The Issue The issue in this case is whether, under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, Respondent is liable for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Petitioner in an earlier proceeding. The purpose of the earlier proceeding was to determine the eligibility of Petitioner's site for state-administered cleanup of discharge from a petroleum storage system under the Early Detection Incentive program described in Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner informed Respondent of a pollutant discharge at Petitioner's gasoline station by filing a Discharge Notification Form on March 9, 1987. The form states that the discovery was made on March 5, 1987, as a result of a manual test of one or more monitoring wells. The form is marked "unknown" in response to questions concerning the estimated gallons lost, the part of storage system leaking, the type of tank, the cause of leak, and the type of pollutant discharged, although next to the last response are the typewritten words: "appears to be motor oil." A cover letter from Petitioner dated March 5, 1987, accompanied the Discharge Notification Form. The letter restates that the source of pollution is unknown, but adds that "there is a possibility that [the pollution] is the result of a septic tank, drain field discharge." The letter discloses that Blackhawk Environmental Services, Inc. ("Blackhawk") and NEPCCO/IT are investigating "to determine the extent of the contamination as well as the source." The letter provides the name and telephone number of the Blackhawk employee for further information. A separate cover letter from the Blackhawk employee to Respondent states that the notification was being submitted for consideration for Site Rehabilitation Reimbursement Costs. The letter also states that the site has been the subject of groundwater contamination from an "unknown source." Following the notification, Orlando Laboratories, Inc. submitted to Blackhawk a written analysis of the groundwater at the site. The report, which is dated March 19, 1987, contains quantitative data without any interpretation and was submitted without interpretation to Respondent on March 20, 1987. Petitioner applied to participate in the Early Detection Incentive ("EDI") Program by filing an EDI Program Notification Application dated March 23, 1987, together with a cover letter of the same date. The application supplied no more information than did the notification form. In response to the question as to the type of product discharged, Petitioner circled the choice, "used oil," but added the word, "possibility." Although the application may not have been immediately filed, Respondent received it prior to July, 1987. As part of a site inspection, an employee of Respondent prepared an Early Detection Incentive Program Compliance Verification Checklist, which was dated April 28, 1987. The checklist notes that Blackhawk "is looking into problem [and] will forward results from lab when available." The checklist also states: Odor found in E[ast] & W[est] M[onitoring] W[ells]. No other contamination found on site. Site has old waste oil tank on site that could possibly be contaminating drainfield next to tank. Also old abandoned tank (since 1967) on site. Asked owner to investigate tank's conditions. If not needed, he will remove & adjust registration accordingly. Floordrain in shop area dumps into on-site septic tank which could also contribute. The repeated mention of motor oil is due to at least two factors. First, a Blackhawk employee had mentioned to Belvin Marr, who owns and operates Petitioner, that the contaminant "looked like" motor oil. Second, Mr. Marr knew that he had, for many years, discarded used motor oil down a floordrain leading into a septic tank with an onsite drainfield. By letter dated July 22, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioner that its site was ineligible for state-administered cleanup under for the EDI program described in Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. The letter states that the decision was "based upon information given in this [Notification Application] and a compliance verification evaluation of your reported site." The July 22 letter explains that the site is ineligible because, according to the application and district inspection: the source of contamination at Marr's Exxon has been attributed to used oil. Petroleum, as defined by Section 376.301(9), Florida Statutes (F.S.), included [sic] only crude oil and other hydrocarbons in the form in which they are originally produced at the well. Petroleum product, as defined by Section 376.301(10), F.S., means fuel in its refined state which is similar in nature to fuels such as diesel fuel, kerosene, or gasoline. Used oil cannot be considered "petroleum" or "petroleum products" because it has become unsuitable for its original purpose due to the presence of impurities or loss of original properties. Therefore, your site, which is contaminated by unrefined used oil, is not eligible for participation in Early Detection Incentive (EDI) Program. The July 22 letter advises Petitioner that he could obtain administrative and judicial review of the decision by filing a petition within 21 days of the date of receipt of the letter. The letter thus provided Petitioner with a clear point of entry. By letter dated July 30, 1987, Petitioner requested a 30-day extension to allow for retesting. Additional testing took place in early August, 1987. However, there is no indication that the resulting data, which again omit textual interpretation, were submitted to Respondent until the filing of the more definite statement described in the following paragraph. The next communication between Petitioner and Respondent took place when Petitioner requested a formal hearing by filing a Petition for Hearing dated August 26, 1987. By Order for More Definite Statement entered September 14, 1987, Respondent ordered Petitioner to file a more definite statement. By Response to Order for More Definite Statement dated September 28, 1987, Petitioner filed a more definite statement. The additional test data were attached to the more definite statement, although they are not in the DOAH case file. The Response offers the following chronology with all dates being approximate dates. March 5, 1987: Respondent notified of groundwater contamination from unknown source. March 20, 1987: analysis of contamination conducted by Orlando Laboratories, Inc. and forwarded to Respondent. March 23, 1987: Petitioner applied for participation in Early Detection Incentive ("EDI") program, and the application is attached to the More Definite Statement. April 27, 1987: Compliance Verification checklist issued. July 22, 1987: Respondent denied Petitioner's application. July 30, 1987: Petitioner requested 30-day extension to conduct further testing, the results of which are attached to the More Definite Statement. August 26, 1987: Petitioner requested formal administrative hearing. Following receipt of the more definite statement, Respondent forwarded the pleadings to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing. The pleadings were received on October 9, 1987, and the file was assigned DOAH Case No. 87-4448. In a Motion for Continuance filed on January 14, 1988, Respondent asserted that the case involves the issue whether "used oil," which was what had been discharged at Petitioner's facility, is a "petroleum product." The motion refers to a pending case, Puckett Oil v. Department of Environmental Regulation, and states that this case, which had been heard in September, 1987, involves the same question. By Motion for Continuance filed on May 13, 1988, Respondent requested a continuance on the same grounds as previously cited and represented that Petitioner had no objection. An internal memorandum of Respondent dated March 17, 1988, acknowledges that Petitioner requested a review of the available data based on an "inaccurate assessment by his contractor." Reviewing the data, some of which had been provided after July 22, 1987, the memorandum notes that the majority of the contamination is from gasoline, but the involvement of the drainfield as the source of contamination "is the reason eligibility was denied." After the issuance of the final order in Puckett Oil v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 5525 (September 1, 1988), Respondent, filing a Motion to Set Hearing Date, disclosed that "[Respondent's] review of the Final Order indicates that Petitioner's site remains ineligible for SUPER Act funding." However, on July 28, 1989, the parties filed a fully executed Joint Stipulation and Motion to Dismiss. An Order Closing File, which was entered the same date, returned the matter to Respondent for final disposition consistent with the stipulation. The Joint Stipulation and Motion to Dismiss states: On July, 22, 1987, [Respondent] denied eligibility for the [EDI] Program, Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes, to [Petitioner's) site . . .. The basis for the denial was that the site was contaminated with used oil. Subsequent to [Respondent's] denial, Petitioner conducted a series of ground water tests to more accurately determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The results of that testing indicate that the site was contaminated with significant amounts of gasoline constituents and minor amounts of used oil constituents emanating possibly from a septic tank drainfield and a used oil storage facility. The gasoline constituents exist at levels many times that of the other constituents. Based upon the overwhelming contribution to the overall contamination presented by the gasoline constituents, [Respondent] agrees that the presence of minor amounts of contaminants from something other than a tank should not preclude [Petitioner's] site from being eligible for the EDI Program. [Respondent reserves the right not to pay for the cost of cleanup of contamination not related to discharge from a tank.] WHEREFORE Petitioner . . . and Respondent request that the hearing officer adopt this stipulation . . . and retain jurisdiction for an award of attorney's fees and costs (Fla. Stat. Sect. 57.111 (1986 Supp.) and Fla. Admin. Code Rule 22I-6.035). . .. The parties stipulated that Petitioner was a small business party. The parties also stipulated to reasonable attorneys' fees of $6625 and costs of $4690. Following the final hearing, Petitioner filed supplemental affidavits showing, in connection with the prosecution of the subject case and not the earlier proceeding, additional attorneys' fees of $1875 and costs of $490.85.
Findings Of Fact The Department (DER) is the regulatory agency of Florida charged with the duty and authority to administer and enforce Chapter 403 and Sections 376.30-376.319, Florida Statutes, and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Hendry is a Florida corporation that has been conducting business in excess of 60 years. The two main aspects of its business are the dredging operation and the shipyard. Hendry's site can be loosely described as an industrial site. The shipyard division performs approximately one-half its work for governmental entities, particularly the U.S. Coast Guard, which operations are largely ship refurbishing. Hendry has a Coast Guard certificate enabling it to receive mixtures containing oil and oily water waste. A significant portion of Hendry's ship refurbishing work involves repairing/replacing steel on ships which has deteriorated due to salt water exposure. That work frequently requires cutting, welding and burning. Prior to commencing the refurbrushing work, the ships must be certified as safe. In certifying a ship as being safe, the bilge area is pumped of used oil or waste oil which collects in standing waste water and oil. Also, before that works commences, the ship is defueled. Currently, Hendry's practice is to subcontract the pumping of waste oil from the ships bilge, which waste oil is pumped directly into the tanker truck of the subcontractor. Hendry no longer pumps or stores waste oil on site. In the past, the waste oil and water from the ship's bilge was pumped from the ship through a pipeline from the dry dock across the property to a 10,000 gallon above-ground storage tank. During December 1987, the U.S. Coast Guard observed a fuel spill on the water at Petitioner's facility. Based on that observation, Respondent conducted site inspections of Petitioner's facility during March and April 1988. The fuel spill was occasioned by Petitioner's refurbishment of a tuna boat at its site. Petitioner subsequently received a warning notice regarding alleged violations in its petroleum storage tanks and contamination. The transfer pipeline is of steel construction. Between 1980 and 1984, the pipeline leaked. In 1984, the pipeline was rerun with PVC line and in 1986, it was refitted with 4 inch steel pipe. The 10,000 gallon above-ground tank is located in Area 1. The removal of waste oil occasionally resulted in accidental spills. After 1985, a smaller, above-ground tank was installed adjacent to the 10,000 gallon tank to provide a storage tank for draining off water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The small tank was used to receive only water drained from the 10,000 gallon tank. Prior to installation of the small tank, a retention pond was used to drain water from the 10,000 gallon tank. The retention pond had a 2 foot berm with a visqueen liner. In October 1988, Hendry submitted an EDI Program Notification Application, a prerequisite for EDI reimbursement eligibility, under the program for costs associated with cleanup of certain petroleum contamination. In May 1989, Hendry submitted a document entitled Preliminary Contamination Assessment III Specific Areas--Task IV Rattlesnake Terminal Facility--Westshore Boulevard, Hillsborough County prepared by Mortensen Engineering, Inc. That document included reports of analysis of oil and groundwater samples taken from the site in January, March and April 1989, demonstrating extensive contamination of soil and groundwater including "free product" in monitoring wells MW-2, MW-4 and MW-4A. By letter dated November 9, 1989, the Department informed Hendry of its determination that the facility had been denied EDI reimbursement based on specific enumerated findings. Hendry entered into a stipulation with the Department on October 16, 1990, "regarding the conduct of this case and the basis for denial. " Attached to the stipulation is a sketch of the facility grounds showing a rough division of the area into four separate areas. Area 1 has two waste tanks. One was a large 10,000 gallon closed tank approximately 20 feet high and 12 feet in diameter; the other contained a volume of approximately 1,500-2,000 gallons and was an open tank. Petitioner's practice was to pump bilge in the dry dock area, located west of "Area 2" and direct the waste through underground pipes to the 10,000 gallon tank. The smaller tank was used to "bleed" water from the larger tank. Bilge waste is approximately two-thirds water. Area 2 was the location of Hendry's diesel tank farm. In the stipulation, the Department agreed to withdraw two of the seven specific grounds for the denial, namely denial of site access and failure to report discharges. Likewise, Hendry agreed to withdraw "Area 4" from its application for EDI eligibility. In the stipulation, Hendry was informed of a then recent amendment to Section 376.3071(9), which offered certain applicants who had been earlier determined ineligible for participation in the EDI program, standards and procedures for obtaining reconsideration of eligibility. The amendment required the facility to come into compliance, certify that compliance and request reconsideration prior to March 31, 1991. Additionally, compliance was to be verified by a Department inspection. Pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the stipulation, these standards and procedures were specifically to be applied to Areas 2 and 3 at the facility. Hendry did not make a written request for reconsideration of the denial of eligibility with respect to Areas 2 and 3 on or before March 31, 1991 or at anytime subsequently. Hendry also did not come into compliance with the underground or above-ground storage tanks system regulations on or before March 31, 1991 in that Hendry failed to register a 560-gallon above-ground diesel storage tank which was onsite on that date as required by Rule 17-762.400, Florida Administrative Code. Hendry also failed to notify the Department of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC), as the administrator of a designated local program at least thirty days prior to closure of the storage tank system, pursuant to Subsection 376.3073, Florida Statutes. These determinations were made on April 1, 1991 by Hector Diaz, inspector in the HCEPC tanks program. Hendry submitted a registration form for the 560-gallon tank on November 18, 1991, which was of course subsequent to the March 31, 1991 deadline. Hendry stored petroleum products and waste material including petroleum constituents in the above-ground tanks until approximately March 25, 1991 when it initiated tank removal. Hendry's above-ground storage tanks, which were in use at its facility for approximately three years after extensive soil contamination was documented, were without secondary containment. In November 1991, Hendry submitted a document entitled Supplemental Preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, prepared by Keifer-Block Environmental Services, Inc. (Supplemental PCAR). The stated purpose of the study was solely to determine whether hazardous constituents were present in groundwater in Areas 2 and 3. The report included laboratory analysis of groundwater samples taken from the site in August 1991 including monitoring wells located in Area 3. The results of these analysis reflect that Area 3 is contaminated solely with heavy metals, lead and chromium. No petroleum hydrocarbon contamination was detected in Area 3. In the area adjacent to Area 2, seven of eight monitoring wells show chromium or lead contamination. Hendry had, and continues to have, a practice of removing paint from vessels by blasting them with a gritty material known as "black beauty." This practice takes place in the dry dock area near Areas 2 and 3. The waste blast grit/paint chip mixture is vacuumed or shoveled into wheelbarrels or a frontend loader and dumped into an open pile. Occasionally, the waste blast grit/paint mixture is blown about or spilled. Waste "black beauty" has been observed scattered on the ground throughout the facility. Paints sometime contain heavy metals, specifically, lead and chromium. The concentrations and distribution of lead and chromium contamination at the site are consistent with Hendry's long-standing practice of grit-- blasting paint from ships and other vessels and allowing the metal-contaminated paint and waste mixture to fall to the ground. Areas 2 and 3 are contaminated with substances other than petroleum or petroleum products, namely heavy metals. Costs associated with cleanup of lead and chromium are not reimburseable under the EDI program. Paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation allowed Hendry an opportunity to establish eligibility for Area 1 by providing information regarding operating practices at two above-ground storage tanks and a retention pond in that area demonstrating that contamination in that area is predominantly from leaks or unintentional spills of petroleum products from the tanks in that area. Hendry did not provide the required information. On January 27, 1992, Hendry submitted to the Department an affidavit executed by its principal, Aaron Hendry, which Hendry contends fulfills the requirements of paragraph 5(c) of the stipulation. Hendry, the principal who executed the affidavit, is an affiant with a legal and financial interest in the outcome of the EDI eligibility determination. The executed affidavit did not contain specific information with respect to "operating practices at the tanks and retention ponds as required by the stipulation." Specifically, the affidavit is silent as to: What the tanks were made of; When, how and by whom they were installed; What piping, leak detection or overfill protection was associated with them; What repairs or alterations had been made to them; What inventory reconciliation methods were used; Where the materials came from which was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was put into the tanks; In what manner, how often, and by whom material was removed from the tanks; Disposition of material removed from the tanks; When, how, by whom and why the retention pond was dug; How and for what period of time the retention pond was used; How, often and by whom inspections of the tanks were conducted; When and how leaks occurred and were discovered at the tanks; When and how spills occurred and were discovered at the tanks; What records, including reports to state or local agencies, insurance claims, newspaper accounts, and so forth were kept with respect to leaks or spills at the tanks; What cleanup efforts were made at the time of any leaks or spills; Documentation related to registration of the tanks with state or local agencies; and Documentation with respect to any removal of the tanks, including any description of the condition of the tanks when, or if, removed. For years, the facility's retention pit was used as a "waste pit" namely, a rectangular hole in the ground, approximately 30 feet by 120 feet by 3 feet, for direct discharge of bilge waste piped from vessels at the dry dock area to the waste pit, prior to installation of the storage tank systems. After installation of the large tank in Area 1, the retention pit was used to bleed water from the bilge tank. In the past, the Department has denied eligibility to facilities where a retention pond was used for disposal of petroleum related waste and cleanup of contamination resulting from use of a retention pond. Hendry's affidavit nor other documentation submitted to the Department prior to the EDI redetermination or at hearing establishes that the bilge waste taken from the storage tanks was "a liquid fuel commodity" or recycled into such a commodity. By letter dated June 9, 1992, the Department notified Hendry that reconsideration of its EDI eligibility request for Areas 2 and 3 was denied and that the affidavit of Aaron Hendry submitted with respect to Area 1 did not satisfy the requirements of the stipulation. Thereafter, Hendry challenged the Department's denial of reconsideration and EDI eligibility which joins the issue for this proceeding. The hazardous waste allegation discovered during an inspection of Hendry's facility on April 14, 1988, resulted in a consent order which was entered as a final order of the Department on November 21, 1990. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to demonstrate that not all areas at the facility were hazardous waste disposal areas and, thus, not all areas would be subject to closure and cleanup under the permitting requirements of Subsection 403.722, Florida Statutes and the remediation standards set forth in Chapter 17-730, Florida Administrative Code. To establish appropriate remediation standards and procedures which would be applicable to various areas, Hendry was required to prepare a property diagram designating areas at the property exhibiting any of the following types of contamination: Areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products or used oil which is not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by materials which are not hazardous waste; Areas contaminated by the past or present disposal of hazardous waste. The consent order allows contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the standards and procedures set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code, for areas contaminated solely by petroleum or petroleum products. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 11.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to the Department's corrective action and groundwater contamination cases for all areas at the facility contaminated by used oil which is not hazardous waste or by hazardous material. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, paragraph 12.) The consent order requires contamination assessment and remediation pursuant to a closure permit with a contingent post-closure plan to close the areas at the facility contaminated by the disposal of hazardous waste. In response to the consent order to delineate areas on the property exhibiting various types of contamination, Hendry submitted the supplemental PCAR. By letter dated March 19, 1992, the Department responded to the supplemental PCAR with a determination that: Area 1 can be assessed and remediated through the standards set forth in Chapter 17-770, Florida Administrative Code. Contamination in Areas 2 and 3 includes heavy metals, which are hazardous materials. Thus, Areas 2 and 3 should be assessed and remediated through the corrective action process for groundwater contamination cases. A hazardous waste facility closure permit application should be submitted for assessment and remediation of Area 4, which, because of the presence of Dichloroethylene, a hazardous substance and chlorinated solvent, should be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2. Hendry had a practice of cleaning electrical motors by placing such motors on the ground outside the electrical repair shop near Area 4. The motors were sprayed with Trichloroethylene, a waste solvent, which was allowed to runoff into the soil. At the time of this practice, the intention was to leave the solvent contamination unchecked. The Department, pursuant to directives from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), characterizes the disposition of hazardous waste to the environment as a result of intentional, ongoing industrial practices as "disposal of hazardous waste" within the meaning of Subsection 475.703(21), Florida Statutes and 40 CFR 260.10. The consent order allowed Hendry an opportunity to challenge the Department's determination with respect to delineation of the various areas by filing a petition per paragraph 21 of the order for formal administrative hearings. Hendry filed its petition with respect to the March 19, 1992 letter, which petition is the subject of DOAH Case No. 92-2312.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue a Final Order in these consolidated cases concluding that 1) the contamination areas at issue herein are not eligible for EDI reimbursement under Subsections 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes; 2) that Petitioner cleanup the contamination in Areas 1, 2 and 3 under the guidance document entitled "Corrective Actions for Groundwater Contamination Cases"; and 3) that Area 4 be expanded to include the location of monitoring well MW KBMW-2 and closed through a hazardous waste closure/post closure permit application process. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 14, partially adopted in Paragraph 13, Recommended Order. Paragraph 19, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and speculative. Paragraph 20, rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 21, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 24-28, Recommended Order. Paragraph 22, partially adopted, Paragraphs 13 and 14, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, partially adopted, Paragraph 15, Recommended Order. Paragraph 29, partially adopted, Paragraph 18, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 48, 49, 51, 52, 60, 62 and 73 rejected, unnecessary. Paragraph 33, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 38, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 41, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and the two cases cited at hearing where Respondent exercises his discretion are distinguishable from Petitioner's failure to timely apply. Paragraph 43, rejected, unnecessary and/or argument. Paragraph 45, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 50, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 37-39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 54, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 55, rejected, not probative. Paragraphs 56 and 57, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 58 and 59, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 23 and 24, Recommended Order. Paragraph 61, rejected, speculative and unnecessary. Paragraph 63, rejected, speculative. Paragraph 67, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 68, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraphs 30 and 31, Recommended Order. Paragraph 69, rejected, not probative. Paragraph 70, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 72, rejected, irrelevant and not necessary to the issues posed. Paragraph 74, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence and unnecessary. Paragraph 75, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 76, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraph 77, rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, Paragraph 53, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 78 and 79, rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraph 80, rejected, not probative. Rulings in Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 2 and 3, adopted in part, Paragraph 9, Recommended Order. Paragraph 12, adopted in part, Paragraph 23, Recommended Order. Paragraph 23, adopted in part, Paragraph 32, Recommended Order. Paragraph 27, adopted in part, Paragraphs 38 and 39, Recommended Order. Paragraph 30, rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Patka, Esquire Rory C. Ryan, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT 200 South Orange Ave - Suite 2600 Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Agusta P. Posner, Esquire Lisa Duchene, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2400
The Issue The issues in this case concern the question of whether implementation of the consent agreement threatens the substantial interests of Petitioners in the surface waters and ground water resources at and around Seaboard's used oil facility located off Route 314A in Oklawaha, Marion County, Florida. Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, gave public notice of its intent to implement a consent agreement with Respondent. The other Petitioners opposed the agreement asserting that the waters of the State were threatened by the agreement and requested a final hearing.
Findings Of Fact On March 7, 1988, Seaboard's used oil facility located off Route 314A in Oklawaha, Marion County, Florida, on Little Lake Bryant was inspected by a DER representative. At the time of the inspection pools of used oil were observed on the ground. Four 4,000 gallon above-ground tanks were being used to store used oil. Additionally, several old tank-truck bodies were used to store petroleum produces. These tanks did not have an impervious containment area to prevent used oil from spilling directly onto the ground and to prevent free runoff of precipitation. An underground tank (made from a septic tank) was being used to temporarily store water contaminated with used oil, which was gravity drained from the bottom of the used oil transport trucks. No impervious containment existed around the opening of the underground tank to prevent any spillage during transfer from directly reaching the ground. The underground tank was plugged and has no connection to a drain field. This tank is located in a flood plain. A 2,000 gallon above-ground tank and a 3,000 gallon above-ground tank were used to store water contaminated with used oil from the pumped underground tank. DER, in response to the March 7, 1988 inspection and subsequent site visits, negotiated a consent agreement with Seaboard. The consent agreement was executed on March 30, 1989 by Seaboard and filed with DER's Clerk on April 12, 1989. A copy of the consent agreement may be found as DER's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. The consent agreement specifies corrective actions to be taken by Seaboard, subject to DER approval, in order to address the problems identified at Seaboard's used oil facility. Paragraph 10 of the consent agreement addresses protection against spills directly reaching the ground. Impervious containment is required by the agreement for all above-ground used oil storage tanks but not the old truck bodies. Impervious containment is required for product transfer areas where transport trucks, pumps and hoses would operate, but not in the vicinity of the old truck bodies. A concrete containment dike surrounding the above-ground tanks is required to control drainage of rain, snow, sleet, fog, etc., but not around the truck bodies. (DER's Exhibit 1). The concrete pads already poured by Respondent are not impervious and the sides of these containment areas are not high enough to contain a major tank failure. Paragraph 11 of the consent agreement addresses operation of the underground tank in order to prevent leaks. Seaboard is required to provide protection against spillage during product transfer between transport trucks and the underground tank and provide for cleanup of spilled material. Nothing addresses the problems of the tank lying in a flood plain. (DER's Exhibit 1). Paragraph 12 of the consent agreement requires Seaboard to implement "Preliminary Contamination Assessment Actions". These actions provide the framework for determining if the problems identified at Seaboard's used oil facility have resulted in contamination of the soil, surface waters and ground water. The actions required are subject to prior DER approval. The actions represent standard conduct in these and similar types of cases. (DER's Exhibit 1). If the surveys and tests required by the agreement indicate soil, sediment, surface water or ground water contamination, DER can pursue any or all of the following: (1) institute an administrative proceeding requiring further assessment and cleanup; (2) institute a civil action in circuit court; or (3) perform the necessary corrective actions at the facility and recover the costs of such actions from Respondent, Seaboard. (DER's Exhibit 1). Notice was given of DER's proposed consent agreement with Seaboard by publication in the Ocala Star Banner of August 10, 1989. The Petitioners live around Little Lake Bryant, Oklawaha, Florida, where Seaboard's used oil facility is located. The Petitioners timely filed the petitions leading to the present hearing. The Petitioners are Helen V. Pierce, Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Pierce, Mr. and Mrs. Maurice Warner, Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Painter, Sr., Mr. and Mrs. William E. Hartman, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Hallman, Mr. Robert J. Painter, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Weinheimer, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Allan Gwin, Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Jones, and Mr. and Mrs. Daryl N. Driscoll. Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Weinheimer and Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Pierce, Petitioners in this case, did not attend the hearing. The other Petitioners attended the hearing. Introduction of waste oil into the waters of Little Lake Bryant would endanger the waters of the lake around which all of the Petitioners live. They use this lake for recreational purposes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the DER enter a Final Order approving a consent agreement incorporating the following four recommendations: installation of impervious areas with high enough walls to retard a spill under all tanks; removal of the underground tank from the flood plain; installation of monitoring wells in sufficient quantity in new and old areas; and frequent inspection. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Otis Ted Holly Route 4, Box 851 Silver Springs, FL 32688 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Elbert Gray Route 1, Box 1293A Oklawaha, FL 32679 =================================================================
The Issue In this proceeding, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) seeks approval to construct and operate 470 MW of natural gas-fired advanced design combined cycle (NGCC) generating capacity at its proposed Polk County Site. Additionally, FPC seeks a determination that the Polk County Site has the environmental resources necessary to support an ultimate capacity of 3,000 MW of combined cycle generating capacity fueled by a combination of natural gas, coal-derived gas and distillate fuel oil. Such an ultimate site capacity certification may be granted pursuant to Section 403.517, Florida Statutes and Rule 17-17.231, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Project Site and Vicinity FPC's proposed Polk County Site is located on approximately 8,200 acres in southwest Polk County, Florida, in an area dominated by phosphate mining activities. The Polk County Site is approximately 40 miles east of Tampa, 3 miles south of Bartow and 3.5 miles northwest of Fort Meade. Homeland, the nearest unincorporated community, lies about one mile to the northeast of the site boundary. The Polk County Site is bounded on the north by County Road (CR) 640 and along the southeast and south by a U.S. Agri-Chemical Corporation (USAC) mine. CR 555 runs north-south through the site. The Polk County Site is comprised of land in four different phases of mining activity: mine pits, clay settling ponds associated with phosphate mining, land which has been mined and reclaimed, and land which has yet to be mined. Approximately one-half of the Polk County Site is subject to mandatory reclamation. Land uses adjacent to the Polk County Site consist almost entirely of phosphate mining activities. One mobile home is located at the intersection of CR 640 and CR 555 approximately 2 miles from the proposed location of the principal generating facilities. General Project Description The initial generating capacity at the Polk County Site will be NGCC units. Under what has been designated as the Case A' scenario, ultimate site development will consist of 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity, for a total of 3,000 MW. Under the alternative Case C scenario, the ultimate site capacity would consist of 3,000 MW of all NGCC capacity. The Case C scenario was initially developed as the worst case scenario for the socioeconomic impact analysis (i.e., the one that would produce the least amount of economic benefit.) The combined cycle units which initially burn natural gas can be modified to burn coal gas if necessary to meet changes in fuel supply or pricing. However, under the proposed ultimate site capacity, CGCC generating capacity will be limited to a maximum of 2,000 MW out of the total of 3,000 MW. At ultimate buildout the major facilities at the Polk County Site will include the plant island, cooling pond, solid waste disposal areas, and brine pond. The plant island will be located on mining parcels SA-11, SA-13 and the northerly portion of SA-12. The plant island ultimately will contain the combined cycle power block, oil storage tanks, water and sewage treatment facilities, coal gasification facilities, coal pile and rail loop, and coal handling facilities. The cooling pond at ultimate buildout will be located in mining parcels N-16, N-15 and N-11B, with a channel through N-11C. Mining parcels N-11C, P-3, Phosphoria, Triangle Lakes and P-2, if not used as a solid waste disposal area, will be used as water crop areas to collect rainfall for supplying the cooling pond. The brine pond will receive wastewater reject from the reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment system and will be located on mining parcel SA-9. Two solid waste disposal areas (SWDA) are planned for ultimate development of the Polk County Site. The SWDAs will be mining parcel SA-8 initially and mining parcel P-2 in later phases, if necessary. Coal gasification slag will be the predominant solid waste to be disposed of in the SWDAs. Other areas included within the Polk County Site are mine parcels N- 11A, N-13, N-9B, Tiger Bay East, Tiger Bay, the northerly 80 acres of N-9, SA-10 and the southerly 225 acres of SA-12. Along with providing a buffer for the Polk County Site facilities, these parcels also will provide drainage to Camp Branch and McCullough Creek. Linear facilities associated with the initial 470 MW of generating capacity at the Polk County Site will include a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line upgrade, a reclaimed water pipeline, and a backup natural gas pipeline. Site Selection A comprehensive process was used to select the Polk County Site. The goal of that process was to identify a site which could accommodate 3,000 MW of generating capacity and offer characteristics including: (1) multi-unit and clean coal capability; (2) technology and fuel flexibility; (3) cost effectiveness; (4) compatibility with FPC's commitment to environmental protection; (5) ability to comply with all government regulations; and (6) consistency with state land use objectives. The site selection process included the entire State of Florida. Participants in the site selection process included a variety of FPC departments, environmental and engineering consultants, and an eight-member Environmental Advisory Group (EAG) composed of environmental, educational, and community leaders. In October, 1990, with the concurrence of the EAG, the Polk County Site was selected. The ultimate basis for the selection of the Polk County Site was the disturbed nature of the site as a result of extensive phosphate mining activities. The Polk County Site also is compatible with FPC's load center and transmission line network, and is accessible to rail and highway transportation systems. PSC Need Determination On February 25, 1992, the PSC issued Order No. 25805 determining the need for the first 470 MW of generating capacity at the Polk County Site. The PSC concluded in its order that the first two combined cycle units (470 MW) at the Polk County Site will contribute to FPC's electric system reliability and integrity. It also concluded that the first two units would enable FPC to meet winter reserve margin criteria and to withstand an outage of its largest unit at the time of system peak demand. The PSC stated that it was important for FPC to secure a site to meet future needs and that the first two units would contribute toward this goal. Basis for Ultimate Site Capacity The Site Certification Application (SCA), including the Sufficiency Responses, addressed the impacts associated with 3,000 to 3,200 MW of generating capacity under several scenarios. FPC eliminated or modified several of the scenarios by filing a Notice of Limitations which addressed the capacity and environmental effects of 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity at the Polk County Site. Throughout the SCA, Sufficiency Responses and Notice of Limitations, the capacity constraints and environmental effects were analyzed under a worst case scenario, i.e., the maximum environmental effects that could be expected at ultimate site capacity. An ultimate site capacity determination will significantly reduce the time and expense associated with processing supplemental applications for future units at the Polk County Site under the expedited statutory procedures of the Power Plant Siting Act. This will allow FPC to respond more quickly to changes in growth and demand. An ultimate site capacity determination also provides FPC the assurance that the Polk County Site has the land, air and water resources to support future coal gas-fired generating capacity. Project Schedule and Costs Construction of the initial 470 MW of NGCC generating capacity is scheduled to begin in 1994. These units will go into operation in 1998 and 1999. Based on current load forecasts, it is expected that approximately one 250 MW unit will be added every other year to the Polk County Site. Under this schedule, ultimate site development of 3,000 MW would occur about 2018. Capital investment for the Polk County Site is expected to be approximately $3.4 billion for the 1,000 MW NGCC/2000 MW CGCC Case A' scenario and approximately $1.7 billion for the all NGCC Case C scenario. Project Design Generating units for the Polk County Site will be advanced design combined cycle units firing natural gas and/or coal gas, with low sulfur fuel oil as backup. Each combined cycle unit will consist of one or two combustion turbines (CT), a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) for each CT and one or two steam turbines (ST). The first 470 MW of generating capacity will consist of two CTs firing natural gas, two HRSGs and one or two STs. At ultimate site capacity, the Polk County Site will consist of 12 CTs, 12 HRSGs, and 6 to 12 STs. A combined cycle unit is a generating system that consists of two sequential generating stages. In the first stage, the natural gas, coal gas or fuel oil is burned to operate the CT. Hot exhaust gas from the CT is passed through the HRSG to produce steam to operate the ST. The CT and steam from the HRSG can be arranged to drive individual generators or a single generator. In later phases of the Polk County Site, up to 2,000 MW of combined cycle generation may be fired on coal gas. The combined cycle units that were initially constructed to operate on natural gas can be modified to operate on coal gas. Under the Case A' scenario, two coal gasification plants would be built to produce coal gas for the combined cycle units. Associated with the coal gasification phase of the project will be the expansion of the plant island to accommodate the storage and handling of coal. Coal will be transported onsite by railroad. A rail loop for coal trains will be constructed on the plant island. It will be sized to accommodate a 100-car coal train. The coal storage area and limestone stockout will be located within the coal loop. Limestone is used in the coal gasification process as a fluxing agent to improve the viscosity of the coal slag, a by-product of the coal gasification process. The coal storage area, including the coal piles and emergency coal stockout system, will be lined with an impervious liner, and runoff from the coal storage area will be recycled to the coal gasification plants. The cooling pond for the Polk County Site will be located north and east of the plant island. Water from the cooling pond will be used for producing steam and condenser cooling. The cooling pond will be constructed initially in mining parcel N-16 and then in parcels N-15 and N-11B for later phases. These areas are mined-out pits which are surrounded by earthen dams. These dams will be upgraded where required to provide stability equivalent to the requirements of Chapter 17-672, Florida Administrative Code, for phosphate dams. Soil and Foundation Stability To evaluate the existing soil conditions at the Polk County Site, more than 165 test borings were made. The plant island is an existing mine pit which has been partially filled with sand tailings from phosphate mining operations. Underlying the sand is the Hawthorn formation which is often used as the base for deep load bearing foundations. Foundations for the heavier loads of power plant facilities will require pile foundations or similar types of deep foundations that will extend into the Hawthorn formation. The potential for sinkhole development at the Polk County Site was investigated by reviewing historic sinkhole records, aerial photographs, well drillers' logs, and by drilling three deep borings at the site. The investigation demonstrated that the potential for sinkhole development at the Polk County Site is low and acceptable for this type of construction. Construction Activities Construction of the Polk County Site will be phased over an approximately 25-year period beginning in 1994. The development of the Polk County Site is expected to take place in seven phases. Changes in the scope or sequence of the individual phases may occur depending on capacity needs over time. During Phase I, the initial earthwork and dewatering activities required for the construction of the plant island and cooling pond will take place. The initial cooling pond and plant island area will be dewatered and fill will be placed in SA-11 and SA-13 for the initial power plant construction. Water from the dewatering activities will be conserved by storage in mining parcels SA-8, SA-9, SA-10, N-15 and the northerly part of SA-12, except for quantities used in IMC's recirculation system. Clay consolidation will commence for other parcels, such as N-11A, N-11B, N-11C, N-13 and N-9B. Phosphate mining and related operations will still function in parcels P-2, P-3, Phosphoria, Triangle Lakes, and N-9. The initial vertical power plant construction for the first 470 MW of generating capacity will take place in Phase II. Water stored in Phase I, along with reclaimed water from the City of Bartow, will be used to fill the cooling pond in parcel N-16. Any excess reclaimed water from the City of Bartow, if necessary, will be stored in the eastern portion of N-16. Mining parcels SA-10, the southerly part of SA-12, and a portion of the offsite Estech Silver City plant site will be configured for drainage enhancement to McCullough Creek. Mining parcel SA-8 will be prepared to receive solid waste and parcel SA-9 will be prepared to receive wastewater from the RO system and neutralization basin. Wildlife habitat creation and enhancement will begin in parcels N-9B and N-13. Phase III of the Polk County Site represents the operation of the power plant from 235 MW to 1,500 MW, currently projected as NGCC capacity. The plant island, which will contain the generating units, will be located on mining parcels SA-11 and SA-13. The cooling pond will be located in N-16 and will receive reclaimed water from the City of Bartow and water crop from mining parcels P-3, Phosphoria, P-2, Triangle Lakes, N-15, N-11B, N-11C, the northerly end of SA-12 and the east end of N-16. Phase IV will encompass the development of the Polk County Site from 1,500 MW to 2,000 MW, currently projected as NGCC capacity. In conjunction with the additional generating units onsite, the cooling pond in N-16 will be enlarged to 1,219 acres. Other portions of the Polk County Site would remain the same as in Phase III. During Phase V, coal gasification is projected to be introduced to the Polk County Site. Generating capacity will be increased to 2,250 MW of which 1,000 MW are projected to be NGCC and the remaining 1,250 MW will be CGCC. To accommodate the coal gasification facilities, the northerly portion of SA-12 would be filled. The balance of the site would remain as described in Phase IV. During Phase VI, the generating capacity at the Polk County Site is projected to increase from 2,250 MW to 3,000 MW. This generating capacity will be a combination of 1,000 MW on NGCC and 2,000 MW on CGCC. During this phase, the cooling pond will be enlarged to 2,260 acres and will include parcels N-16, N-15 and N-11B, and a channel through N-11C. Earthwork will be required in N-15 and N-11B to repair and improve dams, and add slope protection on the dam inner faces and seeding on the exterior faces. Phase VII will be the final phase of the Polk County Site. During this phase, if the solid waste disposal area in mining parcel SA-8 were to become full it would be closed and mining parcel P-2 would be prepared to receive solid waste from the power plant operations. Parcels P-3 and Phosphoria will be available for mitigation, if necessary, as a result of activities in parcel P-2. This phase might not occur if coal slag is successfully recycled. Fuel Supply Fuel for the initial 470 MW of combined cycle generation will consist primarily of natural gas, with light distillate fuel oil as backup. Natural gas will be delivered by pipeline to the Polk County Site at a rate of 3.75 million cubic feet per hour. FPC currently plans to receive natural gas from the proposed Sunshine Pipeline for which certification is being sought in a separate proceeding. The Application for the Sunshine Pipeline was filed with DEP in August 1993. The other source for natural gas will be the backup natural gas pipeline which is being certified in this proceeding as an associated linear facility. Fuel oil will be delivered to the site by tanker truck, and enough fuel oil will be stored onsite for three days of operation for each combined cycle unit. At ultimate development, three 4-million gallon oil tanks will be located on the Polk County Site. All fuel handling and storage facilities, including unloading areas, pump areas, piping system, storage tanks, and tank containment areas will meet the requirements of DEP Chapter 17-762, Florida Administrative Code, and applicable National Fire Prevention Association Codes. At ultimate site development, the combined cycle units would use both natural gas and coal gas as primary fuels, and fuel oil as a backup fuel. As with the initial phase of operation, natural gas will be supplied by pipeline. At 1,000 MW of NGCC capacity, six to eight million cubic feet per hour of natural gas will be required. Coal for the coal gasification units will be delivered by railroad. For 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity, approximately 15,000 to 20,000 tons of coal a day will be required. Linear Facilities The initial 470 MW of NGCC generation includes three associated linear facilities: a 230-kV transmission line upgrade, a reclaimed water pipeline, and a backup natural gas pipeline. 230-kV Transmission Line The 230-kV transmission line will be routed from the existing FPC Barcola Substation within the Polk County Site to the FPC Ft. Meade Substation adjacent to CR 630. The transmission line corridor is approximately 1,000 feet wide within the Polk County Site boundary and narrows to 500 feet as the corridor leaves the site. The transmission line corridor follows several linear facilities including an existing transmission line right-of-way, CR 555 and CR 630. Land uses along the corridor are primarily phosphate mining, agricultural and industrial. Wetlands within the transmission line corridor are minimal and are associated primarily with roadside ditches. Where the transmission line crosses McCullough Creek, the creek will be spanned. The 230-kV transmission line will be constructed using single shaft tubular steel poles with a double circuit configuration for two 230-kV circuits. The transmission line structures will range in height from 110 feet to 145 feet. The conductor for the transmission line is a 1590 ACSR conductor that is approximately 1.54 inches in diameter. Conductor span lengths between structures will range from 500 to 900 feet. The transmission line will be constructed in six phases. During the first phase, the right-of-way will be cleared. Clearing in upland areas will be done using mowers and other power equipment. Clearing in wetlands, if necessary, will be accomplished by restrictive clearing techniques. After the right-of-way has been cleared, existing structures which will be replaced with new transmission line structures will be removed by unbolting them from their foundations and removing the structures with a crane. Foundations for new transmission line structures will be vibrated into the ground using a vibratory hammer or placed into an augured hole and backfilled. After the foundations are in place, new structures will be assembled on the foundations using a crane. Insulation and pole hardware will be mounted on the structures after erection. In the fifth phase of construction, conductors will be placed on a structure by pulling the conductors through a stringing block attached to the structure. During the final phase of construction, the structures will be grounded and any construction debris will be removed from the right-of-way. The construction of the 230-kV transmission line is estimated to require approximately 17 weeks. Construction of the transmission line will meet or exceed standards of the National Electrical Safety Code; FPC transmission design standards; Chapter 17- 814, Florida Administrative Code; and the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide, where applicable. Electric and magnetic fields from the 230-kV transmission line will comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 17-814, Florida Administrative Code. Audible noise from the transmission line should occur only during rainy weather and will not exceed 39.1 dBA at the edge of the right-of-way. Since the transmission line is not located near many residences, interference to television and AM radio reception should be minimal. If interference does occur, it can be identified easily and corrected on an individual basis. Backup Natural Gas Pipeline The backup natural gas pipeline will originate at the Florida Gas Transmission pipeline in Hillsborough County at CR 39. The backup pipeline corridor runs generally east for 18 miles until it enters the Polk County Site at the western boundary of the plant island. The pipeline corridor is 1,000 feet wide and it generally follows linear facilities such as Jameson Road, a Tampa Electric Company transmission line, the CSX Railroad, Durrance Road, and Agricola Road. Several subalternate corridors are proposed in Polk County where the backup natural gas pipeline crosses phosphate mining land. The subalternate corridors, all of which are proposed for certification, are necessary to maintain flexibility in routing the backup natural gas pipeline around active mining operations. The uses of land crossed by the backup natural gas pipeline corridor consist primarily of phosphate mining and some agriculture. There are only two areas of residential land use along the corridor, one along Jameson Road in Hillsborough County, and the other near Bradley Junction along Old Highway 37 in Polk County. Ecological areas crossed by the natural gas pipeline corridor include a portion of Hookers Prairie in Polk County, some isolated wetlands associated with phosphate mining activities, and the South Prong Alafia River near CR 39 in Hillsborough County. The backup natural gas pipeline will consist of a metering facility, a scraper trap for pipeline cleaning, a maximum 30-inch buried pipeline made of high strength steel, a pressure regulating station, a cathodic protection system for corrosion control, and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to monitor and operate the pipeline. The pipe to be used for the natural gas pipeline will be manufactured in accordance with standards specified in 49 CFR 192 and the industrial standards referenced therein. Pipe thickness will vary depending on the population of the area crossed. External corrosion control for the pipe will be provided by an external coating around the pipe and a cathodic protection system designed to prevent electrochemical corrosion of the pipe. Pipeline sections will be hydrostatically tested before leaving the factory to 125 percent of the design pressure. Activities associated with the construction of the backup natural gas pipeline will include survey and staking of the right-of-way, right-of-way preparation, stringing of the pipe, bending, lineup welding and nondestructive testing, ditching, lowering in of pipeline sections, backfilling, tying in pipeline sections, testing and right-of-way restoration. Construction of the pipeline will take place typically within a 75 foot-wide right-of-way. A wider right-of-way may be required where specialized construction activities, such as jack and bore methods, are used. After construction, the natural gas pipeline will have a permanent 50-foot right-of-way. Where the pipeline crosses federal and state highways or water courses, directional drilling or jack and bore construction methods will be used to minimize disturbance. Where the pipeline crosses the South Prong Alafia River, directional drilling will be used to locate the pipeline underneath the river bed. Pipeline welding will be done by highly skilled personnel who have been qualified in accordance with 49 CFR 192. Pipeline welds will be visually inspected and a percentage of the welds will be x-rayed for analysis. Once the pipeline is constructed, buried and tie-in welds completed, the pipeline will be hydrostatically tested. Hydrostatic testing will use water with a minimum test pressure of 125 percent of maximum operating pressure. Water for hydrostatic testing will be pumped from and returned to the Polk County Site cooling pond. Construction of the pipeline will comply with Title 49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipelines: Minimum Federal Safety Standards; Chapter 25-12, Florida Administrative Code; Safety of Gas Transportation by Pipeline; and the FDOT Utility Accommodation Guide. After construction of the backup natural gas pipeline, the right-of- way will be restored and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way will be maintained. Line markers will be located along the pipeline at regular intervals and warning signs will be posted where the pipeline crosses roads, railroads, or stream crossings. The estimated cost for the pipeline construction is $611,100 per mile, or $11.2 million for the 18.2 mile pipeline route. Reclaimed Water Pipeline The reclaimed water pipeline will run from the City of Bartow to the cooling pond near the eastern side of the Polk County Site. The reclaimed water pipeline corridor follows the CSX Railroad and U.S. Highway 17/98 south from the southerly Bartow city limit turning west toward the Polk County Site just south of Homeland. Land uses along the corridor include phosphate mining, commercial sites, rural residences and recreation. The corridor does not cross any environmentally sensitive habitats. The reclaimed water pipeline consists of a buried pipe, 24 to 36 inches in diameter, butterfly valves about every mile along the pipeline, and a flow meter. Pumping of reclaimed water will be provided by the Bartow Sewage Treatment Plant. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline is similar to that of the natural gas pipeline and includes the following activities: survey and staking of the right-of-way, right-of-way preparation, ditching or trenching construction, stringing of the pipe and pipe installation, back filling, hydrostatic testing, and right-of-way restoration. Where the pipeline crosses state or federal highways or railroads, the pipe will be installed by using jack and bore construction. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline is estimated to cost $500,000 per mile or $5,000,000 for the total length of the pipeline. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline will comply with the standards in Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code, the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide, and the EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse Manual. The pipeline will be hydrostatically tested prior to operation. Corrosion control of the pipeline will depend on the material used for the pipeline and the soil conditions. If a polyethylene or a polyvinylchloride material is used, no corrosion control will be necessary. If ductile iron is used, the soil will be tested for corrosive properties and, if necessary, the pipeline will be protected from corrosion with a poly wrap material. Solid Waste Disposal Various types of solid waste will be generated by the operation of the Polk County Site. Depending upon the type of solid waste, disposal may be made in the onsite solid waste disposal areas or it may be disposed of offsite. Waste inlet air filters from the combustion turbines and general waste, such as office waste, yard waste and circulating water system screenings, will be recycled or disposed of offsite at the Polk County North Central Landfill. Solid waste from the well water pretreatment and blowdown pretreatment will be disposed of onsite in the solid waste disposal area to be constructed in mining parcel SA-8. Sulfur, a by-product of coal gasification, will be of marketable grade and will be stored in a molten state onsite and delivered to buyers by rail car or tanker truck. Slag, a by-product of coal gasification, will be the largest volume of solid waste generated at the Polk County Site. Slag is potentially marketable and FPC will make efforts to recycle this by-product as construction aggregate. If slag is not marketable, it will be disposed of in the onsite solid waste disposal areas initially in mining parcel SA-8 and later, if necessary, in parcel P-2. Low volume spent acidic and basic solutions produced in the regeneration of demineralizer resin bed ion exchanges during operation of the facility will be treated in an elementary neutralization unit to render them non-hazardous. Other potentially hazardous waste will be tested and if determined hazardous will be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws. Onsite disposal of slag, and well water and blowdown pretreatment solids will be made in the solid waste disposal areas to be constructed in parcels SA-8 and later, if necessary, P-2. These parcels are clay lined impoundments that have clays generally 20 to 40 feet thick. Prior to disposal of any solid waste in a clay settling area, that area will be drained and the clays consolidated. The clays will be probed and if the clay thickness is less than 10 feet it will be refurbished or patched with a synthetic liner. Additionally, a geotextile net will be installed to provide tensile strength to the upper layer of clay. Perimeter leachate collection piping will be installed. Leachate in the interior of the solid waste disposal areas will be monitored and collected by the use of well points to maintain the leachate head at no greater than 4 feet. The solid waste disposal area in parcel SA-8 will be closed by installing a two-foot thick soil cover which will be seeded and graded to provide water crop to parcel N-16. At closure, the leachate level will be pumped down to minimize the residual leachate head. The clay which lines the base of the solid waste disposal areas decreases in permeability as it consolidates and the solids content of the clay increases. In the first 20 to 50 years of consolidation, the hydraulic gradient of the clay is reversed and water will drain upward. Analysis of the clay shows that it would take 60 to 100 years for leachate to seep through the clay liner. After closure and capping of the solid waste disposal area occurs and the leachate residual head is pumped out, leachate is not expected to break through the liner. Based on the design of the solid waste disposal areas and the analysis of the clay, the solid waste disposal areas in parcels SA-8, and later P-2, should provide equivalent or superior protection to that of a Class I landfill under Chapter 17-7.01, Florida Administrative Code. Industrial Wastewater The Polk County Site is designed to be a zero discharge facility. There will be no offsite surface water discharge of contaminated stormwater or cooling pond blowdown. Cooling pond blowdown will be treated first by a lime/soda ash softening pretreatment system. A portion of the softened effluent will be routed to the cooling pond and a portion will be treated further by reverse osmosis (RO). High quality water from the RO system will be reused in the power plant as process water. The reject wastewater from the RO system will be sent to the brine pond for evaporation. In later stages of the Polk County Site operation, the RO reject wastewater will be concentrated prior to disposal in the brine pond. The brine pond will be constructed in parcel SA-9, a waste clay settling pond. Parcel SA-9 has thick waste clay deposits which will act as a liner. A synthetic liner will be placed along the interior perimeter of the brine pond out to a point where the clay is at least 10 feet thick. The synthetic liner will prevent seepage of the brine through the embankment of the brine pond and will provide added protection near the perimeter of the brine pond where the clay liner is thinner. Groundwater Impacts/Zone of Discharge The brine pond and solid waste disposal areas will be located in waste clay settling ponds with thick clay liners. They will be constructed to minimize, if not eliminate, seepage of brine and leachate to groundwater. If brine or leachate should seep through the clay liner, dispersion and dilution will reduce chemical concentrations so that neither primary nor secondary groundwater quality standards will be exceeded at the boundary of the zone of discharge. A zone of discharge has been established for the solid waste disposal area in parcel SA-8, the brine pond in parcel SA-9, and the cooling pond in parcels N-11B, N-15 and N-16. The zone of discharge will extend horizontally 100 feet out from the outside toe of the earthen dam along a consolidated boundary surrounding these facilities and vertically downward to the top of the Tampa member of the Hawthorn Group. A groundwater monitoring plan will be implemented to monitor compliance with groundwater standards at the boundary of the zone of discharge. Surficial Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts The Polk County Site is located along the divide between the Peace River Drainage Basin and the Alafia River Drainage Basin. Water bodies near the site include McCullough Creek, Camp Branch, Six Mile Creek, Barber Branch, and South Prong Alafia River. Mining has disrupted or eliminated natural drainage patterns from the Polk County Site to these water bodies. Currently the only drainage from the Polk County Site to these water bodies is through federally permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfalls to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch. To assess the impact to the surficial hydrology of the Polk County Site and surrounding water bodies, the baseline condition was assumed to be the surficial hydrology which would be present under current mandatory reclamation plans for the mining parcels onsite and offsite. The baseline for non-mandatory parcels was assumed to be the minimum reclamation standards under the DEP/Bureau of Mine Reclamation (BOMR) (formerly within the Department of Natural Resources) Old Lands Program and the baseline for non-mandatory offsite parcels was considered to be the existing condition. The one water body onsite for which the baseline condition presently exists is Tiger Bay, which has been reclaimed and released. The baseline condition for the Polk County Site ultimately would include elimination of seepage from N-16 to Tiger Bay and removal of the NPDES outfall weir from Tiger Bay to Camp Branch. These conditions will result in a lowering of the water table in Tiger Bay and the drying out of wetlands in that area. Under current reclamation plans, water bodies also will be created in parcels SA-12 and SA-11. Other than the reclaimed Tiger Bay and Tiger Bay East, DEP, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and Polk County have not claimed jurisdiction over any of the water bodies onsite within areas in which phosphate mining activities have been or will be conducted. The major construction activities which may impact offsite surface water bodies are the dewatering activities associated with the initial phase of construction. During this period, parcels SA-11, SA-13 and N-16 will be dewatered to allow earth-moving activities to take place. Dewatering effluent will be stored onsite, reused in IMC's recirculation system, or discharged in the event of above-average rainfall. After the earthwork is complete, the water will be returned to N-16. Based on this construction scenario, no adverse impact to offsite surface water bodies is expected from the construction activities associated with the Polk County Site. The Polk County Site has been designed to function as a "zero discharge" facility. No surface water will be withdrawn from or discharged to any offsite surface water body as a result of plant operations. Certain non- industrial areas within the Polk County Site will be designed, however, to provide offsite drainage to enhance flows to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch. Flow to McCullough Creek will be enhanced by drainage from parcel SA-10, an offsite portion of the Estech Silver City Plant Site, and the southerly portion of parcel SA-12. Drainage from parcels N-11A, N-13, N-9B, Tiger Bay East and Tiger Bay will enhance flows to Camp Branch. Additionally, FPC has agreed to explore the possibility of restoring drainage to Six Mile Creek if onsite water cropping produces more water than FPC needs for power plant operations and if such drainage can be accomplished without additional permits. The net effect of the drainage enhancement plans will be to equal or improve flows to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch over the baseline condition for the site. There are several types of surface water systems to be developed on the Polk County Site. Surface water runoff from the plant island, other than that from the coal and limestone storage areas, will be routed to the site runoff pond and then used in the cooling pond as makeup water. Surface water runoff from the coal and limestone storage areas, as well as runoff from the active solid waste disposal area, will be routed to a lined recycle basin and will be used as process makeup water for the coal gasification plant. Surface water runoff from mining parcels N-11C, Triangle Lakes, N-11B and N-15 prior to its use as part of the cooling pond, P-3, Phosphoria, P-2 prior to its use as a solid waste disposal area, and SA-8 after it has been closed as a solid waste disposal area, will be directed to the cooling pond as makeup water. All of the surface water management systems will meet the requirements of the SWFWMD Management and Storage of Surface Water rules. Subsurface Hydrology and Impacts from Water Withdrawal The Polk County Site will use a cooling pond for process water and for cooling water for the combined cycle units and the coal gasification facilities. For the initial 940 MW of generating capacity, makeup water for the cooling pond will come from onsite water cropping and reclaimed water from the City of Bartow. FPC has negotiated an agreement with the City of Bartow for 3.5 or more million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed water from its wastewater treatment facility. At ultimate site capacity, the Polk County Site will require up to 23.6 mgd from a combination of offsite sources and groundwater for the operation of the power plant. FPC has agreed with the SWFWMD to obtain at least 6.1 mgd from reclaimed water and other offsite non-potable water sources, including the City of Bartow, for use as makeup water for the cooling pond. The additional 17.5 mgd of water may be withdrawn from the Upper Floridan Aquifer if additional sources of reclaimed water are not available. FPC has identified substantial amounts of reclaimed water that may be available. A limited quantity of potable water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will be needed to supply drinking water and other potable water needs for power plant employees. Well water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will be treated, filtered and chlorinated in an onsite potable water treatment system prior to consumption. At ultimate site development, potable water consumption is estimated to average 19,000 gallons per day, with a peak consumption of 36,000 gallons per day. As an alternative, FPC may connect with the City of Bartow or the City of Fort Meade potable water system. The subsurface hydrology of the Polk County Site consists of three aquifer systems. The uppermost system is the surficial aquifer which is located in the upper 20 to 30 feet of soil. Due to mining operations, the surficial aquifer has been removed from the site except beneath highway rights-of-way and portions of some dams. Below the surficial aquifer lies the intermediate aquifer which is comprised of an upper confining layer approximately 120 feet thick, a middle water bearing unit about 60 feet thick, and a lower confining unit about 80 to 100 feet thick. This aquifer system provides potable water to some small quantity users in the area. Below the intermediate aquifer is the Floridan Aquifer, which consists of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, a discontinuous intermediate confining unit, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Upper Floridan Aquifer provides a larger source of potable water for the area. The Lower Floridan Aquifer is characterized by poorer quality water and has not been used generally for water supply. The principal impact to groundwater from construction of the Polk County Site will be from the dewatering activities in parcels N-16, SA-11 and SA-13. This impact, if not mitigated, could result in the lowering of groundwater levels in the surficial aquifer in adjacent wetlands. During construction, recharge trenches will be constructed in certain locations near wetlands. Modeling analysis demonstrates that the recharge trenches will adequately mitigate any offsite groundwater impacts that otherwise would be caused by construction dewatering. The principal groundwater impact from the operation of the Polk County Site will be the withdrawal of water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer for process water and cooling pond makeup. Water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is the lowest quality of groundwater that can be used for the Polk County Site while maintaining the cooling pond as a zero discharge facility. The withdrawal of 17.5 mgd from the Upper Floridan Aquifer at ultimate site development will not adversely impact offsite legal users of groundwater and will comply with the SWFWMD consumptive use criteria for groundwater withdrawal. Ecological Resources The baseline for the ecological resources at the Polk County Site was established as the site condition that would exist following (i) mandatory reclamation under reclamation plans approved by the DEP/BOMR, and (ii) non- mandatory reclamation normally carried out by the mining companies. In the cases of Tiger Bay, which has been reclaimed and released by DEP/BOMR, and Tiger Bay East, which has revegetated naturally without reclamation, the ecological baseline was represented by the current condition of these parcels. This baseline methodology was proposed by FPC in a Plan of Study which was accepted by DEP in a Binding Written Agreement. The predominant land cover that would occur under the baseline condition at the Polk County Site would be agriculture. Approximately 70 percent of the Polk County Site, or approximately 5,678 acres, would be developed as crop land, citrus or pasture. The remaining 30 percent of the site would be reclaimed as non-agricultural uplands, wetlands and open water bodies. Tiger Bay already has been reclaimed and released by DEP/BOMR and Tiger Bay East has revegetated naturally. These two parcels represent one-fourth (524 acres) of the natural habitat under the ecological baseline condition. The quality of the baseline land cover and vegetation was established by surveying several onsite and offsite areas which have been reclaimed and released. Baseline aquatic resources at the Polk County Site consist of Tiger Bay and the aquatic resources which would have been developed under existing reclamation plans. This baseline would include open water bodies and forested wetlands in parcels SA- 11 and SA-12, and forested and herbaceous wetlands in parcel N-16. Both Estech and IMC have exceeded their mine-wide wetlands mitigation obligations even without those wetlands. The quality of the baseline open water bodies on the Polk County Site was evaluated by surveying parcel N- 16, which currently consists of open water habitat. The quality of wetlands was determined by surveying Tiger Bay, which contains wetlands that have been reclaimed and released. The baseline aquatic resources were found to have significant fluctuations of dissolved oxygen, and were characterized by encroachment of cattail, water hyacinth and other nuisance species. All of the aquatic areas sampled as representative of baseline conditions showed significant eutrophication. No DEP or SWFWMD jurisdictional wetlands currently exist onsite, within areas in which phosphate mining activities have been or will be conducted, except in the reclaimed Tiger Bay and Tiger Bay East. Baseline evaluation of threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern (listed species) was conducted by collecting information regarding regional habitat descriptions; plant species lists and ecological reports for the area; lists and ecological reports of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians common to the area; species checklists; reports of sightings or abundance estimates; interspecific relationships and food chains of important species; location of rare, threatened or endangered species or critical habitat for these species in the region; and occurrence of potential preexisting stresses. Information from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and approved mine reclamation plans was reviewed. Visits were made to nearby reclaimed sites by land and low-flying helicopters. No listed plant species were found at the site or offsite study areas. Existing reclamation plans, and consequently the ecological baseline condition, do not require the planting of such species. Listed animal species which were observed at the Polk County Site and are expected under the baseline conditions include the American alligator, woodstork, southeastern kestrel, osprey, little blue heron, snowy egret and tricolored heron. The baseline conditions would provide suitable feeding habitat for these species, but only limited areas of suitable nesting habitat. Both the current condition of the site and baseline condition provide feeding habitat for the American bald eagle, however, the nesting potential for this species will be greater after the implementation of the baseline condition. Impacts to the baseline ecological resources from the construction and operation of the Polk County Site will be more than compensated by habitat creation and enhancement programs proposed by FPC. The primary impacts to the baseline ecological resources will occur when power plant facilities, such as the plant island, cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal area are constructed, eliminating these parcels from the baseline ecological resources. Without development of the Polk County Site, these parcels would represent approximately 2,268 acres of viable lakes and upland and wetland habitats. FPC has proposed a total of 3,713 acres of viable wildlife habitat as part of the ultimate development of the Polk County Site. Accordingly, the available wildlife habitat after construction of the Polk County Site represents a net increase of 1,445 acres over the baseline ecological resource conditions. This increase in habitat, particularly in the buffer area, will be a net benefit for protected species. In providing more wildlife habitat than baseline conditions, FPC has agreed to certain enhancement activities that will specifically offset any impact to baseline ecological resources. These enhancement programs include habitat and wetland creation in parcels N-9B and N-13; habitat creation and offsite drainage enhancement in parcel SA-10; implementation of a wildlife habitat management plan and exotic vegetation control in parcels SA-10, N-9B and N-13; drainage enhancement to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch; and funding the acquisition of a 425 acre offsite area to serve as part of a wildlife corridor. Air Pollution Control Polk County has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEP as an attainment area for all six criteria air pollutants. Federal and state Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations provide that the project will be subject to "new source review." This review generally requires that the project comply with all applicable state and federal emission limiting standards, including New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) be applied to control emissions of PSD pollutants emitted in excess of applicable PSD significant emission rates. The project will limit emission rates to levels far below NSPS requirements. For the initial 470 MW phase of the Project, BACT must be applied for the following pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates (PM and PM10), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), beryllium, inorganic arsenic, and benzene. For the ultimate site capacity, BACT is required for each of these pollutants, and sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4), mercury, and lead as well. BACT is defined in DEP Rule 17-212.200(16), Florida Administrative Code, as: An emission limitation, including a visible emission standard, based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts, and other costs, determines is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems and techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques) for control of each such pollutant. The primary purpose of a BACT analysis is to minimize the allowable increases in air pollutants and thereby increase the potential for future economic growth without significantly degrading air quality. Such an analysis is intended to insure that the air emissions control systems for the project reflect the latest control technologies used in a particular industry and is to take into consideration existing and future air quality in the vicinity of the project. The BACT analysis for the project therefore evaluated technical, economic, and environmental considerations of available control technologies and examined BACT determinations for other similar facilities across the United States. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, BACT for SO2 emissions from the CTs is the use of natural gas as the primary fuel and the use of low sulfur oil for a limited number of hours per year. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, BACT for CO, VOCs, PM, beryllium, arsenic, and benzene emissions from the CTs is efficient design and operation of the CTs, the inherent quality of natural gas (the primary fuel), and a limitation on the annual use of fuel oil. For the first 470 MW of combined cycle units, BACT for NOx emissions from the CTs is the use of advanced dry low NOx combustors capable of achieving emissions of 12 parts per million by volume dry (ppmvd) at 15 percent oxygen when burning natural gas, water/steam injection to achieve 42 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen when burning fuel oil, and limited annual fuel oil use. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, the DEP staff initially proposed BACT for NOx emissions from the CTs as 9 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen when burning natural gas, using dry low NOx combustor technology. However, after careful consideration, it was determined that, because of the lack of proven technology to achieve such emission rate, it would be more appropriate to establish BACT at 73 lb/hour/CT (24-hour average, based on 12 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen and 59o F) using dry low NOx combustor technology and to require FPC to make every practicable effort to achieve the lowest possible NOx emission rate with those CTs when firing natural gas. FPC also is required to conduct an engineering study to determine the lowest emission rate consistently achievable with a reasonable operating margin taking into account long-term performance expectations and assuming good operating and maintenance practices. Based on the results of that study, DEP may adjust the NOx emission limit downward, but not lower than 55 lb/hour/CT (24-hour average, based on 9 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen and 59o F.). For the 99 MBtu/hour auxiliary boiler that is part of the initial phase of the project, BACT for NOx emissions is low NOx burners, limited annual fuel oil use, and limited hours of annual operation. BACT for NOx emissions from the 1300 kW diesel generator is combustion timing retardation with limited hours of annual operation. For the 99 MBtu/hour auxiliary boiler and the diesel generator as part of the initial phase of the project, BACT for CO, VOC, SO2, PM, benzene, beryllium, and arsenic emissions consists of good combustion controls, the inherent quality of the fuels burned, the use of low-sulfur fuel oil, and limited hours of operation. For the fuel oil storage tank as part of the initial phase of the project, BACT is submerged filling of the tank. For the coal gasification and other facilities to be built during later phases of the project, a preliminary BACT review was undertaken by FPC to support the demonstration that the Polk County Site has the ultimate capacity and resources available to support the full phased project. Air Quality Impact Analysis Air emissions from the project also must comply with Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria pollutants and Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments for three pollutants. Polk County and the contiguous counties are classified as Class II areas for PSD purposes; the nearest Class I area is the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, located approximately 120 km. from the Site. An air quality analysis, undertaken in accordance with monitoring and computer modeling procedures approved in advance by EPA and DEP, demonstrated that the project at ultimate capacity utilizing worst-case assumptions will comply with all state and federal ambient air quality standards as well as PSD Class I and II increments. For nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, air quality modeling was based on conservative assumptions, including background concentrations based upon the highest long- term and second highest short-term measured values (established through an onsite one-year air quality monitoring program and regional data), existing major sources at their maximum emissions, the estimated maximum emissions from certain other proposed projects, and the impacts of the proposed FPC project at ultimate site capacity. For other pollutants, detailed analyses were not performed because offsite impacts were predicted to be insignificant. Impacts of the project's estimated emissions of certain hazardous air pollutants (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, benzene, boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, formaldehyde, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc) at ultimate capacity were compared to the DEP draft no-threat levels under DEP's draft "Air Toxics Permitting Strategy." All pollutants except arsenic were projected to be below the corresponding draft no- threat level. Because of the conservatism of DEP's draft no-threat levels, it was concluded that arsenic impacts would not pose a significant health risk to the population in the surrounding area. Impacts on vegetation, soils, and wildlife in both the site area and the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, the nearest PSD Class I area, will be minimal. Visibility in the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area will not be impaired significantly by the project's emissions. Air quality impacts from commercial, industrial, and residential growth induced by the project are expected to be small and well-distributed throughout the area. Impacts from the initial phase of the Project (470 MW) will comply with all State and federal ambient air quality standards as well as PSD Class I and II increments. The impacts from the initial phase of the Project are also well below the draft no-threat levels. The initial phase of the Project will not significantly impair visibility in the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, and the impact on vegetation, soils, and wildlife in both the site area and the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area will be minimal. The air quality impacts due to commercial, industrial, and residential growth from the initial phase of the Project will be small, and are not expected to impact air quality. Land Use Planning/Socioeconomic Impacts of Construction and Operation The proposed site is an appropriate location for the Polk County Site project. The Polk County Site has adequate access to highway and rail networks, including CR 555, a major collector road, and the CSX railroad. The Polk County Site is located away from major residential areas in a location already heavily disturbed by mining activity. The site is located in reasonable proximity to major metropolitan areas that can supply an adequate work force for construction. Development of the Polk County Site in a mined-out phosphate area is a beneficial use of land and will provide an economic benefit for Polk County. The Polk County Site also is close to existing facilities, such as existing transmission line corridors and reclaimed water facilities, which will benefit the operation of the site while minimizing the impact of the project. The linear facilities associated with the Polk County Site are sited in appropriate locations. The 230-kV transmission line upgrade, reclaimed water pipeline and backup natural gas pipeline corridors: (i) are located adjacent to other linear facilities, such as existing roads and transmission lines, (ii) avoid major residential areas, and (iii) minimally disrupt existing land uses. The Polk County Site is compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan, the CFRPC Regional Policy Plan, and will meet the requirements of the Polk County Conditional Use Permit. The portion of the backup natural gas pipeline located in Hillsborough County is consistent with the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan and the policies of the TBRPC Regional Policy Plan. Construction of the Polk County Site will occur over an approximately 25-year period beginning in 1994. If the Polk County Site is developed only for NGCC capacity, construction employment will average 153 jobs per year with a peak employment of 350. The average annual payroll for construction of the Polk County Site on all NGCC is expected to be $7.1 million per year. If 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC units are built at the Polk County Site, peak construction employment will be 1,000 with an average annual construction employment of 315 over the approximate 25-year period. Average annual payroll under this scenario would be $14.6 million per year. Indirect jobs created as a result of buildout of the Polk County Site will average 231 jobs for all NGCC and 477 jobs if 2,000 MW of CGCC is added to the Polk County Site. After completion of the construction of the Polk County Site at ultimate capacity, 110 permanent direct jobs will be created if the site uses all NGCC and 410 jobs will be created if coal gasification is added to the Polk County Site. The operation of the Polk County Site will have a multiplier effect on the Polk County economy. The all NGCC scenario will create 272 indirect jobs and the Case A' scenario with CGCC will create 1,013 indirect jobs. After buildout, property taxes generated by the Polk County Site are estimated to be $24.3 million per year for the all NGCC scenario and $37.4 million per year if CGCC capacity is constructed at the site. Noise Impacts The ambient noise, or baseline noise condition at the Polk County Site was measured in five locations. These measurements show that the baseline noise condition for the site ranges between 30 dBA and 65 dBA at the nearest residential location. The higher noise levels are caused by truck traffic associated with the phosphate mining industry. Noise impacts from construction will be loudest during initial site preparation and steel erection stages. Earth moving equipment will produce noise levels of 45 to 50 dBA at the nearest residence in Homeland. During final phases of construction, steam blowout activity to clean steam lines will produce short duration noise levels of 69 dBA at the nearest residence. This activity will take place only during daylight hours. Noise levels from the operation of the Polk County Site were calculated using a computer program specifically designed for assessing noise impacts associated with power plant operation. The highest predicted continuous noise level will be 41 dBA at several houses 2.9 miles south of the site and 47 dBA at the nearest church. Noise impacts from fuel delivery trucks and coal trains will not significantly increase the noise levels over existing conditions. The continuous noise level from the operation of the Polk County Site at the nearest residence or church will be below the 55 dBA level recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Traffic Traffic analyses were made for impacts to highway traffic which will result from the construction and operation of the Polk County Site. These analyses included impacts at rail crossings caused by the delivery of coal to the Polk County Site under the Case A' scenario. A highway traffic analysis was made to determine if the existing roadway network in the vicinity of the Polk County Site would operate at acceptable levels of service based upon increased volumes of traffic associated with the construction and operation employment at the Polk County Site. Methodologies for evaluating traffic impact complied with Polk County, FDOT and CFRPC criteria. County roads were evaluated using Polk County criteria and state roads were evaluated using both Polk County and FDOT criteria. Traffic volumes were evaluated for peak construction traffic in 2010 and full plant operations, estimated in 2018. The traffic evaluation included analysis of existing traffic conditions, increased traffic volume associated with growth in the area not associated with the Polk County Site, and increased traffic associated with construction and operation employment at the Polk County Site. During peak construction employment under the Case A' scenario, 1,000 employees are expected at the Polk County Site. Under this scenario, the expected trip generation of the Polk County Site is expected to be 1,792 trips per day, with a morning peak of 717 trips and an afternoon peak of 717 trips. Based on this analysis, all roadways are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with currently planned improvements to the roadways. Intersection levels of service were found acceptable for 7 out of 11 intersections. FPC has recommended improvements to four intersections at U.S. 98 and SR 60A, SR 60 and CR 555, SR 37 and CR 640, and CR 555 and CR 640 at specified traffic levels. Peak operation employment under the Case A' scenario is expected to be 410 employees in 2018. Based upon this employment figure, the expected trip generation of the Polk County Site is 964 trips per day with a morning peak of 195 trips and an afternoon peak of 154 trips. At peak operation employment, all roadways evaluated were found to operate at acceptable levels of service. All intersections, except the intersection at SR 60 and CR 555, were found to operate at acceptable levels. FPC has recommended a protected/permissive westbound left turn lane at this intersection. With FPC's recommended improvements, which have been incorporated as conditions of certification, and those improvements currently planned by FDOT, the existing roadway network will meet Polk County and FDOT approved levels of service at peak employment during the construction and operation of the Polk County Site to its ultimate capacity. In addition to the highway traffic impact analysis, FPC evaluated the impact on rail/highway crossings from the transportation of coal by rail under the Case A' scenario. It was assumed that all coal for the Polk County Site will be delivered by rail over existing CSX transportation lines. It is expected that at full operation two 90-car trains per day will be required for the delivery of coal, resulting in four train trips per day. It was also assumed that trains will travel at speeds averaging 35 to 45 miles per hour. Evaluation of the impacts at rail crossings found an increase of .5 second per vehicle per day at urban rail crossings and .3 second per vehicle per day at rural rail crossings. Based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, the total delay at rail crossing intersections caused by the increased train traffic to and from the Polk County Site will not cause a significant delay and the rail crossing intersections will maintain level of service A. Archaeological and Historic Sites The Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, has stated that because of the location of the Polk County Site, it is unlikely that any significant archaeological or historical sites will be affected. Mandatory Reclamation of Mining Parcels The Polk County Site is comprised of phosphate mining parcels, portions of which are subject to mandatory reclamation under the jurisdiction of DEP/BOMR. The mandatory mining parcels are currently owned by Estech, IMC, and USAC. FPC has entered into stipulations with each mining company agreeing to reclamation of the mandatory mining parcels in accordance with the conditions of certification proposed by DEP/BOMR. In those conditions, DEP has proposed to incorporate the reclamation conceptual plan modifications included in Appendix 10.9 of the SCA into the certification proceeding for the Polk County Site and has redesignated those conceptual plan modifications as EST-SC-CPH and IMC-NP- FPC. The portions of the site which will be developed by FPC will be released from mandatory reclamation requirements when FPC purchases the Polk County Site. Variances FPC has requested variances from certain reclamation standards set forth in Rule 16C-16.0051, Florida Administrative Code, which will be necessary until the affected mining parcels on the Polk County Site are released from reclamation. FPC has requested a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(5)(a), which requires artificial water bodies to have an annual zone of fluctuation, and Rule 16C-16.0051(5)(b), which requires submerged vegetation and fish bedding in artificially-created water bodies. The criteria in these rules are inappropriate for a cooling pond, because it is an industrial wastewater treatment facility which cannot be efficiently or safely operated with fluctuating water levels and aquatic vegetation zones. With regard to the construction of dams for the cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal areas, FPC will need a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(2)(a), which requires a 4:1 slope for dam embankments and Rule 16C-16.0051(9)(b) and (c), which requires vegetation of upland areas, which may include dam embankments. Dams for the cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal areas will have steeper slopes and the interiors of the dams will be concrete blanket revetments, synthetic liners or solid waste consistent with the industrial purposes for which these facilities have been constructed. Access to these areas will be controlled to prevent any potential safety hazard. Finally, FPC will need a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(11)(b)(4), which requires reclamation to be completed within two years after mining operations are completed. Construction of the Polk County Site requires extensive dewatering and earthwork which cannot be completed within this timeframe. Applications for variances from mining reclamation criteria were included in Appendix 10.9 of the SCA and have been incorporated into the certification proceeding for the Polk County Site. DEP has redesignated these variance applications as EST-SC-FPC-V and IMC-NP-FPC-V. These variances are appropriate and should be granted. Agency Positions and Stipulations The Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Polk County have recommended certification for the construction and operation of the initial 470 MW of natural gas combined cycle generating capacity and have recommended the determination that the Polk County Site has the ultimate capacity for 3,000 MW of natural gas and coal gas combined cycle generating capacity, subject to appropriate conditions of certification. No other state, regional or local agency that is a party to the certification proceeding has recommended denial of the certification for the construction of the initial 470 MW of generating capacity or determination of ultimate site capacity. Several agencies which expressed initial concern regarding certification of the Polk County Site have resolved those concerns with FPC and have entered into stipulations with FPC as discussed below. The Florida Department of Transportation, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Department of Community Affairs have entered into stipulations with FPC recommending certification of the Polk County Site and a determination that the Polk County Site has the ultimate site capacity to support 3,000 MW of NGCC and CGCC generating capacity subject to proposed conditions of certification. Hillsborough County, the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, and the Tampa Port Authority have entered into a stipulation and agreement with FPC recommending certification of the backup natural gas pipeline corridor subject to proposed conditions of certification. FPC and the agency parties have agreed on a set of conditions of certification for the Polk County Site. Those conditions are attached as Appendix A to this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Florida Power Corporation be granted certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction and operation of 470 MW of combined cycle generating capacity as proposed in the Site Certification Application and in accordance with the attached Conditions of Certification. Florida Power Corporation's Polk County Site be certified for an ultimate site capacity of 3,000 MW fueled by coal gas, natural gas, and fuel oil subject to supplemental application review pursuant to 403.517, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-17.231, Florida Administrative Code, and the attached Conditions of Certification. A zone of discharge be granted in accordance with the attached Conditions of Certification. The conceptual plan modifications (EST-SC-CPH and IMC-NP-FPC) for the mandatory phosphate mining reclamation plans be granted subject to the attached Conditions of Certification. The variances from reclamation standards (EST-SC-FPC-V and IMC-NP-FPC- V) as described herein be granted subject to the attached Conditions of Certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5308EPP RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION * * NOTE: 114 page Recommended Conditions of Certification plus attachments is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary P. Sams Richard W. Moore Attorneys at Law Hopping Boyd Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Representing Applicant Pamela I. Smith Corporate Counsel Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733-4042 Richard Donelan Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road, Room 654 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Representing DER Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Office of Siting Coordination Division of Air Resources Mgmt. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Lucky T. Osho Karen Brodeen Assistant General Counsels Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Representing DCA Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Representing PSC M. B. Adelson, Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing DNR Carolyn S. Holifield, Chief Chief, Administrative Law Section Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Representing DOT Doug Leonard, Executive Director Ralph Artigliere, Attorney at Law Central Florida Regional Planning Council 409 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Representing CFRPC Julia Greene, Executive Director Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Representing Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council John J. Dingfelder Assistant County Attorney Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601-1110 Representing Hillsborough County Mark Carpanini Attorney at Law Office of County Attorney Post Office Box 60 Bartow, Florida 33830-0060 Representing Polk County Martin D. Hernandez Richard Tschantz Assistant General Counsels Southwest Florida Water Management District 2370 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Representing SWFWMD James Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Sara M. Fotopulos Chief Counsel Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 1900 Ninth Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Representing EPCHC Joseph L. Valenti, Director Tampa Port Authority Post Office Box 2192 Tampa, Florida 33601 Representing Tampa Port Authority Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Don E. Duden, Acting Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing the Trustees Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing statement, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is a Florida corporation in good standing, authorized to do business in this state. The Petitioner owns and controls the site which is the subject matter of these proceedings. Such site is located in Brevard County, Florida. The Department has identified the subject site as DER facility no. 05- 8500985 (the facility). At all times material to this case, the facility consisted of: three underground storage tanks (UST), one 3000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, one 1000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, and one 1000 gallon UST used for storing gasoline; five monitoring wells; and pipes and pumps related to the foregoing system. The facility constituted a storage tank system as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-761.200(38), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner holds, and is named insured for, third party pollution liability insurance applicable to the facility. Such insurance was issued pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. The policy for the foregoing insurance, policy no. FPL7622040, was in force from March 22, 1991 through March 22, 1992. The Department issued a notice of eligibility for restoration insurance to Petitioner for the above-described facility. Based upon the foregoing, the Petitioner is a participating owner or operator as defined in Chapter 17-769, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Section 376.3073, Florida Statutes, Brevard County operates a local program that has been approved by the Department. Such local program is managed by the Brevard County Office of Natural Resources Management (County). In July, 1990, a discharge of diesel fuel occurred at the Petitioner's facility. Petitioner's employees estimated that approximately twenty gallons of diesel fuel filled the pump box overflowed from the pump box across the seawall into the adjacent waters. Upon discovering the discharge, Petitioner shut down diesel fuel dispensing until repairs could be made to the apparent cause of the leak. Additionally, the diesel fuel remaining in the pump box and on top of the tank area was removed. Contaminated soil in the pump box was also removed. The apparent cause of the discharge described above was attributed to cracked pipe fittings which were repaired by Glover Oil Co. within a few days of the discharge. No detailed inspection was made to the system to determine if additional sources of discharge existed. Petitioner did not complete a discharge reporting form (DRF) for the above-described incident until April 18, 1991. The April DRF was completed after Petitioner was directed to do so by Ms. DiStasio, an inspector employed by the County. From August, 1990 until May, 1991, at least one monitoring well at the Petitioner's facility showed free product accumulating in the well pipe. The exact amounts of the free product found are unknown, but reports estimated the level at 100 centimeters. From August, 1990 until September, 1991, the Petitioner did not undertake any measure to explore the origin of the free product found in the monitoring well. Further, the Petitioner did not report the monitoring well testing results as a suspected or confirmed discharge. In April, 1991, an inspection of the Petitioner's facility was performed by Ms. DiStasio. That inspection resulted in a letter to the Petitioner that outlined several violations at the facility. Among those violations listed was the Petitioner's failure to report a suspected or confirmed discharge. At the time of the April, 1991 inspection, Petitioner had reported neither the July, 1990 discharge (a known discharge) nor the monitoring well test results (at the minimum a suspected discharge). In connection with the July, 1990 discharge, following the repairs made by Glover Oil, Petitioner did not have the system pressure tested. Only the area visible from the pump box was checked for leakage. In July, 1991, when Ms. DiStasio performed a re-inspection of the facility, she found Petitioner had not (in the interim period, April through July, 1991) taken any steps to test the system or to remove the fuels from the suspect tanks. Since the free product continued to appear in the monitoring well, a pressure test of the system would have definitively answered the discharge question. Alternatively, the removal of the fuels would have prevented further seepage until the system could be pressure tested. On August 6, 1991, the Petitioner issued a letter that advised the County that it had stopped dispensing fuel at the facility. The tanks were not drained, however, until on or about September 11, 1991. Further, the August, 1991, letter acknowledged that the Petitioner "had proposals for initial remedial cleanup related to diesel contamination in the tank field area." Obviously, the Petitioner must have contemplated a need for such cleanup. On September 11, 1991, at the Petitioner's request, Petroleum Equipment Contractors, Inc. attempted to pressure test the 3000 gallon diesel tank. The purpose of the pressure test was to determine if the diesel system had a leak. The company could not even run the test on the tank because of the defective system. A similar test on the Petitioner's gasoline tank passed without incident. Once the Petitioner learned the results of the test, it initiated Initial Remedial Action (IRA) as described on the IRA report filed by Universal Engineering Sciences. The IRA consisted of the removal of the excessively contaminated soil, approximately 74 cubic yards, and the removal of the USTs. The foregoing work was completed on or about September 15, 1991. On October 4, 1991, the Petitioner filed a discharge reporting form dated October 2, 1991, that identified September 11, 1991, as the date of discovery for the discharge. This discharge discovery was allegedly made incidental to the diesel tank pressure testing failure. No reference was made to the months of monitoring well reports showing a free product. On October 8, 1991, Ms. DiStasio prepared a Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program Compliance Checklist that reported the Petitioner was not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. When Petitioner applied for restoration coverage under the statute on January 31, 1992, such request was denied by the Department on March 6, 1992. The basis for the denial was as follows: Failure to notify the Department of a positive response to sampling within three working days of testing, pursuant to the rule in effect at the time of the initial response (17-61.050(1), Florida Administrative Code). An inspection by Brevard County on April 17, 1991, revealed that free product had been detected in one monitoring well since July 1990. The discharge reporting form was not submitted until October 2, 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying Petitioner's claim for restoration coverage under the Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 31st day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-2121 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are accepted. Except as found above, paragraph 3 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. It is accepted that Brevard County acted as the local agent in this case. Paragraph 4 is rejected as not supported by the record. With regard to paragraph 5, substituting "A" for "The" and "confirmed" for "discovered" the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. Similarly, with the substitution of the word "confirmation" for "discovery" in Paragraph 6, the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. No suitable explanation was offered by the Petitioner for why, if a discharge were not reasonably suspected, it retained the company to immediately remove the USTs upon the failed pressure testing. Clearly, the Club had a notion the tanks were a discharge problem. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While there was some confusion as to the exact volume of free product in the monitoring well, there was clear evidence that such was reported for many months prior to the confirmation in September, 1991. Further, the main confusion regarding the product found in the well was not as to its existence, but as to the individual's knowledge of the metric measurement of it. One hundred centimeters of product in a two or three inch pipe would not be a minute amount. Except as addressed in the foregoing findings, paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner did not undertake all repairs necessary to abate a discharge problem. Paragraph 10 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Clearly, as early as August, 1990, Petitioner knew or should have known of a discharge problem based upon the monitoring well report; that all of the discharge did not necessarily flow from the fittings that had been repaired is irrelevant. Further, Petitioner did no testing to verify that the replaced fittings had solved the discharge problem (especially in light of the well reports). Paragraph 11 is rejected as an inaccurate restatement of the exhibit. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Incidentally, the hearing in this case was in the year 1992. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as a misstatement of the exhibit cited. Paragraphs 13 through 27 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Brigette A. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Scott E. Wilt MAGUIRE, VOORHIS & WELLS, P.A. 2 South Orange Plaza P.O. Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether DNR should establish an exceptional drilling unit or units in order to prevent waste and to avoid the . . . risks . . . from . . . an excessive number of wells, Section 377.25(2), Florida Statutes (1983)? The respondents expressly declined to raise any question as to the petitioners' standing or party status.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner W. J. Jordan and apparently all the other petitioners are owners of mineral rights under the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 29 West, Santa Rosa County, Florida. T. R. Miller owns the mineral rights under the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 13 and has leased them to Smackco. Near the center of the southeast quarter of Section 13 (the existing unit) respondent Smackco drilled the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well. NOT COMMERCIALLY PRODUCTIVE Smackco drilled the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well down to the Norphlet formation and went 49 feet further, into the Norphlet sands, before giving up its efforts to extract oil from the well. Although Smackco did find a mixture containing 28 to 30 percent hydrocarbons, the hydrostatic head precluded commercial production. If the well had come in, royalties would have inured to the benefit of petitioners, T. R. Miller, and the owners of the mineral rights under the southern half of the existing unit. Although the evidence showed that extracting oil from the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well was not commercially feasible now, it did not establish that the price of oil will never rise to the point that production would make economic sense. ADDITIONAL DATA At least three other oil wells have been drilled at the Mount Carmel Prospect in Township 5 North, Range 29 West, Santa Rosa County, Florida. In keeping with applicable statutes and rules, these wells are also located at or near the center of their respective quarter sections. Except where no governmental sections are laid out (offshore or in Spanish land grants), or where all rights affected by a change are in one ownership, DNR has adhered to the concededly arbitrary use of quarter sections as drilling units. Information gained from the wells drilled at the Mt. Carmel Prospect, and from seismic tests performed there formed the basis for uncontroverted expert opinion that a sandy mass, known to geologists as the Norphlet structure, lies almost three miles below the earth's surface; and that a pool of oil floats on salt water within the Norphlet structure, as shown in the Appendix to this order. The L. W. Roberts 13-4 is on the northern edge of the pool that the geologists hypothesize. The geophysicist's testimony that the Jay fault running northwest southeast and the smaller almost perpendicular fault running off to the northeast lie approximately as depicted in the Appendix was also uncontroverted. These faults may act as walls keeping oil on one side. The faults themselves do not hold oil. THE NEXT WELL If a new well were drilled in the center of the northwest quarter of Section 16, at a point one half mile due south of the L. W. Roberts 13-4, see Appendix, it would be near the western edge of the pool of oil, if the geologists are right. (If the geologists are wrong, drilling there might mean hitting the fault zone, as happened with the Franks Pittman well.) Drilling a quarter mile north, at the center of the first proposed drilling unit, would reduce the risk of hitting the fault, and might make commercial production of a substantial amount of oil possible. DRAINAGE LIKELY Smackco's geophysicist conceded that hydrocarbons at the L. W. Roberts 13-4 and hydrocarbons under the northwest quarter of the existing unit "very possibly" will migrate to a well in the center of the proposed drilling unit, if hydrocarbons are extracted in large quantities there. A well of the kind and to the depth contemplated can be expected to drain 160 acres more or less. The geologists cannot know precisely what the situation is three miles down on the basis of the information they have at hand. They may be mistaken now about the location of oil just as they were when they recommended earlier well sites in the Mt. Carmel Prospect.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DNR deny Smackco's petition for exceptional drilling units. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: James Reddick, Esquire and Dan Stewart, Esquire Suite 5 808 Caroline Street, Southeast Milton, Florida 32570 J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esquire and Spencer Mitchem, Esquire Beggs & Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576-2950 Charles J. Hardee, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Department of Natural Resources Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303 * NOTE: Original Recommended Order has an appendix map which is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program (FPLIRP) coverage for petroleum discharges on March 10, 1992 and June 22, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Realadyne is a Florida corporation. The current president of Realadyne is Mary J. Martin. Realadyne was the owner and operator of a facility located at 4846 4th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida (Save-A-Step Food Store #7) (the "Facility"). The Facility was registered with the Department and was assigned DER Facility No. 52-8624627. The underground petroleum storage system located at the Facility included five underground petroleum storage tanks - four 4,000 gallon tanks and one 10,000 gallon tank. The date(s) that the tanks were installed at the Facility is unknown. At all times material, the Department has delegated to Pinellas County the authority to perform certain types of inspections with regard to underground petroleum storage systems. These inspections are performed by the Pinellas County Public Health Unit ("PCPHU"). Realadyne filed three (3) individual applications for eligibility for restoration coverage under FPLIRP for the Facility for petroleum discharges reported July 30, 1990, March 10, 1992, and June 22, 1992. The applications were all denied by the Department, for reasons articulated by the Department in individual responses to each application all dated September 3, 1993. Realadyne applied for FPLIRP coverage on or about July 25, 1991. Realadyne obtained FPLIRP coverage for the Facility for the period of October 7, 1991 to October 7, 1992. The July 30, 1990 discharge is not eligible for restoration coverage since it occurred outside the FPLIRP coverage period (prior to October 7, 1991). The parties have reviewed the grounds for FPLIRP restoration coverage ineligibility. The parties stipulate and agree that the sole remaining basis for a determination of ineligibility is the following: Failure to upgrade petroleum storage system in accordance to the schedule required by Section 17-761.510(6), F.A.C. The parties also stipulate and agree that if either discharge from the Facility shall be determined eligible for FPLIRP restoration coverage, then the Facility shall be eligible for reimbursement under the restoration program. Under the aforementioned regulations, the petroleum storage system at the Facility was required to be retrofitted on or before December 31, 1989. On July 13, 1990, a PCPHU Inspector (Arthur Caden) performed a compliance inspection at the Facility. A Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form was prepared by the Inspector and a copy of the report was provided to Ms. Martin. On July 19, 1990, Ms. Martin had a phone conversation with Moghadam regarding the Facility. As noted, Moghadam's job duties included review of alternative procedure requests under Rule 17-761.850, Florida Administrative Code. As a result of the phone conversation, Martin sent correspondence to John Svec, an employee with the Department's Bureau of Waste Cleanup. The referenced letter requested the Department to grant an "alternate technical proceedings to be able to apply for FDER/FPLIRP" (the "Proceeding"). The July 19, 1990 letter signed by Martin provided in part: The above facility has not been in compliance for over a year, due to company not being able to afford or support a loan for the removal of and replacement of the tanks. By correspondence dated July 25, 1990, the PCPHU directed Petitioner to file a Discharge Notification Form (DNF) concerning a potential discharge of petroleum product. On August 1, 1990, Ms. Martin met with the PCPHU inspector concerning the results of the compliance inspection conducted on July 13, 1990. At that time, PCPHU informed Ms. Martin that "she had to . . . line/replace the old tanks which are unknown as to date of installation." On August 1, 1990, Petitioner filed a DNF with the PCHPU concerning a potential discharge of petroleum product. On or about September 12, 1990, the PCHPU sent Petitioner a Warning Letter concerning the issue of whether Petitioner intended to reline or replace the underground storage tanks. On September 25, 1990, Petitioner provided PCPHU with a copy of a contract proposal for removal and replacement of the underground storage tanks. The contract proposal was from Adams Tank and Lift dated September 4, 1990. Attached to the proposal was a "SNAP-A-GRAM" signed by Ms. Martin which provides in part: Regarding the above facility please be advised that I should be able to give you a date as to when the work will be started the first week of October. I am enclosing a copy of a proposal from Adams Tank and Lift of work to be done at this location. The work contemplated under the proposal from Adams Tank was never performed. On June 5, 1991, a PCPHU Inspector (Joyce Welch) performed a compliance inspection at the facility. A Pollutant Storage Tank Inspection Report Form was prepared by the Inspector and a copy of the report was provided to Ms. Martin. On or about July 8, 1991, the PCPHU sent Petitioner a Warning Notice concerning the DNF that Petitioner filed on July 30, 1990. On July 8, 1991, PCPHU sent Petitioner another warning letter concerning the DNF which Petitioner filed on August 1, 1990. The warning letter provided in part: On August 1, 1990, this agency received a discharge notification form with a discovery date of June 1990. The discovery was based upon the manual sampling of a monitor well. A routine compliance inspection on July 13, 1990 verified the presence of free product in well number 3. Said free products present in the groundwater confirms your site has excessively contaminated as defined in . . . Chapter 17-770. You are instructed to initiate a contamination assessment report (CAR) in accordance with . . . Chapter 17-770 within thirty days of receipt of this letter to determine the extent of contamination. On or about July 19, 1991, Ms. Martin had a phone conversation with Mr. Moghadam. The July 19 letter, which was received by the Department on or around July 22, 1991, requested that the Department grant "alternate technical proceedings to be able to apply for FDER/FPLIRP." (the "Proceeding") Petitioner requested the Proceeding in an effort to bring the Facility into compliance with applicable underground storage tank regulations. After filing the Proceeding, Petitioner applied for FPLIRP coverage on July 25, 1991. The Department never responded, in writing, to the request for the "Proceeding". On February 11, 1992, PCPHU performed another compliance inspection at the facility. On February 17, 1992, PCPHU sent Petitioner a Final Non- Compliance letter concerning the results of the inspection conducted on February 11, 1992. The above-referenced PCPHU noncompliance letter provides in part: Storage tanks do not meet storage tank standards. Please upgrade tanks to meet applicable storage tank standards. On March 10, 1992, Petitioner filed a second DNF for the Facility, based upon evidence of a discharge discovered while inspecting and repairing a portion of the storage tank system. On June 22, 1992, Petitioner began closure activities with regard to removal of the underground petroleum system. On that date, Petitioner filed a third DNF based on evidence of a discharge discovered during its closure activities. On June 23, 1992, Petitioner concluded closure activities with regard to removal of the underground petroleum storage system. Petitioner was not required to obtain the Department's approval of an alternate procedure as a condition precedent to the removal of the underground storage tanks. Removal of the tanks would have brought Petitioner into compliance with the requirements of Rule 17-761, Florida Administrative Code. On or about September 12, 1992, after the tanks were removed, PCPHU sent Petitioner a warning letter concerning the issue of whether Petitioner intended to reline or replace the underground storage tanks. The warning letter provided in part: . . . Chapter 17-61.061(1)(b)2, requires all tanks to be lined or replaced before certain dates. In the case of your facility, since the installation date is unknown, you are required to have the tanks relined or replaced by December 31, 1989. You were previously advised of this violation during an inspection by one of our staff, Arthur L. Caden, on July 13, 1990, and by letter dated July 25, 1990. You requested and obtained a meeting with our staff on August 1, 1990 at which time you were directed to submit a discharge notification form (DNF), and to advise this office whether you would reline or replace the tanks. The DNF had been filed, but staff has not been formally advised of your decision regarding the tanks. Therefore, since you have not responded formally to this office, we have no alternative than to advise you that we will proceed with an appropriate enforcement action if you ignore this letter of warning. Please be advised that the subject tanks shall be relined or replaced no later than November 30, 1992. Petitioner's request for the "proceeding" seeks an after-the-fact "exception" to the retrofit requirements of Rule 17-761.510, Florida Administrative Code. The basis for Petitioner's request for an exception is "financial inability". When Petitioner's request for a "proceeding" was filed, the Department had a policy of not proceeding with the review of any request for an alternative technical procedure if the facility submitting the request was then out of compliance with the retrofitting requirements of Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code. The request for a "proceeding" was not a viable procedure to extend the December 31, 1989 retrofitting deadline even assuming the request otherwise complied with Rule 17-761.850, Florida Administrative Code. Likewise, the Department lacked authority to extend the December 1989 retrofitting deadline. The Department received Petitioner's application for FLIRP coverage on July 29, 1991, approximately three days after the Department received Petitioner's request for the "Proceeding". 1/ On July 26, 1991, Ms. Martin executed a FLIRP affidavit on behalf of Petitioner as part of its application for coverage under FLIRP. The introductory portion of the FLIRP affidavit provides in part: In order to be eligible for the. . . restoration program, a facility owner or operator must sign this affidavit to affirm that the facility is in compliance with the Department's storage tank rules. . . and Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and that he/she has read and is familiar with these rules and statutes. The attestation portion of Petitioner's FLIRP affidavit, as executed by Ms. Martin, provides in part: The petroleum storage systems, as defined under Chapter 376.301, Florida Statutes, located at the facilities listed on the application, are now in compliance and shall maintain compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 376.303, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-761. . . including, but not limited to, those provisions: * * * (b) The installation, maintenance and repair of new and existing underground petroleum storage system; * * * (e) Notification of sale, abandonment, replacement or upgrading of petroleum storage systems. The attestation portion of Petitioner's FLIRP affidavit, as executed by Martin, also provides in part: I, Realadyne, Inc. have read Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Rule 17-761 and the facility or facilities listed on the attached application meet the requirements for the participa- tion in the Florida Petroleum liability insurance and restoration program as described in Chapter 376.3072, Florida Statutes. In executing the affidavit, Ms. Martin knew, or should have known, that the facility was not in compliance with the Department's applicable storage tank regulations. On December 4, 1991, Petitioner contacted the Department, via telecommunique, concerning its request for the "proceeding" to apply for FDER/FPLIPA. At that time, the Department informed Petitioner that the Department would not proceed with the review of the request of an alternate technical proceeding because the facility was already out of compliance with applicable retrofitting requirements. On that day, Petitioner informed the Department that it could not afford to have the underground storage tanks removed. At that time, the Department requested that Petitioner take the tank out of service, pending a decision by it as to whether the tanks would be removed and/or replaced. Also, the Department requested that Petitioner provide it with an updated storage tanks registration form reflecting that the tanks had been taken from service. Petitioner informed the Department that the underground storage tanks would be taken out of service, pending its decision whether it would remove or replace the tanks. Petitioner also agreed, at that time, to provide the Department with an updated storage tank registration form reflecting that the tanks had, in fact, been removed or taken out of service. The Department requested that the tanks be taken out of service to minimize the potential for a discharge of a petroleum product. If Petitioner had taken the underground tanks out of service as requested (and as agreed), the facility would have been in compliance with the requirements of Rule 17-761.510, Florida Administrative Code. On September 11, 1991, PCPHU sent Petitioner another warning letter concerning its failure to comply with the retrofitting requirement. The above-referenced warning notice provides in part: On July 13, 1990, agency personnel inspected your storage tank facility for compliance with Florida's tank regulations and violations were noted. Then on July 25, 1990, this office sent you a letter requesting that you provide the Division with a written explanation of your failure to comply with F.A.C. Chapter 17-61, and to proceed with certain steps. This agency has received no response from your company. On September 25, 1991, the Department contacted Petitioner, by phone, concerning the request for an alternate technical proceeding. During the course of the conversation, Petitioner indicated that it had scheduled a meeting with PCPHU concerning the removal and/or replacement of the tanks. On September 25, 1991, the Department requested that Petitioner provide it with an updated registration form reflecting that the tanks had been taken out of service. On that date, Petitioner agreed to provide the registration form reflecting that the tanks had been taken out of service. On September 30, 1991, the Department again contacted Petitioner concerning its request for an alternate proceeding. At that time, the Department again requested the updated registration form reflecting the tanks had been taken out of service. On that date, Petitioner telecopied the Department a letter and a copy of a contract proposal from UST Engineering for the relining of the underground storage tanks. The contract was dated June 28, 1991, and was signed by Martin on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner's letter dated September 30, 1991, to the Department was also signed by Martin. The above-referenced letter provides in part: "UST has assured me they will be able to complete the work before the first of the year." The document submitted by Petitioner to the Department on September 30, 1991, included a copy of a check issued by Petitioner made payable to UST Corrosion Engineering. The work contemplated under the UST contract proposal was never performed. Petitioner did not inform the Department of its decision not to have the work performed. A release of petroleum product occurred prior to removal of the petroleum storage system. Petitioner failed to comply with the retrofitting requirements set forth under Rule 17-761.510, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner continued to sell petroleum products until mid June, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for restoration coverage under the Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of December, 1994. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1994.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Reimbursement Program established under the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 for the petroleum terminal owned by Gulf Products Division of BP Oil Company at Port Everglades, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 provides for the expeditious cleanup of sites contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum products. The Reimbursement Program, found in Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, provides for reimbursement of the allowable costs of site rehabilitation contaminated as a result of a discharge related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products from a storage tank, or its integral piping or dispensing system. The Reimbursement Program does not provide for reimbursement of cleanup costs for discharges related to the transportation or disposal of petroleum or petroleum products. The site at issue in this proceeding is a terminal facility used for the storage of petroleum and petroleum product located at 1500 Southeast 26th Street, Port Everglades, Florida. This facility is referred to as Gulf Facility No. 46888 and DER Facility No. 068732278 (Gulf Terminal). The subject terminal facility is one of fourteen petroleum storage terminals located at Port Everglades, Florida. Petroleum and petroleum products come to the terminal by ship and are pumped from the ship through permanent pipelines to the large aboveground storage tanks located at the facility. The petroleum and petroleum products are stored in these large tanks until it is time for the product to be distributed to the end user. The Gulf Terminal contains eighteen storage tanks whose total capacity is 650,000 barrels of petroleum or petroleum products. These tanks vary in size, with the smallest having a capacity of 10,000 barrels and the largest having a capacity of 80,000 barrels. One barrel equals 42 gallons. The primary activity of the terminals at Port Everglades is to store petroleum or petroleum products. None of the terminals at Port Everglades, including the Gulf Terminal, refines or produces petroleum or petroleum products. Operation of this facility began in 1946. Petitioner, as the successor to the Gulf Oil Corporation, owned and operated the facility until February 1, 1985, when it sold the facility to BP Oil, Inc. As the previous owner of the facility, Petitioner performed an environmental audit which revealed petroleum hydrocarbon contamination at the site. Petitioner is responsible for the cleanup and is entitled to reimbursement of the allowable costs of the cleanup if the site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program. Any contamination of the soil and groundwater at the site was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products, water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum product or sludges which consist predominately of petroleum or petroleum product constituents. Based on hydrogeological assessment information, Petitioner determined that response action, including ground water cleanup activities, was required at the site. Petitioner hired independent contractors to conduct the response action. In 1986, Petitioner designed a recovery system for petroleum and petroleum product and a ground water treatment system at the site. Through February, 1989, the recovery system had recovered over 12,000 gallons of petroleum or petroleum products, which constitutes the recovery of between 60%- 70% of the total amount in the ground. Through November 1989, Petitioner had expended in excess of $560,000 on its response action at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner advised Respondent of its response action at the site by letter dated January 6, 1988. Petitioner submitted documentation to Respondent concerning hydrogeological assessment at the site which included field and laboratory work and investigation performed for the site from 1984 to the present. Pursuant to the requirements of SUPER Act, Petitioner notified Respondent of its intention to seek reimbursement for money spent conducting response action in accordance with Chapter 17-70, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to petroleum and petroleum product contamination at the site. Petitioner's notice to Respondent was timely and was procedurally correct. On July 13, 1989, Respondent issued its Order of Determination of Ineligibility concerning Petitioner's request for reimbursement. As stated in this order the initial basis for Respondent's denial of eligibility was: The determination is based on the fact that the contamination was not related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products. Sources of contamination at this site include tanker trucks, an oil/water separator, a holding pond, and crude oil and tank-bottom sludge disposal pit. These items are not petroleum storage systems as defined in Section 376.301 F.S. therefore (sic), this site is not eligible for reimbursement under the SUPER Act. ... Respondent clarified its Order of Ineligibility by a Notice to Amend and Clarify dated November 14, 1989, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The notice of denial provides that the site is being denied due to the fact that the disclosed sources of contamination are not petroleum storage systems. One of the criteria for being a petroleum storage system is that it be used or intended to be used for storage of petroleum or petroleum product. It is the criteria that the Department contends is not met in this case; i.e., that the discharges were not intended for storage. Section 376.3071(4), Florida Statutes, specifically limits the use of the Environmental Protection Trust Fund to incidents of inland contamination related to storage of petroleum or petroleum product. * * * The Department recently became aware that prior to 1983, contaminated water was disposed of directly from tanks at the site with no pretreatment by an oil/water separator. As with the disposal of oil and sludge to a pit, the act of intentionally disposing of contaminants to the ground is not "related to storage" as required by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. * * * Wherefore, The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation hereby requests that the Hearing Officer allow for the amendment of the notice of denial of eligibility to include the following basis for denial: Contamination at the site is related to the disposal of petroleum or petroleum product, or water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. Disposal activities including the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water and/or fuel from tanks, oil water separators and sump areas, the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water to a percolation pond, the intentional discharge and disposal of oil and sludge to a disposal pit, and the intentional discharge and disposal of fuel to the ground at the loading rack. Among the causes of contamination of the Gulf Terminal are accidental overfills of tanks and leaks from an integral pipeline. Absent any other source of contamination, the discharges that occurred at the Gulf Terminal due to these causes would be eligible for the reimbursement. Respondent has determined, however, that the following additional sources of contamination render the entire response action ineligible for reimbursement: Discharges of dissolved hydrocarbon molecules contained in water which accumulated in storage tanks; Discharges of petroleum or petroleum products at the loading rack at the terminal; and The discharge of crude oil and of crude oil tank bottoms. TANK OVERFILL During the operation of the Gulf Terminal, petroleum and petroleum products have been accidentally discharged onto the ground. In 1955, an unknown quantity of petroleum or petroleum products was accidentally discharged onto the ground in the areas of tanks 104 and 105 as a result of these tanks being over- filled. Following this massive spill, between 5,000 - 10,000 barrels of product was recovered, while an unknown quantity could not be recovered. PIPELINE LEAK Since 1955, approximately 15,000 additional barrels of petroleum or petroleum products were leaked from an underground pipeline that is integral to the storage system in an area between the loading rack and tank 101, extending toward the west to between tanks 110 and 102. This is the vicinity where the heaviest free floating petroleum contamination exists. DISCHARGE OF CONTAMINATED WATER Florida has adopted the standard code for the design of aboveground storage tanks prepared by the American Petroleum Institute (API-650). The tanks at the Gulf Terminal are in compliance with API-650. The accumulation of water in storage tanks is a problem associated with the storage of petroleum or petroleum products in the storage tanks at the Gulf Terminal and at the other terminals at Port Everglades. Water accumulates in the storage tanks from rainfall and from condensation. The records of the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Station 08063163 (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) accurately depict the rainfall levels at the terminal facility. The total annual rainfall levels are as follows: 1980, 69.67 inches; 1981, 57.9 inches; 1982, 82.92 inches; 1983 75.16 inches; 1984, 59.4 inches; 1985, 63.74 inches; 1986, 64.14 inches, 1987, 58.50 inches; 1988 40.66 inches. Because water is heavier than petroleum and petroleum products, the water accumulates at the bottom of the tanks. It is essential to the proper storage of the petroleum or petroleum products that the water be removed for at least three reasons. First, if the water is not removed, the tanks would eventually become filled with water instead of product. Second, the product contaminated by water, particularly fuel for motor vehicles and aircraft, would not meet specifications. Third, water in the tanks speeds the corrosion of the tank. In order to remove this water that accumulates at the bottom of the storage tanks, a water draw-off mechanism located at the bottom of the tank is a design feature of API-650. When water accumulates in the bottom of the tank, the water is drained out through the water draw-off mechanism. The storage tanks located at the Gulf Terminal are equipped with such a water draw-off mechanism. Throughout the existence of the facility, accumulated water in the tanks has been controlled by discharging the water through the water draw-off mechanism. From 1948 to 1980, water was drained out of the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and on to the ground. Beginning in 1980, the water was taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and piped to a catch basin where an effort was made to recover petroleum product by skimming the water before the water was discharged into the ground. Since 1985, the water taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism has been treated by an oil/water separator which effectively removes all petroleum product before the water is discharged. The purpose of the oil/water separator is to separate petroleum product from water so that the petroleum product can be returned to the storage tank and the water can be discharged. This process serves to prevent the discharge of petroleum product. Up to 1988, the discharges to the ground from the oil/water separator at the Gulf Terminal accumulated in a holding pond. In 1988, the holding pond was eliminated and the water discharges from the oil/water separator were routed to a holding tank prior to treatment by an air stripper and subsequent discharge into the canal adjacent to the property. At all times since 1983, the water drawn out of the tanks has been the subject of permits issued by Respondent which approve the use of the oil/water separator. While it is necessary for the operation of the storage tanks that water be drawn from the tanks, it is not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks for the contaminated water to be discharged onto the ground. The purpose of discharging the water was to dispose of it. There was no intent to recover the contaminated water after it was discharged. Any water coming out of a storage tank is contaminated with dissolved petroleum. It may have solids in it and floating residue or product on it. Between 1946 and 1980, when this water from the storage tanks was discharged to the ground, any contaminates in the water would be discharged along with it. Water has been drained from tanks numbered 101, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112 113, and 114 on a daily basis. The other tanks are drained after a rainfall. An average of one or two inches of water was drained off each time it rained. Following a rainfall, in excess of 30 barrels of water would be drained from the smaller tanks, while approximately 300 barrels of water would be drained from the larger tanks. The discharge of the water drawn from the storage tanks contributed to the contamination of the groundwater at the Gulf Terminal. This type contamination exists in almost all areas of the site. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the contamination to the groundwater caused by the discharge of contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks from contamination to the groundwater which resulted from other causes. Petitioner failed to establish that the contribution to this contamination to the groundwater by the discharge of the contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks was insignificant. THE LOADING RACK The loading rack at the Gulf Terminal is the apparatus by which the petroleum in the storage tanks is dispensed to tanker truck for distribution to consumers. The loading rack is a series of dispensers which operate much like at a service station except that it fuels tanker trucks rather than automobiles. The loading rack is connected by permanent integral piping to the storage tanks. The purpose of the loading rack is to load the transport trucks. Without the storage tanks at the terminal, there would be no need for a loading rack. Over the years, discharges have occurred in the loading rack, usually as the result of human error. Occasional overfills in the 10-15 gallon range have occurred while a truck was being filled. This type discharge is analogous to a spill which occurs at a service station when an automobile is being fueled and the fuel splashes back or overfills the automobile's fuel tank. The supervisor of Respondent's Reimbursement Section testified that this type discharge, absent other causes, would probably be eligible for reimbursement. This testimony conflicts with the official position taken by Respondent in this proceeding that the cleanup caused by the operation of the loading rack is ineligible for reimbursement. In other incidents, small amounts of product ranging from a teacup to less than a gallon, were occasionally discharged while a truck was being drained of one type of product so that the truck could transport another type of product. The loading rack is an integral part of the storage system because without a means of moving the product out of storage and into the distribution system, the storage tanks could not provide a meaningful function. The discharges which occurred at the loading rack during the course of both loading and unloading trucks are insignificant when compared with the other sources of contamination at the site. TANK BOTTOMS In 1956, a storage tank was emptied for the purpose of switching product from crude oil to diesel fuel. At the time the change in product was made, approximately 1000 barrels of sludge and crude oil were disposed of in a pit adjacent to tank 101. Also disposed of was the tank bottom, a hard tar residue which formed at the bottom of the tank. Oil occasionally oozes to the surface in the vicinity of the pit adjacent to tank 101, but the area around the sludge pit has not been found to be contaminated, and the tank bottom has remained a hardened mass. Each tank on the site also had a pit alongside the tank where a tank bottom was disposed. Although it was necessary to remove the sludge and the tank bottoms to be able to properly operate the storage tanks, it was not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks to dump the sludge and the tank bottoms onto the ground or into the pits. The purpose of discharging the crude oil sludge and the tank bottoms was to dispose of them. There was no intent to recover the crude oil sludge or the tank bottoms water after they were discharged. CONTAMINATION PHASES The contamination at the site exists in three phases, floating petroleum product contamination, dissolved petroleum groundwater contamination, and sludge contamination. The contamination in the form of floating petroleum was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products following the tank overfills, the pipeline leaks, and spills at the loading rack. The dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by two primary sources. First, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by floating petroleum product coming into contact with groundwater. Upon such contact, molecules from the floating petroleum would dissolve into the water, causing contamination. Second, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by the discharge of the contaminated water that had been drawn off from the storage tanks. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the dissolved groundwater contamination that was caused by accidental discharges of product from the contamination caused by the discharge of the contaminated water. Petitioner was also unable to establish that the dissolved groundwater contamination caused by the contaminated water was insignificant. The sludge contamination was caused by the discharge of crude oil and crude oil tank bottoms. CLEANUP The sludge contamination is capable of being cleaned up separately from the free floating petroleum contamination and the groundwater contamination at the site. The sludge contamination is separate and distinct from the other contamination at the site both as to the location of the contamination and as to the methods that would be employed to clean up that type of contamination. Free floating petroleum contamination is recovered by drawing down the water level in a well by use of a pump so that a cone of depression is created. The cone of depression is a funnel shaped depression that causes the surface of the underground water table to bend down towards the well in all directions. The free floating petroleum which flows on top of the underground water surface is then recovered by use of a second pump. The free floating petroleum is then pumped into a holding tank where the recovery of free floating petroleum is completed. The recovery of free floating petroleum contamination is usually more expensive to accomplish than groundwater cleanup because more equipment is required. Groundwater cleanup usually takes a longer period of time to accomplish than does free floating product cleanup. The same or a similar well used to recover the free floating petroleum can also be used for the cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The contaminated groundwater is pumped from the well into an oil/water separator where the water and dissolved petroleum is separated, water is taken off the bottom, put through an air stripper, and is returned to the ground through an infiltration unit. Respondent has previously found sites eligible for the reimbursement program even though those sites experienced discharges which alone would render a site ineligible for the reimbursement program. The basis for finding these sites eligible was that the ineligible discharges had become indistinguishable from the eligible discharges and were insignificant by comparison. Petitioner has complied with all procedural requirements for seeking eligibility contained in Section 376.3701, Florida Statutes. Respondent has not been denied access to the Gulf Terminal. Respondent has made no determination that there has been gross negligence in the maintenance of the petroleum storage system locate at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not willfully concealed the existence of a serious discharge at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not falsified any inventory records maintained with respect to the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not caused any intentional damage to the Gulf Terminal. The Gulf Terminal is not owned by the federal government. Petitioner's challenge to Respondent's order of ineligibility was filed in a timely manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that Respondent enter a final order which determines that the subject site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the free floating petroleum contamination, but that the subject site is ineligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the sludge contamination and for the cleanup of the groundwater contamination. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE 89-4521 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner in its Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 1-16, 18-25, 27-30, 33, 36-42, 44, 47-50, and 53-54 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 17, 31-32, 46, and 51-52 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being contrary to the findings made and to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 26 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 34 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as not being established by the greater weight of the evidence. The testimony cited by Petitioner in support of these proposed findings do not establish the proposed findings. The proposed findings conflict with the contents of the Report of Ground-Water Quality Assessment accepted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 35 , 43, and 45 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected to the extent the proposed findings conflict with the findings made and the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact contained in Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order and in Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5, 7-19, 23, 25-31, 33-34, 39- 52, 55-68, and 70-72 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6, 20-22, 24, 32, 35-38, and 69 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 53 and 54 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected because the testimony referred to by Respondent in support of the proposed findings relates to amounts discharged following rainfalls, not amounts discharged daily. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-14 of Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gray Early, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert W. Wells, Esquire Ignacio E. Sanchez, Esquire KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN 2400 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Notice of Violation (NOV) and Orders for Corrective Action (OCA) filed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) against Respondents, Thomas Kerper (Kerper) and All Salvaged Auto Parts, Inc. (ASAP) , in DEP OGC File No. 02-0447 should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact 1. The real property located at 3141 Sharpe Road, Apopka, Florida, is owned by the heirs of Donald Joynt, who owned it for the 30 years prior to his death in 2002. The property consists of approximately 40 acres in the shape of a right triangle with the west side bordered by Sharpe Road, the south side by a potting soil business, and the northeast side (the hypotenuse of the right triangle) bordered by a railroad track. Prior to his death, Joynt used the property primarily for the purpose of operating a junkyard and recycling business ultimately entitled Don's Auto Recycling. 2. At some time before 2000, Joynt became desirous of selling his property. He offered it to a neighbor named José Luis Benitez for $600,000. Benitez counter-offered for between $350,000 and $400,000 because he thought it would cost $200,000 to $250,000 to clean the property up. Joynt rejected the counter-offer, and asked Benitez to help him find a buyer who would pay more than Benitez. At some point, Joynt listed the property with a real estate broker for $600,000. 3. In 1999, Kerper was operating an automobile parts salvage business at a location near Joynt's property. Kerper needed a new location to move his business and inventory. A real estate broker showed him Joynt's property. The broker told Kerper that the seller's broker said the property was clean and had no environmental problems. The broker also told Kerper that Orange County had recently purchased an easement for $300,000 to run a drainage ditch through the property to a local lake, which was true. While this gave Kerper some level of assurance, the broker advised Kerper to have an environmental assessment done before going forward with the sale. 4. After being shown the property by the broker, Kerper spoke with Joynt directly. It was agreed that they could save the real estate commission and split the savings by waiting until the listing expired. Joynt personally assured Kerper that there were no environmental issues, as evidenced by Orange County's purchase of the easement for a drainage ditch. In late March of 2000, after expiration of the real estate commission, Kerper and Joynt entered into an informal agreement allegedly written on a scrap of paper, which was not placed in evidence. Kerper testified that the agreement was for him to buy the property for $500,000, with $100,000 down, and the balance payable over time at seven percent interest. He also testified that the required $100,000 down payment would be payable in installments, with $25,000 payable whenever Joynt cleaned 25 percent of the site to make it usable by Kerper for his business operations. 5. When it came time for Kerper to move onto Joynt's property, Kerper discovered that Joynt had not done any clean-up or removed any of his property from the site. Used cars, car parts, and tires that belonged to Joynt remained throughout the site. According to Kerper, it was agreed that Kerper would help Joynt clean off the western half of the property, which was split approximately in half by a stream, while Joynt worked on cleaning off the eastern half of the property.” 6. Starting from the gate at Sharpe Road, Kerper began removing junk from the western side to the eastern side of the site for Joynt to remove from the property. Pieces of equipment and used car parts that had been left there by Joynt were removed from this section of the property. When enough space was cleared off, Kerper began setting up his auto salvage operations on the western side. He used a bulldozer to level the driveways and spread powdered concrete where the ground was soft. He also used the bulldozer to level an area near the scale house, which was on the western side of the property, but continued to be used by Joynt for Don's Auto Recycling business. In doing this work, his workers encountered steel reinforcement bars, which Kerper had them cut with a torch. Some tires and battery casings also were visible in the ground. Kerper had several truckloads of fill dumped in the area and installed a concrete pad for storing and dismantling automobiles. 7. In September or October of 2000, Kerper was evicted from his prior business location, and he had to move to Joynt's property regardless of its condition. As he increased business operations on the cleared spaces, Kerper continued to clear more space on the western side of the property. Another concrete pad was installed farther to the north. Eventually, Kerper was operating ASAP on approximately ten acres on the western side of the 40-acre site. 8. As Kerper continued to move north, his heavy equipment began encountering assorted kinds of buried material. When a buried propane tank exploded, Kerper stopped working his heavy equipment in the area and confronted Joynt. Joynt denied any knowledge of buried tanks and stated they must have been placed there by someone else. Joynt told Kerper he would let Kerper move his operations to the east side of the property when Joynt finished cleaning it up, and then Joynt would finish clearing the western side for Kerper. Kerper agreed, and continued making payments on the required down payment. According to Kerper, he eventually paid $90,000 of the down payment. 9. By August of 2001, Kerper began to have serious misgivings about Joynt's promises and the condition of the site, and he decided to seek advice. Kerper hired David Beerbower, vice-president of Universal Engineering, to perform an assessment of the northern portion of his side of the site (in the vicinity where the exploding tanks were encountered). During his assessment on August 20, 2001, Beerbower observed various automotive parts including numerous crushed fuel tanks, antifreeze containers, and motor oil containers being excavated from the upper three feet of soil. It was determined by Beerbower, and stated in his written report to Kerper, dated September 21, 2001, that these parts appeared to have been buried there several years ago. This determination, which DEP does not dispute, was based on the high level of compaction of the soil found around these items that could be attributed to either the passing of a significant amount of time or a bulldozer passing over the items. Since the excavations Beerbower observed were in a separate location from where Kerper had already bulldozed, the soil compaction around these items could not be attributed to Kerper's bulldozing. It was stated in Beerbower's letter that the “amount of buried automotive debris qualifies this area essentially as an illicit landfill." ad 10. Mark Naughton from the Risk Management Division of the Orange County Environmental Protection Division (OCEPD), which runs the petroleum storage tank and cleanup program for Orange County under contract with DEP, was also present during the time Beerbower conducted his assessment. Naughton agreed with Beerbower's assessment that Kerper is not liable for the assessment or remediation of this area. Naughton also advised Kerper to move ASAP off Naughton's property and to seek legal advice from attorney Anna Long, who used to be the Manager of OCEPD. 11. Meanwhile, according to Kerper, Joynt changed his position and began to maintain that it was Kerper's responsibility to clean up the western side of the property. Given the newly-discovered environmental condition of the property, Kerper did not feel it was in his best interest to purchase the property "as is," and contacted Long to help him negotiate to extricate himself from his arrangement with Joynt. While negotiations proceeded, Kerper began to scale down ASAP's operations in anticipation of relocating. Kerper began fixing up more whole automobiles for resale, and had a car crusher used in connection with ASAP's business begin crushing more cars for removal from the site for recycling. 12. Eventually, Long had Beerbower conduct another assessment of portions of Joynt's property to try to establish responsibility for contamination as between Kerper and Joynt. On 10 February 13, 2001, Beerbower took a surface water sample froma "drain pipe under the north driveway," a soil sample "where the car crusher was," and another soil sample from "the sandblasting area." The evidence was not clear as to the exact location of these samples, particularly the soil samples, as described in Beerbower's written report to Long dated March 11, 2002. But it appears that the "car crusher" refers to the location of Respondents' car crusher operation in the northern part of the site, just across the northern driveway; it appears that the sandblasting area refers to a location used by Joynt on the eastern side of the property, but located just east of the trailers used by Kerper for his offices. These samples were analyzed and found not to contain volatile organic compounds (VOC) or total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) in excess of Florida's cleanup target levels. 13. Kerper continued to operate his junkyard until the beginning of March of 2002. On March 5, 2002, Long filed a citizen's complaint with OCEPD on Kerper's behalf. While acknowledging that Kerper was operating on the site at the same time as Joynt in recent years, the complaint alleged Kerper's discovery that Joynt had been burying waste batteries, tires, and gasoline tanks on the property and covering the burial sites with broken concrete pieces. The complaint alleged that Kerper had been moving his personal property off of the site since August of 2001, when he backed out of his "lease to purchase" agreement 11 with Joynt, and would be "completely off the property by 3/10/02." 414. It is not clear exactly when Kerper and ASAP were completely off the property. The testimony and evidence on the point is inconsistent. Kerper, after some confusion, placed the date at March 9, 2002. His wife said it was March 2, 2002. An attorney representing Kerper and ASAP in an eviction proceeding filed by Joynt and his wife, filed a notice "that as of the evening of March 15, 2002, [ASAP had] vacated the property." In any event, the evidence seemed clear that Kerper and ASAP did not go on Joynt's property on or after March 15, 2002. 15. On March 15, 2002, DEP representatives inspected Joynt's property in response to Long's complaint. Kerper remained outside the front gate of the property and did not participate in the inspection. This inspection covered the entire property including the section that had been occupied by Kerper and ASAP. 16. doynt told the DEP inspectors that Respondents were responsible for a 55-gallon drum found tipped over on its side on the western half of the site and leaking a substance that appeared to be used oil from a hole in the side of the drum. DEP's inspectors righted the drum, which still was partly full of its contents. There also were several other unlabeled 55-gallon drums and 5-gallon containers "of unknown fluids"; a burn pile containing burned oil filters, battery casings, and electrical 12 wiring; other broken battery casings; and an area of dark-stained soil which appeared to be soaked with used oil. Joynt accepted responsibility for other contamination on the site, but told DEP that Kerper and ASAP were responsible for these items. Kerper denied the allegations. 17. As to the leaking oil drum, Kerper first contended that DEP did not prove that the overturned drum contained used oil. But the evidence was clear that DEP's inspectors were ina position to determine that the liquid was oily. Respondents also contended that the drum would have been empty, not still partly full, if Kerper or ASAP had left it on its side at the site when they vacated the property several days earlier. Kerper alleged that Joynt could have put the hole in the drum and turned it over shortly before the arrival of DEP's inspectors. But, as stated, it was not clear when Kerper and ASAP vacated the site, and it was not clear from the evidence that Respondents were not responsible. 18. Similarly, the other unlabeled drums and containers were in a part of the site occupied and used by Respondents. Despite Kerper's denials, it is not clear from the evidence that they belonged to Joynt or that they were placed where DEP found them after Respondents vacated the site. Testimony that Respondents had containers properly labeled "used oil," "antifreeze," and "gasoline" inside one of the trailers on the site did not negate the existence of unlabeled drums and 13 containers on the site. However, there was no proof whatsoever as to what the closed drums and containers held. But some were open, and DEP's inspectors could see that these held an oily substance (possibly hydraulic fluid), mixed with other substances. 19. As to the dark-stained soil, none of it was tested, and Respondents contended that it was just naturally darker in color or possibly wet from water or some other liquid, DEP's witness conceded could explain the color variation. (Natural reasons such as different soil or rainwater probably do not explain the color variations in the site.) Joynt told DEP's inspectors that the discoloration seen by them on March 15, 2002, was froma hydraulic hose on a piece of heavy equipment that burst earlier. The evidence was not clear who Joynt was saying owned and operated the equipment. But Respondents also blamed Joynt's employees for repeatedly blowing hoses on aged heavy equipment all over the site. It is found that the dark-stained soil probably was the result of one or more releases of hydraulic fluid or motor oil. However, the testimony and evidence was not clear that all of the releases were Joynt's doing and that Respondents bear no responsibility at all for the releases observed on March 15, 2002, in the areas where Respondents were operating. 20. Respondents were able only to produce documentation of proper disposal of 232 gallons of oily water through IPC/Magnum, 14 dated February 13, 2002, and 29 batteries through Battery World, dated March 8 and 14, 2002. 21. The testimony of Kerper and others was that Respondents generally removed gasoline from automobiles and placed it ina marked container for reuse within a day or two by Respondents and their employees. The testimony was that used oil and antifreeze generally also were removed from automobiles and placed in marked containers until proper disposition. The testimony was that batteries were removed from automobiles and that most were given to one of the employees to sell for a dollar apiece. There was no documentation to support this testimony. 22. There was testimony that, when Respondents had cars crushed, E & H Car Crushing Co., Inc., managed the collection and proper disposition of gasoline, used oil, and batteries. But the documentation placed in evidence contained no description of the wastes removed, but only provided a weight calculation of the materials removed from Respondents’ facility. 23. There was testimony that Gabriel Lynch, who was properly licensed, removed freon from automobiles at Respondents’ facility every two to three days, or upon request. Respondents would trade the freon Lynch recovered and used in his business, Gabe's Auto Tech, for repair work on Respondents' vehicles. However, no documentation of these transactions was produced. (Lynch testified that he did not know it was required that he provide documentation to Respondents.) 15 24. Runoff from where Respondents were operating on Joynt's property entered the stream running north-south through the center of the property. Neither Joynt nor Respondents had a stormwater permit or an exemption from stormwater permitting. 25. Kerper argued that his duties were limited to managerial responsibilities for ASAP, and that he was not at any time responsible for ASAP's day-to-day operations and did not conduct any activities that may or could have resulted in hazardous waste or petroleum discharge violations so as to be liable as an "operator." But the evidence was clear that Kerper was involved in ASAP's day-to-day operations. 26. While the evidence did not totally absolve Respondents from the allegations in the NOV, several people testified on Respondents' behalf as to their practice of properly disposing of hazardous materials generated by his business. For example, Rafael Rivera, a former employee, testified that Kerper would get mad at him if any gas or oil was spilled and left on the ground or was not disposed of properly. Meanwhile, it appeared that environmental problems at Joynt's site existed for years before the arrival of Respondents. Mrs. Sandra Lovejoy, a neighboring property owner for the past 30 years, testified that she had experienced problems with her water quality, such as a foul smell or funny taste, for many years before Respondents moved onto Joynt's property. An inspection was conducted by OCEPD in September of 2000, in response to Lovejoy's complaint regarding 16 fuel odor and a drinking well which was no longer in service. In part, OCEPD's written report on the complaint found "[m]any spots of surficial petroleum contamination . . . from gasoline, motor oil and other petroleum products leaking or spilled from the junk vehicles" at Don's Auto Recycling and included a recommendation "referring this site to the FDEP task force that has been put together to inspect and deal with junk yard facilities," although "[n]o Petroleum Cleanup issues were found at [that] time." For reasons not explained by the evidence, it does not appear that Don's Recycling was referred to any task force, or that OCEPD followed up on the reported contamination. 27. Respondents contend that this entire proceeding against them was part of a vendetta against Kerper for going to the local television station to expose the condition of the site, the failure of OCEPD and DEP to follow up on the September 2000, report and recommendation, and Orange County's purchase of a north-south drainage easement through the western portion of the property in 2000. The evidence did not prove this contention. However, it is clear that Joynt was responsible for the condition of most of the 40-acre site, not Respondents, and that Joynt shared responsibility with Respondents for the conditions alleged in the NOV. 28. While this case has been pending, Joynt's heirs have cooperated with DEP in cleaning up the site, and DEP acknowledged in its PRO that several items in the OCA--specifically, those 17 relating to Counts II, III, and VII of the NOV--are moot and unnecessary in light of Respondents' eviction from the property and subsequent cleanup operations by Joynt's heirs. It also is suggested that the corrective actions requested in DEP's PRO to address Counts IV, V, and VI of the NOV--relating to failure to document proper disposal of wastes--are unnecessary. It seems clear that, to the extent such disposals occurred, any available documentation would have been placed in evidence during the final hearing. Ordering that they be produced within 30 days of the Final Order, as suggested in DEP's PRO, would be a futile act. 29. Count VIII of the NOV alleged costs "of not less than $500. In its PRO, DEP requested recovery of $1,367.31 of costs. Some of these costs--$867.31--were itemized in the PRO. The balance appears to relate to the $500 alleged in the NOV. There was no evidence introduced at the final hearing as to any of these alleged costs, and the costs itemized in the PRO seem to represent travel costs of counsel for DEP.
Conclusions David J. Tarbert, Esquire Jason Sherman, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Albert E. Ford II, Esquire Webb, Wells & Williams, P.A. 994 Lake Destiny Road Suite 102 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order providing: 1. Under Count I of the NOV, Respondents shall be jointly and severally liable, along with Donald Joynt and Don's Auto Recycling, for cleaning up the releases of used oil evidenced by the discolored soils photographed by DEP's inspectors on 24 March 15, 2002 (DEP Exhibit 20, photographs 5 and 7 on page 2 of the exhibit). As such, they shall be responsible, along with Donald Joynt and Don's Auto Recycling, for implementation of DEP's Initial Site Screening Plan to assess and remove all contaminated soils resulting from those releases. If the results of the Initial Site Screening indicate that further assessment and/or remediation of the contamination is required, Respondents shall also participate, along with Donald Joynt and Don's Auto Recycling, in completing the required work, consistent with the "Corrective Actions for Contaminated Site Cases" (DEP Exhibit 16). 2. Counts II through VIII of the NOV are dismissed. 3. Respondents' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Vane ya J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 19th day of December, 2003. 25
