, DEP would reimburse in full an applicant's computer costs with supporting invoices of $749 dollars, but disallow in full computer costs with supporting invoices of $751. DEP's reimbursement orders involving more than $750 in computer costs after January 1, 1995 routinely stated that "there was insufficient justification to demonstrate that this computer time was integral to the task or necessary." DEP applied the computer policy to all applications filed and pending review at the time it developed the policy, regardless of when an applicant performed the work or generated the records. DEP applied the January 1, 1995 computer policy to the application in Case No. 95-4606 which ET filed on July 18, 1994. In that case DEP denied $1,456.25 in computer costs allowing no reimbursement for computer time. On April 27, 1995, DEP implemented a new policy by which it evaluated computer costs based upon a calculation of allowable personnel hours per task as opposed to a units and rates basis. Under that policy DEP would evaluate the total allowable personnel hours in a task and limit computer costs to 10 percent of those hours up to a maximum of $750. Under the April 27, 1995 policy, DEP reduced the reimbursement for computer costs to $500 if the reimbursable amount exceeded $750 after DEP made the 10 percent calculation. DEP implemented the April 27, 1995 policy through the use of a calculation work sheet which it provided to its application reviewers. DEP applied the April 27, 1995 computer policy and work sheet to all applications pending review at the time DEP developed the policy, regardless of when the applicant performed the work or generated the records. DEP applied the April 27, 1995, policy in all of the subject cases subsequent to Case No. 95-4606, with the following exceptions: Case Nos. 96- 0432RU, 96-1006 and 96-1009, which had no denial of computer costs; and Case No. 96-1352, in which DEP applied the 10 percent limitation, but reimbursed 896.75 dollars of the computer costs. After implementation of the April 27, 1995 policy, DEP made no effort to adjust the denial of all computer costs in Case No. 95-4606 under the January 1, 1995 policy. The only other category in which DEP evaluates reimbursement on a percentage of hours basis, rather than a units and rates basis, is total management costs. DEP's written guidelines and Rule 17-773.350(16), Florida Administrative Code, limit management costs to a percentage of total allowable personnel hours. There are no rules or written guidelines that would limit computer costs based upon criteria other than a units and rates evaluation, or that would support DEP's policies as reflected in the January 1, 1995 and April 27, 1995 policy memoranda. DEP's rules and written guidelines did not substantively change with regard to this issue from the time Petitioners filed the subject applications, to the time DEP established the January 1, 1995 and the April 27, 1995 computer policies. DEP did not issue any PCRs or other written guidelines to place applicants on fair notice of DEP's new policies with regard to computer costs. DEP presented no persuasive evidence at the hearing to support its January 1, 1995 and April 27, 1995 policies. The only basis for the policy was DEP's representation that it developed the policies as a "reasonableness issue" in order to reduce the amount of computer costs that were appearing in reimbursement applications. DEP did not demonstrate that it based the new policies on any calculation of the amount of computer time necessary to perform a remediation task. Once the total computer costs reached $750 dollars, DEP gave no consideration to the scope or complexity of the task. Given the difference in the amounts involved in performing site remediation services (e.g. an application totaling 7,249.75 dollars in Case No. 96-0411RU versus an application totaling 149,080.02 dollars in Case No. 96-0425RU) and the differences in program tasks (see Rule 17-773.500, Florida Administrative Code), a policy establishing a flat numerical limit on computer costs that an applicant may claim in an application is not reasonable. DEP presented no evidence at the hearing to prove the basis for its retroactive application of the policies to work performed and applications submitted prior to the development of the policies. DEP did not attempt to explain the basis for its failure to apply the rules and written guidelines in effect at the time the work was performed or the records generated. Based upon the foregoing, DEP's denial of computer costs in each of these applications is not supported by the statutes, rules and written guidelines in effect at the time the work was performed or the applications were filed. Each application contains information supporting the computer costs. The application Certification Affidavits and CPA attestations demonstrate that Petitioners incurred the computer costs which DEP should reimburse. The reimbursement for computer costs should be in full except to the extent that DEP allocates to a supporting document a prorated share of the amount of a discount on a factored invoice. As a final note, of the computer costs denied in 16 of the 45 reimbursement notices, the sum of the allowances and deductions does not equal the overall claim. The differences ranged from a few dollars to over four hundred dollars. DEP provided no evidence to explain the discrepancy in the amount calculated by DEP in its notices. Miscellaneous Costs Prior to September 27, 1995, DEP reimbursed miscellaneous line-item costs when the applicant furnished support for them in the application. The miscellaneous costs policy as of May 17, 1995 even dispensed with the requirement of supporting invoices when these costs totaled less than 300 dollars. DEP's reviewers are employees of a firm that provides DEP with application review services as an independent contractor. On September 27, 1995, after a meeting with DEP staff, the application reviewers implemented a policy to deny costs for "overhead." Under the new policy, certain items were overhead, including but not limited to: gloves, mason jars, sampling disposables, phone calls, excessive faxes, excessive copying, small hand tools, shipping documents, etc. The application reviewers had to exercise their own discretion as to which items were "overhead" until they received a guideline from DEP. The reviewers decided to approve overhead expenses of less than $50 and deny items for more than $50. The policy continued in existence at least through November 9, 1995. DEP applied the miscellaneous/overhead policy to all of the subject applications, regardless of the date of cleanup work or application submittal. The application reviewers applied the miscellaneous/overhead "policy" without the knowledge of DEP's Reimbursement Administrator, Charles Williams. When Mr. Williams found out about the policy, he "counselled them that they need to reverse that position." The correct policy would allow reimbursement of "miscellaneous/overhead" costs that the reviewers denied in 33 of the 45 applications. DEP made no effort to correct the denial of these costs based upon its erroneously applied policy. DEP presented no persuasive evidence at the hearing to support its application of the miscellaneous/overhead policy in applications submitted prior to the development of the policy. DEP did not explain the basis for its failure to apply the rules and written guidelines in effect at the time the subcontractors performed the work or generated the records. Based upon the foregoing, DEP's denial of miscellaneous/overhead costs in 33 applications in which DEP denied such costs is not supported by the applicable states, rules and written guidelines. Each application contains information supporting the miscellaneous costs. The applications' Certification Affidavits and CPA Attestations demonstrate that Petitioner's incurred the miscellaneous costs. Therefore, DEP should reimburse those miscellaneous costs. The reimbursement should be in full except to the extent that DEP allocates to a supporting document a prorated share of the amount of a discount on a factored invoice. Airfare From June 17, 1993, to sometime prior to January 31, 1996, DEP's policy with regard to the reimbursement of airfare was to pay airfare integral to site rehabilitation when such costs were relatively inexpensive. By no later than January 31, 1996, DEP developed and applied a policy to deny all airfare costs regardless of whether the applicant provided justification. On March 13, 1996, DEP decided that once again it would reimburse airfare with sufficient justification such as a comparison with car travel. DEP considers the changes in reimbursability of airfare as "just procedures to follow," and applicable without regard to the timing of work performed. DEP denied airfare charges in Case No. 96-1353 as overhead charges. DEP's rules and written guidelines did not substantively change with regard to airfare from June 17, 1993, when airfare was reimbursable, to the policy implemented on January 31, 1996, in which airfare was not reimbursable, to March 13, 1996, when airfare was reimbursable once again. DEP issued no PCRs or other written guidelines to place applicants on fair notice of the changes in policy with regard to airfare. DEP has not provided any evidence to support the basis for the fluctuations in its airfare policy. DEP presented no evidence at the hearing to provide the basis for its application of the airfare policy to work performed and applications submitted prior to the development of the changes in policy. DEP did not explain the basis for its failure to apply the rules and written guidelines in effect at the time the subcontractors performed the work or generated the records. Based upon the foregoing, DEP's denial of airfare costs in the application for Case No. 96-1353 is not supported by the applicable rules and written guidelines. The application contains information supporting the miscellaneous costs. The application's Certification Affidavit and CPA Attestation demonstrate that Petitioner ET incurred the airfare costs. Therefore, DEP should reimburse airfare costs in full except to the extent that DEP allocates to a supporting invoice the prorated amount of a discount on a factored invoice. Inconsistent Agency Practice The application of DEP's factoring policy did not treat Petitioners in a manner different from other funders. Heretofore, DEP was not aware of a case where program participants factored their invoices before filing an application and claimed the face amount of those invoices for reimbursement. The affiliation between Petitioners and AFG and/or AEE was also unique. DEP issued a memorandum requiring funders to provide "clarification regarding essential cost documentation" on July 26, 1995. The purpose of this memorandum was to remind application reviewers of the need for a funder to submit an invoice documenting and supporting its line-item claim for the second- tier 15 percent markup. DEP did not intend for this memorandum to limit DEP's ability to inquire about relationships and transactions taking place outside the usual chain of reimbursement when an application on its face refers to a factoring scheme involving an "affiliation" between the factoring company and the funder. DEP does not deduct finance charges when an applicant incurs (pays) all invoices, submits the application, then sells the receivable or agrees to pay long-term interest pending receipt of payment from the IPTF. In the instant cases, Petitioners agreed to accept reimbursement for their services at a discount before they submitted the applications then included the cost of borrowing capital in the application. DEP does not routinely ask questions of other applicants regarding their financing. Nevertheless, under the facts of these cases, DEP would have been remiss in its duty if it had not made such inquiries. DEP's actions in the instant cases are not inconsistent with its actions taken in other cases with other similarly situated entities because there is no evidence that other such cases exist. Bias On August 31, 1994, Bruce French provided Charles Williams with a memorandum in which Mr. French discussed factoring. In his memorandum, Mr. French concluded that DEP could only reimburse the "discount" amount that the factoring company actually incurred/paid the funders. On September 1, 1994, Mr. French had a discussion with someone named "Toni" at McGuinnes Laboratories regarding the laboratories' use of AFG services for financing invoices to Tower. On September 2, 1994, Mr. French related in a memorandum to Charles Williams, his understanding that the laboratory had different price lists for different customers, generally depending on volume of analysis performed and individual payment agreements. Mr. French surmised that the laboratory's price for services "is inflated to deal with AFG's discount price to be paid by AFG." Mr. French concluded that, under those circumstances, AFG's financing arrangements may "represent collusion on behalf of all parties to the application to defraud DEP for the benefit of AFG. That is, prices are 'fixed' prior to performing of services." On September 2, 1994, Mr. Williams responded to Mr. French's memo by indicating that the scenario presented by Mr. French "sounds interesting" and that DEP would "absolutely need to have a Big Meeting to decide what to do once and for all." On September 12, 1994, Mr. French provided information on factoring to Bill Sittig of DEP's Office of the Inspector General and to Mr. Williams. Mr. French included a drawing entitled "The Tangled Web They Weave or the Hidden Discount Line Items and other Fluff, August 31, 1994 Interpretation of Bruce French's Discussion." At the hearing, neither Mr. Sittig nor Mr. Williams remembered seeing the drawing. There is no competent evidence as to the identity of the person creating the drawing. There is no persuasive competent evidence that Mr. French was biased against Petitioners or any other entity utilizing factoring as a mechanism of financing. Moreover, DEP had no direct and demonstrable bias against Petitioners. Timeliness of Agency Action Prior to filing the instant applications, representatives of the funders and AFG presented various financing schemes to DEP for pre-approval. In each proposal, the person speaking for AFG also spoke on behalf of the funders. At all times relevant here, Paul DeCoster was secretary and counsel for AFG. He was also secretary of SEI and a corporate director and shareholder of WIFL. In September of 1993, Mr. DeCoster wrote a letter to DEP describing a proposed financing scheme in which AFG would purchase the account receivables of contractors engaged in site rehabilitation. AFG's plans were in a formative stage at this time. Mr. DeCoster wrote DEP a follow-up letter dated October 4, 1993. This letter states that: the amount of financing required to meet [certain contractor clients'] working capital needs is so large that FEC [a funder] must find large institutional investors to accommodate them. For service of finding such investors, FEC proposes to charge a fee to the contractor client, which would be in addition to the 15 [percent] 'markup' taken by the investor providing the financing. The October 4, 1993 letter disclosed that contractor clients would deposit funds in a trust account as security for the performance of their work. The trust would invest its funds "in accounts receivable purchased from AFG, the parent of FEC, and any income earned by the trust on those investments would inure to the benefit of AFG." The plan that Mr. DeCoster proposed was markedly different from the scheme utilized here. The most noticeable differences are that the subject applications did not involve a finder's fee, FEC as a funder, or the purchase of AFG's accounts receivable by a reserve trust. In October of 1993, Will Robins met with DEP staff to discuss the manner in which the reimbursement program would apply to a proposed financing scheme. In this proposal, AFG would charge contractors an application/initiation fee and/or a commitment fee. The transactions between the entities in the instant applications did not involve an application/initiation fee and/or a commitment fee. When Mr. Robins made his presentation, DEP did not know the specific relationships between the entities involved or Mr. Robins' position as an officer, director, and or shareholder of these entities. After that meeting, counsel for AFG sent DEP a letter dated November 4, 1993. The letter acknowledges that the existing rules did not "specifically address the types of situations that arise when providing capital for cleanup activities through funding groups such as AFG." The letter identifies ET as the proposed funder through which AFG would finance cleanups. According to the letter, ET would incur the costs but AFG would hold the right to receive the ultimate reimbursement payment from the IPTF. The letter clearly reveals DEP's concern that the proposed application/initiation fee was a "kickback" which should be deducted from the funder's markup. In January of 1994, counsel for AFG wrote a letter to DEP describing a financing scheme which differs in some respects from the financing scheme at issue here. This letter states that AFG intended to purchase receivables of the funder and the general contractor at a discount. Under this plan, the general contractor and the funder would claim the two allowable markups. The subcontractors would pay AFG a finder's fee. The letter reveals that AFG, its affiliates, and investors would recover the cash equivalent of both levels of markups plus a fee from subcontractors for funding the high costs of risky projects. The letter states that: since the Department's reimbursement rules do not specifically address the issue of site cleanups that are funded through private sources of capital . . . it is important that we know if there are any obvious or glaring problems with this plan that would cause reimbursement to be withheld otherwise restricted. On July 13, 1994, counsel for AFG wrote DEP to explain some modifications in the details to the proposed plan for the purchase and sale of receivables at a discount. This letter informed DEP that AFG would have a financial affiliation with the funder (ET) which would exist outside the chain of reimbursement and which would have no effect on either the markups or the overall reimbursement amount reflected in any application. All contracts within the chain of reimbursement (between ET, SEI, Gator, Tower, and its subcontractors) would be negotiated in arms-length transactions. The letter states: In this plan the subcontractors will perform their work on the site and will prepare their invoices in a manner consistent with any publicly or privately financed cleanup. Those invoices will be complied and forwarded to the general contractor for its review and the general contractor will add on the markup allowed by rule to the subcontractor's bills. The reimbursement application will then be forwarded to the funder who will ensure that all bills have been paid and who will be identified as the "person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation" on the reimbursement application. The funder will take the second markup allowed by rule, and will submit the reimbursement application to the Department of Environmental Protection for processing. Reimbursement will ultimately be paid by the Department to the funder in accordance with the reimbursement application. At no step in this process will the Department relinquish any authority to review and approve either the scope and nature of the cleanup or the rates charged by the contractors and subcontractors. Petitioners filed the first of their applications with DEP on July 18, 1994, five days after the date of the July 13, 1994 letter. In late November, 1994, after all but 4 of the 45 applications were filed, DEP placed a telephone call to Petitioners' counsel advising him of the position DEP intended to take with regard to his client's financing arrangements. DEP did not provide any written confirmation of that call, or issue any document describing its policy, until April 21, 1995. In each of the above described letters and/or meetings, AFG's attempt to ascertain DEP's position regarding the various proposed financing mechanisms was unsuccessful. However, AFG was aware that DEP could not take a position that represented official agency action until an applicant actually filed an application. At no time did DEP make any affirmative statement which misled Petitioners regarding the acceptability of AFG's proposals. There is no persuasive evidence to support a finding that the agency did not timely respond to the claims for reimbursement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that DEP enter a Final Order in each of these consolidated cases: (a) disallowing reimbursement of the first- tier markup; (b) disallowing reimbursement of any factored invoice in an amount equal to the amount of the discount on that invoice; and (c) allowing reimbursement of costs associated with airfare, computers, and miscellaneous/overhead expenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gary Early, Esquire Christopher R. Haughee, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt and Eidson, P.A. 216 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2555 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Betsy F. Hewitt, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Petitioner's site located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida, is eligible to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of a gasoline service station located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. Tomas Pequeno, Sr., is the President and owner of X.O. # 1 Corporation. International Petroleum currently operates the facility located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142 pursuant to a lease agreement with X.O. #1 Corporation. The mailing address of the subject facility and of X.O. #1 Corporation is 12190 S.W. 99th Street, Miami, Florida 33186. Aurelio Rodriguez is part owner of International Petroleum and has been the manager and operator of the facility in question since 1988. Since 1988 Tomas Pequeno, Sr., has delegated authority to his son, Tomas Pequeno, Jr., to act on his behalf with regard to the business of X.O. #1 Corporation and the facility located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. At the subject facility there are six underground storage tanks which receive and dispense petroleum products. These underground storage tanks are owned by X.O. #1 Corporation and constitute part of the property leased to International Petroleum. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, there were functioning monitoring wells on the premises for the purpose of detecting leaks in the underground storage system. At the formal hearing, Tomas Pequeno, Jr., testified that on September 21, 1987, an odor of petroleum in one of the monitoring wells on the subject site was detected during a routine inspection of the premises. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., was advised by the inspector that there might be a leak in the system. On November 17, 1987, Mr. Pequeno, Jr., caused the tanks on the premises to be relined. No leaks were detected by the tests that were conducted following the relining of the tanks. Paragraph 9 of the Pretrial Stipulation filed by the parties on July 24, 1991, is as follows: 9. That the date of discovery of petroleum contamination at this facility was September 21, 1987, as indicated by Tomas Pequeno. On December 9, 1988, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an "Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application" which was signed by Tomas Pequeno, Sr., as president of X.O. #1 Corporation. This form had been completed by Tomas Pequeno, Jr., and given to his father for his execution. This form represented that contamination at the site was detected September 21, 1987, by a manual test of the monitoring wells, that the number of gallons lost was unknown, that the petroleum contamination was due to leaking storage tanks, and that the system had been repaired. The cause of the leak in the piping and the cause of the leak in the tanks were stated as being unknown. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., testified at the formal hearing that: "There was never a discharge from that site and there is not a discharge right now at this moment." Mr. Pequeno, Jr., also answered in the affirmative to the following question: "Mr. Pequeno, are you testifying there is no contamination at this facility?" 1/ Mr. Pequeno, Jr., testified further that he submitted the Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application as a precaution in the event contamination was discovered. The testimony of Mr. Pequeno, Jr., at the formal hearing contradicted the representations made on the Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application. At all times pertinent to this proceeding both Mr. Pequeno, Jr., and Mr. Rodriguez were aware that the primary purpose of a monitoring well is to detect leaks from a petroleum storage system. At all times pertinent to this proceeding both Mr. Pequeno, Jr., and Mr. Rodriguez were aware of the existence of the monitoring wells on the subject site. The Dade County Department of Environmental Management (DERM) had asked the operator of the facility to submit monitoring reports. 2/ Mr. Rodriguez was unable to recall when DERM first requested the monitoring reports, but it is clear from his testimony that the request was made several months before the hearing. The operator knew that monitoring system checks were required and had been requested by DERM to provide reports of those monitoring system checks. The failure to conduct regular, periodic monitoring system checks creates the risk that a leak in a petroleum storage system will continue undetected. Neither the operator nor the owner monitored the underground petroleum storage system on a regular basis until July of 1991, when the operator began to monitor the system on a regular basis and began to keep a log of the results. Since September 21, 1987, Petitioner was aware that a sample of water from one of the monitoring wells (monitoring well #9) at the subject facility consistently contained the odor of petroleum. At the time of the formal hearing, monitoring well #9 still contained the odor of petroleum. On January 26, 1989, Mr. Rodriguez, as the operator of the facility, received a copy of the Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report form completed by a DERM inspector. This report placed the operator of the facility on notice that evidence of a discharge of pollutants had been discovered at the facility. On March 3, 1989, DERM sent to Petitioner by certified mail a letter which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department of Environmental Resources Management acknowledges that you have applied for a state administered cleanup under the "Early Detection Incentive Program" ... . However, a review of the Department's records reveals that the source of contamination has not been determined. Therefore, the discharge of hazardous materials from the underground storage system to the adjacent soils or waters may be continuing. * * * ... [Y]ou are required to: Immediately upon receipt of this letter, CEASE and DESIST from any further unauthorized discharges to the ground and/or groundwater of Dade County. Immediately upon receipt of this letter, hydrostatically test, and repair any leaks to all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, submit to this Department certifica- tion that all underground tanks and transmis- sion lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. ... The letter dated March 3, 1989, was received by Petitioner on March 7, 1989. By that letter, Petitioner was placed on notice that there was a risk that a discharge of hazardous materials from the underground storage system to the adjacent soils and waters was continuing. By that letter, Petitioner was also placed on notice that DERM required that it hydrostatically test all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site in order to determine if leaks existed in the tanks and lines. By that letter, Petitioner was also placed on notice that DERM required that Petitioner certify that all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., believed that by having the tanks relined and repaired in November 1987, Petitioner had complied with the requests made in DERM's letter of March 3, 1989. On March 13, 1989, Mr. Pequeno, Jr., called DERM to determine whether the tests that were conducted following the relining and the repair of the tanks in November 1987, satisfied the requirements contained in DERM's letter of March 3, 1989. When Mr. Pequeno, Jr., did not get a response to his inquiry, he assumed that Petitioner was in compliance. Petitioner took no steps until two years later to hydrostatically test its underground tanks and transmission lines. On March 21, 1991, Petitioner had a tank tightness test conducted at the facility. The tank system tightness test conducted on March 21, 1991, indicated that five tanks did not test tight. There was no evidence that Petitioner has filed a certification with DERM that all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. No fuel transmission line tightness test has been conducted pursuant to DERM's March 3, 1989, request. As of the date of the formal hearing, Petitioner had not performed a complete investigation to determine the source of contamination as DERM had requested. The underground storage system at the subject site were continuously used for the storage and dispensing of petroleum products from September 21, 1987, to the date of the formal hearing. At all times pertinent to this proceeding deliveries of petroleum products were made to the tanks which had been identified by Petitioner as leaking. Petitioner's failure to conduct a complete investigation to determine the source of contamination, its failure to repair the tanks which failed the tank tightness, and its continued use of these tanks, create the risk that a discharge of hazardous materials may be continuing at the present time. By letter dated February 13, 1991, Respondent denied Petitioner's eligibility to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Notification Program. This letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department of Environmental Regulation has completed its eligibility review of your Early Detection Incentive Notification Application. Based upon information given in this application and a compliance verification evaluation, the Department has determined that this site is not eligible for state-administered cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes (1986) for the following reasons: Failure to have storage tanks tightness tested. Request was made by the Department of Environ- mental Resources Management (DERM) on March 3, 1989. This shall be construed to be gross negligence in the maintenance of a storage system. According to Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statutes, sites shall not be eligible for state- administered cleanup where the owner or operator has been grossly negligent in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. By Pre-Trial Stipulation filed July 24, 1991, the parties entered into certain factual stipulations and framed the following two issues of law to be resolved: Whether X.O. #1 Corporation was grossly negligent as defined under Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statutes, for failing to immediately investigate and abate the source of a petroleum contamination by conducting a tank and line tightness test pursuant to a request by DERM (Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management). Whether X.O. #1 Corporation was grossly negligent as defined under Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statues, for failing to make monthly monitoring system checks where such systems are in place.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation which denies the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program for its facilities located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of September, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of September, 1991.
