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 The issue in this case is whether Respondent created a sanitary nuisance by installing drainfield pipes too far apart in a septic tank drainfield and failing to seal the lid to a septic tank, failing to call for a required inspection before covering an onsite sewage disposal system, and engaging in gross misconduct by assaulting two of Petitioner's employees.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner as a septic tank contractor and authorized to provide septic tank contracting services. On May 4, 1994, pursuant to a previously issued permit, Respondent completed the installation of a new drainfield at 204 West DelMonte Avenue in Clewiston. He asked Petitioner's office for an inspection for approval to cover the system. Jim Rashley, an environmental specialist employed by Petitioner, inspected the system on the morning of May 4. No one was at the site during the inspection. Mr. Rashley discovered a violation concerning the type of header pipe. He also discovered that the drain lines were more than 36 inches apart and 18 inches from the side of the field. Mr. Rashley determined that the drainfield pipes were three feet and four inches apart. Examining the septic tank itself, which Respondent had pumped, Mr. Rashley found that the lid had not been properly resealed, which would allow rain or dirt to enter the tank or effluent to escape from the tank if the drainfield failed. Returning to his office, Mr. Rashley informed his supervisor, Steve Havig, that he was failing the system and called Respondent and told him the same thing. Respondent asked Mr. Rashley to come out to the site so they could both examine the system, and Mr. Rashley agreed. When they met at the site, Respondent asked Mr. Rashley to point out the three violations, which he did. Respondent's response was to tell him that he was sick and tired of college kids telling him how to install septic tank systems. Mr. Rashley said that he could not ignore violations of the rules. After Respondent became more upset, he moved to within inches of Mr. Rashley's face and asked him if he would approve the system. Mr. Rashley answered he would if Respondent fixed the violations. While Respondent yelled at Mr. Rashley only a few inches from his face, Mr. Rashley, feeling very uncomfortable, retreated to his vehicle and started to drive back to his office. Respondent got into his vehicle and tailgated Mr. Rashley the entire way. When they arrived at Mr. Rashley's office, Respondent told the secretary to call Mr. Rashley's boss. Claiming that Mr. Rashley had unfairly disapproved the system, Respondent asked Mr. Havig to visit the site himself. Mr. Havig agreed to do so. Mr. Havig visited the site on the morning of May 5 outside the presence of Respondent. He confirmed the violations. At their closest point, the drain lines were three feet four inches apart, and the septic tank lid was not sealed. Mr. Havig left a message for Respondent with this information. At Respondent's request, Mr. Havig agreed to meet Respondent at the site at 1:30 pm. Returning from lunch with two other men, Mr. Havig stopped off at the site to meet Respondent. He found that the header pipe violation had been corrected, but the other violations had not been. Mr. Havig and Respondent talked about the separation of the drain lines. Respondent said he could not move the pipe without disturbing the elevation, which is crucial to the functioning of the drainfield. Mr. Havig said he could either move the pipe or add another line so as to reduce the maximum separation between lateral lines to below 36 inches. Respondent complained that he could not maintain the position of the flexible pipe when pouring gravel over the pipes. Respondent became angry. He grabbed a section of the plastic pipe and said that he would show Mr. Havig. The gravel fell in behind the place where the pipe had rested. Respondent declared that he would get the homeowner's approval to cover up the system rather than modify it. Mr. Havig went to his car to get a camera, and Respondent began using a lot of vulgarity. As Mr. Havig took pictures of the installation, Respondent became angrier. His face turned red and he accused Mr. Rashley and Mr. Havig of harassing him. He warned Mr. Havig that, if they did not stop, they would have to suffer the repercussions. Moving very close to Mr. Havig and pounding his fist into his hand, Respondent asked Mr. Havig if he knew what Respondent meant. Mr. Havig said yes, that it was time for him to go. Respondent covered the system up shortly after Mr. Havig departed. Respondent did not allow a reinspection of the system to determine if he corrected either the separation of the drain lines, which he admits he did not correct, or if he sealed the septic tank lid, which he claims he did correct. Respondent has worked as a septic tank contractor in the area for 18 years. The likelihood of system failure is high if a septic tank lid is not properly sealed before the system is covered and placed into operation. Respondent appears to have been a responsible contractor. Based on these facts, there is enough doubt on the lid-sealing issue to preclude finding that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not seal the lid before covering the system. The pipes constituting the drain lines are manufactured to allow 18 inches of effluent to escape from either side of the pipe. By installing lines with more than 36 inches between each other or 18 inches between a line and a side, Respondent reduced the efficiency of the drainfield because parts of the drainfield, which lies beneath the lines, will not receive as much effluent as other parts of the drainfield. For awhile, due to safety concerns, Petitioner had to send two inspectors to inspect Respondent's work sites. Respondent never apologized to either Mr. Rashley or Mr. Havig until, acknowledging his unprofessional behavior, he apologized during the hearing. Respondent also noted that Petitioner has dealt with him professionally since the incidents in question. Petitioner and Respondent have had troubled dealings in the past. On one occasion, Petitioner insisted on the placement of a drainfield adjacent to an existing, failed drainfield, even though the existing and proposed drainfields drained directly into a canal. Respondent wanted to locate the drainfield well away from the canal. Unable to secure approval locally, Respondent took an appeal to Petitioner's representatives in Tallahassee, who approved Respondent's original, more sensible plan to relocate the drainfield. On the other hand, Respondent violated the minimum- separation rule for drain lines in 1993. Petitioner fined Respondent for the violation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 10D-6.056(4)(b) and thus 10D- 6.075(2)(a) by installing a drainfield with excessive separation between drain lines, Rule 10D-6.075(4)(d) by failing to call for a required inspection, and Rule 10D-6.075(4)(l)1 by engaging in gross misconduct in his behavior toward two of Petitioner's employees. It is further recommended that the final order impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500. ENTERED on July 14, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Floirda 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 14, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings All adopted or adopted in substance except that Respondent failed to seal the septic tank lid, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott Senior Health Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 60085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906 Attorney Melanie A. McGahee 333 S. Commercio, Suite B Clewiston, FL 33440 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Martha Valiant, M. D. Director, Hendry County Public Health Unit P.O. Box 70 LaBelle, FL 33935
The Issue Whether Petitioner's site located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida, is eligible to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of a gasoline service station located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. Tomas Pequeno, Sr., is the President and owner of X.O. # 1 Corporation. International Petroleum currently operates the facility located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142 pursuant to a lease agreement with X.O. #1 Corporation. The mailing address of the subject facility and of X.O. #1 Corporation is 12190 S.W. 99th Street, Miami, Florida 33186. Aurelio Rodriguez is part owner of International Petroleum and has been the manager and operator of the facility in question since 1988. Since 1988 Tomas Pequeno, Sr., has delegated authority to his son, Tomas Pequeno, Jr., to act on his behalf with regard to the business of X.O. #1 Corporation and the facility located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. At the subject facility there are six underground storage tanks which receive and dispense petroleum products. These underground storage tanks are owned by X.O. #1 Corporation and constitute part of the property leased to International Petroleum. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, there were functioning monitoring wells on the premises for the purpose of detecting leaks in the underground storage system. At the formal hearing, Tomas Pequeno, Jr., testified that on September 21, 1987, an odor of petroleum in one of the monitoring wells on the subject site was detected during a routine inspection of the premises. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., was advised by the inspector that there might be a leak in the system. On November 17, 1987, Mr. Pequeno, Jr., caused the tanks on the premises to be relined. No leaks were detected by the tests that were conducted following the relining of the tanks. Paragraph 9 of the Pretrial Stipulation filed by the parties on July 24, 1991, is as follows: 9. That the date of discovery of petroleum contamination at this facility was September 21, 1987, as indicated by Tomas Pequeno. On December 9, 1988, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an "Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application" which was signed by Tomas Pequeno, Sr., as president of X.O. #1 Corporation. This form had been completed by Tomas Pequeno, Jr., and given to his father for his execution. This form represented that contamination at the site was detected September 21, 1987, by a manual test of the monitoring wells, that the number of gallons lost was unknown, that the petroleum contamination was due to leaking storage tanks, and that the system had been repaired. The cause of the leak in the piping and the cause of the leak in the tanks were stated as being unknown. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., testified at the formal hearing that: "There was never a discharge from that site and there is not a discharge right now at this moment." Mr. Pequeno, Jr., also answered in the affirmative to the following question: "Mr. Pequeno, are you testifying there is no contamination at this facility?" 1/ Mr. Pequeno, Jr., testified further that he submitted the Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application as a precaution in the event contamination was discovered. The testimony of Mr. Pequeno, Jr., at the formal hearing contradicted the representations made on the Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application. At all times pertinent to this proceeding both Mr. Pequeno, Jr., and Mr. Rodriguez were aware that the primary purpose of a monitoring well is to detect leaks from a petroleum storage system. At all times pertinent to this proceeding both Mr. Pequeno, Jr., and Mr. Rodriguez were aware of the existence of the monitoring wells on the subject site. The Dade County Department of Environmental Management (DERM) had asked the operator of the facility to submit monitoring reports. 2/ Mr. Rodriguez was unable to recall when DERM first requested the monitoring reports, but it is clear from his testimony that the request was made several months before the hearing. The operator knew that monitoring system checks were required and had been requested by DERM to provide reports of those monitoring system checks. The failure to conduct regular, periodic monitoring system checks creates the risk that a leak in a petroleum storage system will continue undetected. Neither the operator nor the owner monitored the underground petroleum storage system on a regular basis until July of 1991, when the operator began to monitor the system on a regular basis and began to keep a log of the results. Since September 21, 1987, Petitioner was aware that a sample of water from one of the monitoring wells (monitoring well #9) at the subject facility consistently contained the odor of petroleum. At the time of the formal hearing, monitoring well #9 still contained the odor of petroleum. On January 26, 1989, Mr. Rodriguez, as the operator of the facility, received a copy of the Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report form completed by a DERM inspector. This report placed the operator of the facility on notice that evidence of a discharge of pollutants had been discovered at the facility. On March 3, 1989, DERM sent to Petitioner by certified mail a letter which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department of Environmental Resources Management acknowledges that you have applied for a state administered cleanup under the "Early Detection Incentive Program" ... . However, a review of the Department's records reveals that the source of contamination has not been determined. Therefore, the discharge of hazardous materials from the underground storage system to the adjacent soils or waters may be continuing. * * * ... [Y]ou are required to: Immediately upon receipt of this letter, CEASE and DESIST from any further unauthorized discharges to the ground and/or groundwater of Dade County. Immediately upon receipt of this letter, hydrostatically test, and repair any leaks to all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, submit to this Department certifica- tion that all underground tanks and transmis- sion lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. ... The letter dated March 3, 1989, was received by Petitioner on March 7, 1989. By that letter, Petitioner was placed on notice that there was a risk that a discharge of hazardous materials from the underground storage system to the adjacent soils and waters was continuing. By that letter, Petitioner was also placed on notice that DERM required that it hydrostatically test all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site in order to determine if leaks existed in the tanks and lines. By that letter, Petitioner was also placed on notice that DERM required that Petitioner certify that all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., believed that by having the tanks relined and repaired in November 1987, Petitioner had complied with the requests made in DERM's letter of March 3, 1989. On March 13, 1989, Mr. Pequeno, Jr., called DERM to determine whether the tests that were conducted following the relining and the repair of the tanks in November 1987, satisfied the requirements contained in DERM's letter of March 3, 1989. When Mr. Pequeno, Jr., did not get a response to his inquiry, he assumed that Petitioner was in compliance. Petitioner took no steps until two years later to hydrostatically test its underground tanks and transmission lines. On March 21, 1991, Petitioner had a tank tightness test conducted at the facility. The tank system tightness test conducted on March 21, 1991, indicated that five tanks did not test tight. There was no evidence that Petitioner has filed a certification with DERM that all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. No fuel transmission line tightness test has been conducted pursuant to DERM's March 3, 1989, request. As of the date of the formal hearing, Petitioner had not performed a complete investigation to determine the source of contamination as DERM had requested. The underground storage system at the subject site were continuously used for the storage and dispensing of petroleum products from September 21, 1987, to the date of the formal hearing. At all times pertinent to this proceeding deliveries of petroleum products were made to the tanks which had been identified by Petitioner as leaking. Petitioner's failure to conduct a complete investigation to determine the source of contamination, its failure to repair the tanks which failed the tank tightness, and its continued use of these tanks, create the risk that a discharge of hazardous materials may be continuing at the present time. By letter dated February 13, 1991, Respondent denied Petitioner's eligibility to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Notification Program. This letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department of Environmental Regulation has completed its eligibility review of your Early Detection Incentive Notification Application. Based upon information given in this application and a compliance verification evaluation, the Department has determined that this site is not eligible for state-administered cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes (1986) for the following reasons: Failure to have storage tanks tightness tested. Request was made by the Department of Environ- mental Resources Management (DERM) on March 3, 1989. This shall be construed to be gross negligence in the maintenance of a storage system. According to Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statutes, sites shall not be eligible for state- administered cleanup where the owner or operator has been grossly negligent in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. By Pre-Trial Stipulation filed July 24, 1991, the parties entered into certain factual stipulations and framed the following two issues of law to be resolved: Whether X.O. #1 Corporation was grossly negligent as defined under Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statutes, for failing to immediately investigate and abate the source of a petroleum contamination by conducting a tank and line tightness test pursuant to a request by DERM (Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management). Whether X.O. #1 Corporation was grossly negligent as defined under Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statues, for failing to make monthly monitoring system checks where such systems are in place.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation which denies the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program for its facilities located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of September, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations as set forth in the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance dated April 28, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is authorized and given the jurisdiction to regulate the construction, installation, modification, abandonment, or repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, including drainfields, by septic tank contractors. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered septic tank contractor and, as such, he was authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, including the installation and repair of drainfields. On or about November 2, 1995, Petitioner issued a permit (Permit No. RP648-95) to Wilmar Rodriguez for the repair of a septic tank system at 417-421 Perry Avenue, Greenacres, Florida. The property was a triplex, which was purchased by Mr. Rodriquez in 1981. Mr. Rodriguez has no knowledge as to whether any drainfields were installed or replaced on the property, prior to 1981. The Permit included the installation of a new multi- chambered septic tank, a dosing tank, a lift station, and a new drainfield. The Permit was also for a filled system and called for the drainfield to be 700 square feet. Respondent was indicated as the "agent" on the Permit. Respondent and/or his employees performed the work under the Permit. Respondent was the septic tank contractor for the repair of the septic tank system under the Permit. On November 9, 1995, the construction of the septic tank system was approved by one of Petitioner's inspectors, who was an Environmental Specialist I. Petitioner's inspectors are not present during the entire construction or repair of a septic tank system or drainfield. Usually, inspections are made after the completion of the construction or repair of the septic tank system. Additionally, the inspection of a drainfield is usually performed after the rock has been placed on top of the drainfield. On February 2, 1996, the same inspector performed the inspection after the completion of the construction of the septic tank system, including after the placing of the rock on top of the drainfield. Even though the Permit reflects a filled system, the filled/mound system section on the inspection sheet was crossed out. The inspector considered the system to be a standard system, not a filled or mound system, and, therefore, inspected it as a standard system. In inspecting a drainfield, the inspection by an inspector includes checking to ensure that a drainfield has 42 inches of clean soil below the drainfield. An inspector uses an instrument that bores down through the rock and brings up a sample of the soil, which is referred to as augering. Augering is randomly performed at two locations. For the instant case, the inspector performed the augering in two random locations of the drainfield, which were in the area of the middle top and the middle bottom. The samples failed to reveal anything suspect; they were clean. On February 2, 1996, the inspector issued a final approval for the septic tank system. Final approval included the disposal of "spoil" and the covering of the septic tank system with "acceptable soil". The inspector mistakenly inspected the system as a standard system. He should have inspected the system as a filled system.1 After the repair and installation of the septic tank system by Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez continued to have problems with the septic tank system. He contacted Respondent three or four times regarding problems with the system, but the problems persisted. Each time, Respondent was paid by Mr. Rodriguez. Sewage water was flowing into the street where the property was located and backing-up into the inside of the triplex. Having gotten no relief from Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez decided to contact someone else to correct the problem. Mr. Rodriguez contacted Richard Gillikin, who was a registered septic tank contractor. On October 14, 1999, a construction permit was issued to Mr. Rodriguez for the repair of the septic tank system. Mr. Gillikin was indicated as the agent. Mr. Gillikin visited the property site of the triplex and reviewed the problem. He determined that the drainfield was not properly functioning, but he did not know the cause of the malfunctioning. With the assistance of Petitioner's inspectors, Mr. Gillikin and Mr. Rodriguez attempted to determine the best method to deal with the problem. After eliminating options, Mr. Rodriguez decided to replace the drainfield. To replace the drainfield, Mr. Gillikin began excavating. He began removing the soil cover and the rock layer of the drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also wanted to know how deep he had to dig to find good soil. After digging for that purpose and for 10 to 12 inches, he discovered a drainfield below Respondent's drainfield. The drainfield that Mr. Gillikin discovered was a rock bed 12 inches thick in which pipes were located and, as indicated, 10 to 12 inches below Respondent's drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also dug a hole two to three feet deep, pumped the water out of the hole, and saw the old drainfield. Mr. Gillikin determined that the old drainfield extended the full length of Respondent's drainfield. As a result of Mr. Gillikin's determining that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield, both drainfields had to be removed and the expense of a new drainfield increased. Leon Barnes, an Environmental Specialist II for Petitioner, who was also certified in the septic tank program, viewed the drainfield site. He determined that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield and that, therefore, Respondent had not removed the old drainfield. On or about November 6, 1999, Mr. Barnes' supervisor, Jim Carter, and co-worker, Russell Weaver, who is an Engineer, also visited the drainfield site. Mr. Weaver determined that the old drainfield covered a little more than 50 percent of the area under Respondent's drainfield. On November 8, 1999, a construction inspection and a final inspection of the system installed by Mr. Gillikin were performed. The system was approved. Respondent admits that a new drainfield is prohibited from being installed over an old drainfield. However, Respondent denies that he installed a new drainfield over the old drainfield on Mr. Rodriguez's property. In 1995, Respondent failed to completely remove the old drainfield before he installed the new drainfield. The soil and rocks from the old drainfield, which was not functioning, were contaminated spoil material. Because the old drainfield was not completely removed, the contaminated spoil material remained in the drainfield and was used as part of the material in the installation of the new drainfield. Leaving the contaminated spoil material in the new drainfield, prevented the sewage water from being able to percolate through the ground, which is a method of cleansing the sewage water. Without being able to percolate through the ground, the sewage water remained on the surface of the drainfield, creating a serious sanitary nuisance and health hazard. The sewage water spilled onto the street and backed-up into the triplex. Respondent was issued a Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Palm Beach County Health Department, enter a final order: Affirming the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance and finding that Noel Sanfiel violated Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (1995), and Rule 10D- 6.0571(4), now Rule 64E-6.015(6), and Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)1, now 64E-6.022(1)(l)1, Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 13th day of February, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Handy Food Stores, Inc. (HFS), is a small, family owned corporation that owns and operates a chain of thirty-four convenience stores in Florida, thirty two of which sell gasoline. At issue in this proceeding is Store No. 82 (Store 82 or the store) located on State Road 378 in LaBelle, Florida. The facility has also been identified by respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), as DER facility number 268520172. This controversy concerns an application by HFS for reimbursement of costs and expenses related to cleanup activities at Store 82 incurred after that store site became contaminated with petroleum and petroleum products. The application was preliminarily denied by DER on the ground HFS was "grossly negligent" in the maintenance of the petroleum storage system at Store 82. Because the average clean-up cost per site is $330,000, and HFS denied that it was grossly negligent in its operation and management of the system, HFS requested a formal hearing to contest the agency's proposed decision. The facts in this case are not complicated, and with certain exceptions, are relatively free of dispute. Until February 1988 HFS's director of operations was Ray Collier. On February 2, 1988 Collier ordered the installation of four monitoring wells at Store 82 to determine if any leaks were occurring in two underground storage tanks located on the site. Such wells were required to be installed by DER for monitoring purposes no later than December 31, 1988. The parties have stipulated that the wells were properly installed in accordance with agency rules. When the wells were installed on February 2, the contractor's report reflected no contamination was present. Collier also contracted with Purity Well Testing, Inc. (PWT) to conduct monthly monitor system checks at the store. Such checks are required by DER to determine if any discharges of product are occurring in the storage system. On February 10, 1988 Collier resigned as director of operations to accept a position in Saudi Arabia. Prior to his resignation Collier was replaced by David A. Laughner, who still remains in that position. According to Laughner, he and Collier spent only two weeks together prior to Collier's departure, and Collier did not advise him of the details concerning the monitoring program. Thus, he had no immediate knowledge of the existence of the monitoring wells or the tests being conducted by PWT. HFS's corporate offices are located in an office building at 9330 Adams Drive, Tampa, Florida. Besides three corporate officers and the director of operations, the corporation had only three office employees who worked at the corporate headquarters. The building is owned by B & B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc. (B & B), which operates a chain of grocery stores in southwest Florida. HFS's offices are on the second floor while B & B's corporate offices are located on the first floor. Although the two corporations are legally separate entities, they have certain common directors and shareholders, and the two corporations once utilized a centralized bookkeeping and billing department which was controlled and staffed by B & B. Under that arrangement, bills sent to HFS were actually processed by B & B's accounting department which paid the invoice on behalf of HFS. In addition, the two corporations once shared the same post office box. Under that arrangement, which existed in February 1988 and continued until at least August 1988, all mail sent to HFS at the post office box was initially processed by B & B's mail room rather than being sent directly upstairs to HFS. On April 24, 1988 PWT conducted its first monthly monitor well inspection at the store. That report indicated that three inches of free product was present in monitoring well three. A second monthly monitoring well inspection was conducted on May 10, 1988 reflecting the presence of two inches of free product in well number three and twelve inches in well number four. Free product was defined by a DER witness as "material (such as a petroleum product) that will be left on the water table." The presence of a free product, including a refined petroleum product, in a monitoring well is an indication that a discharge or release of the product from a storage tank has and may be continuing to occur. If free product is observed, it is the responsibility of the tank owner to determine the cause of the discharge, and if it is determined that the discharge is coming from the tank, he must empty the tank so that the system can be repaired or replaced. Also, the owner is obliged to notify DER within three working days of discovery of the discharge. The purpose behind these reporting and investigating requirements is to try to decrease the size of the petroleum plume and the area of contamination. The results of the two tests, and the invoices for the charges, were sent by PWT to HFS's post office box. Consistent with existing procedure, B & B's mail room received the reports and invoices and forwarded both to B & B's billing department for processing and payment of the invoices. Rather than forwarding the test reports upstairs to HFS, B & B filed the reports with the invoices in B & B's billing department. The parties have stipulated that no one in the billing department knew or had reason to know of the potential significance of the monitor well inspection reports. Because the bills had been paid, PWT did not contact HFS to determine whether the reports had been received. Consequently, neither Laughner nor any other HFS corporate employee had knowledge that monitor well inspections had been conducted at Store 82 or that inspection reports had been forwarded by PWT. However, it is found that copies of such reports were either forwarded to Store 82 by someone in Tampa or by PWT because they were available for inspection by DER representatives at a store inspection that took place in late June 1988. As the result of an unconfirmed telephonic report received in early February 1988 concerning possible contamination at Store 82, on June 17, 1988 a DER inspector, Jeffrey Gould, sent a letter to Laughner at HFS's corporate post office box advising that Gould would be conducting a stationary tanks compliance inspection at Store 82 during the week of June 27, 1988. The letter also requested that all records associated with the storage tank system be available at the facility for inspection. This inspection is commonly referred to as a "17-61 compliance inspection", meaning that the storage tanks would be checked to see if they met the requirements of Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code (1987). Although the letter was addressed to Laughner, it was forwarded by an undisclosed person to a Store 82 employee, Betty Smith, whose title is area supervisor, and Laughner denies having seen the letter until several months later. 1/ Gould and another DER employee, Alicia Andersen, met with Betty Smith at the store on June 29, 1989. It may be inferred that Smith had copies of the PWT monitoring reports for she produced copies of the same for Gould, who then hand-copied and reviewed the two reports. Gould also made a physical inspection of the four monitoring wells on the site. He noted the presence of free product in two of the four monitoring wells. One had 7/8 of an inch of free product (gasoline) while a second well had fourteen inches of free product. Gould also detected a strong odor and observed sheen in the northeast monitoring well and a strong odor in the southeast monitoring well. These findings are memorialized in a written compliance inspection report received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 2. After the inspection was completed, Gould discussed generally the results with Smith, had her sign the report and gave her a copy. Since Smith was not present at final hearing, Gould's version of their conversation is the only competent evidence of record on the subject. According to Gould, he told Smith that he "had found product and that it is a problem." Gould acknowledged that he did not go into too much detail with Smith concerning the report since she was only an employee, but he specifically recalled advising her "there was a definite problem at this facility" and that he "spent a long time" with her. Finally, after giving Smith a copy of the report, Gould told Smith to "return it to her office." However, Smith did not do so. Gould's version of the events was not credibly contradicted and it is hereby accepted. On July 11, 1988 Gould, over the district manager's signature, sent Laughner by certified mail a "warning" letter and copy of the June 29 inspection report. The documents were sent to the post office box in Tampa. The return receipt was signed on July 15 by one Patty Jackson, whose relationship, if any, to HFS was not disclosed. The letter provided in pertinent part as follows: Free gasoline product was found in two of the compliance monitoring wells. Product thickness in one well exceeded the bailer limitation of fourteen inches. The presence of free product was also noted on monitor well records by Purity Well Testing Company for April 24, 1988 and May 10, 1988. A maximum thickness of twelve inches was measured. Such discharges are in violation of Chapter 376, Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-3. It is required that the discharges be stopped and the integrity of the storage system verified. Records available onsite indicate the 4000 gallon tank failed a tightness test with a leak rate of -0.1057 gallons per hour (gph) on September 26, 1986. The tank however passed the test on October 7, 1986 at +0.027 gph. Please describe all repairs, if any, to the storage system after the initial failure. The Department requests a meeting to discuss entry into a Consent Order to resolve the violations. Please contact Jeff Gould at 813/332-2667 or write the letterhead address within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter to schedule a meeting. Your cooperation is appreciated. (Emphasis added) As noted in the previous finding, the letter and report were received on July 15, 1988 but were not forwarded upstairs to Laughner or any other corporate employee. When Gould received no oral or written response - to his letter, Gould eventually telephoned Laughner on August 26, 1988. During the course of the telephone call, for the first time Laughner became aware of the existence of the contamination problem at Store 82 and the nature of the tests that had been performed that spring by PWT. It is also noted that during the telephone call, Laughner acknowledged that Gould's letter of July 11 had just been routed to his desk. The two agreed to meet at DER's Fort Myers district office on September 1, 1988 to discuss the violations. On August 29, 1988, or three days after Laughner spoke with Gould, HFS filed its incentive program application for Store 82. The application, which noted that the date of discovery of a petroleum discharge at Store 82 was on June 29, 1988, was received by DER on September 6, 1988. On September 1, 1988, Laughner met with DER representatives to discuss Store 82. Laughner was told that certain specific measures should be taken to insure the integrity of the storage tank system. That same day, in a letter to DER, HFS informed DER that a tank integrity test had been scheduled for Store 82 and that HFS was implementing initial remedial action (IRA) to remove any petroleum product and excessively contaminated soils and that an enviromental consultant had been contracted to conduct IRA, site contamination assessment and any necessary remedial action. Until that time, and dating back to June 29, 1988, HFS had only conducted a stick test at Store 82 to monitor the presence of petroleum product. Also, HFS personnel had not reviewed any repair records, monitoring well records, or inventory records during this same period of time. On September 7, 1988, HFS conducted a tank integrity test at Store 82. The integrity test passed under the criteria set by the National Fire Protection Association, which is the acceptable standard under Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. However, DER did not consider the testing to be a timely response since it considered no more than a week to be a reasonable period of time for testing once a discharge is discovered. On October 7, 1988, DER, through its inspector Gould, conducted an incentive program compliance inspection at Store 82. Although Gould observed two and one-eighth inches of free product in one well and a sheen in another well, the compliance inspection checklist noted that Store 82 was in compliance with Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. Question 3 on the verification checklist asked if there was "evidence of gross negligence." Gould checked "yes" and made the following notations: See penalty worksheets (draft CO to OGC for review). Major violations failed tank test (enclosed) showed leaks Sept. 1986! - D.E.R. not notified, free product in well treated as a discharge and D.E.R. not notified of product in wells to take action. Gould responded in the above fashion because he concluded that nothing had been done for long periods of time to insure the integrity of the petroleum storage system at Store 82. It should be noted, however, that nothing in the checklist indicated that damages of any kind were caused by HFS's failure to take remedial action until September 1988, and DER representatives admitted they had no proof of such damages. On September 14, 1989, or approximately one year later, DER issued its proposed agency action denying Store 82's eligibility for reimbursement under the incentive program. As later amended on March 16, 1990, the agency's letter recited the following reason for denying the application: Monitor well reports dated April 24, 1988 and May 10, 1988 listed free product in monitoring wells. No report of discharge discovery was made to the Department by Handy Foods as required by Chapter 17-61, F.A.C. On June 29, 1988, an inspector from the Department discovered free product in Petitioner's monitoring wells. Petitioners were sent a warning letter by the Department on July 11, 1988, requesting that Petitioner stop any discharges and verify the integrity of its storage system. Petitioner conducted such tank tightness tests on September 7, 1988, or approximately five months after the monitoring well reports indicated the discovery of free product. Failure to report, investigate and abate where there is evidence of a discharge shall be construed to be gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. In other words, DER contended that HFS was "grossly negligent" within the meaning of the law by failing to "report, investigate and abate" the discharge until almost five months after the leaks were first detected by PWT. DER admits that it has no information to support a contention that, as to Store 82, HFS failed to maintain or falsified inventory or reconciliation records, intentionally damaged the petroleum storage system, failed to make monthly monitoring system checks, or failed to meet monitoring and retrofitting requirements in accordance with chapter 17-61 procedures. Although the incentive and reimbursement programs under section 376.3071 were enacted by the legislature in 1986, the agency has not promulgated formal rules that define or identify "gross negligence" or the criteria for determining eligibility under the incentive reimbursement program. Through the introduction of various agency records received in evidence as petitioner's composite exhibit 6, HFS sought to establish the fact that DER, in at least four prior cases, reached a result inconsistent with that reached in its proposed agency action regarding HFS. However, DER has processed thousands of applications of this nature, and the presence of four contrary results does not establish any binding precedent. Moreover, DER's administrator acknowledged that the agency had either erred in the cited cases or the facts were distinguishable from those presented herein. The parties disagree on the meaning of the words "gross negigence" as it is used in Subsection 376.3071(12(b), Florida Statutes (1987). Both parties presented expert testimony concerning what they perceived to be a proper interpretation of the statute. According to HFS's expert, Howard Ledbetter, he construed the term to mean a willful and reckless disregard for agency regulations that were known and understood by the alleged offender. Ledbetter established that in the spring of 1988 there was no firm understanding by the industry of what was required by DER's underground storage tank rules. Finally, he recalled receiving several different interpretations of the rules from DER personnel. In contrast, a DER expert, John Svek, opined that gross negligence occurs whenever an owner/operator commits a major violation of chapter 17-61. However, Svek conceded that chapter 17-61 does not distinguish or define major or minor violations, and nothing in chapter 17-61 equates a failure to immediately investigate a discharge to gross negligence. Further, he admitted that a lack of knowledge of a discharge is a factor to consider in determining whether gross negligence is present. A second DER expert, Patricia Dugan, acknowledged that not only is there no written document setting forth guidelines for determining when gross negligence occurs but that the term "gross negligence" does not appear in chapter 17-61. However, Dugan maintained that if notices are received by a corporation but are misfiled, as was alleged to have been done here, that conduct equates to gross negligence on the part of HFS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Handy Food Stores, Inc. for participation in the petroleum contamination clean-up program be approved. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of May, 1990.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent Baldwin is liable for the violations of state statutes and rules that are alleged in the NOV and, if so, whether Respondent should be ordered to pay the civil penalties proposed by the Department.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapters 376 and 405, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Respondent BR Baldwin, Inc., is a Florida corporation. Beginning in July 31, 2006, Baldwin owned and operated an automotive service station at 2000 Drew Street in Clearwater, Florida (“the property”). Located at the property are three underground fuel storage tanks, along with their associated piping and dispensers. There is also an underground storage tank for waste oil. Baldwin ceased using the underground storage tanks in May 2007 and had them taken out of service in July 2007. Count I of the NOV charges Baldwin with a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.400(3)(a) which requires owners and operators of petroleum storage tank facilities to carry liability insurance or to otherwise demonstrate to the Department that they are financially able to pay for corrective actions and third party liability. Baldwin admits that from July 31, 2006, until June 25, 2007, it did not have liability insurance coverage for the facility and did not otherwise demonstrate to the Department that it was able to pay for potential liability. Bobby Baldwin, the president of Baldwin, contends that he tried to obtain insurance coverage but was unable to do so until June 2007. The more persuasive evidence shows that he did not at first make reasonable efforts to obtain insurance. His efforts to obtain insurance only became reasonable after the corporation was cited for failing to obtain insurance. Baldwin alleged, but did not prove, that the violation was caused by circumstances beyond his reasonable control and could not have been prevented by his due diligence. Bobby Baldwin contends that his receipt of a storage tank registration placard from the Department misled him to believe that he did not have to get insurance. The issuance of a placard is not tied to the requirement for insurance coverage. Bobby Baldwin admitted that he was unfamiliar with the regulations that are applicable to petroleum storage facilities when he purchased the facility. His failure to inform himself about the applicable regulations was unreasonable and does not provide a basis for mitigating the penalties assessed for violating the regulations. In the NOV, the Department seeks a penalty of $5,000 for the violation addressed in Count I. Count II of the NOV charges Baldwin with violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.610(3)(c), which requires that manual tank gauging be performed for tanks of 550 gallons or less nominal capacity. The tank gauging is required so that a leak can be discovered. Baldwin admits that it did not perform manual gauging for its waste oil tank during the approximate year that it operated the service station. Bobby Baldwin testified that he would have performed the manual gauging, but he was unaware that it was required. He also testified that he never used the waste oil tank. In the NOV, the Department seeks a penalty of $4,000 for the violation addressed in Count II, which represents two days of violation. At the hearing, the Department modified the penalty demand to seek only a single day violation, or $2,000. Count III of the NOV is the Department’s claim for investigative costs of $1,000. The Department apparently determined not to seek costs and presented no evidence in support of its costs claim at the final hearing. At the hearing, the Department stated its willingness to have the (modified) penalties of $7,000 reduced by 50 percent, to $3,500, and to allow Baldwin to pay the penalties in twelve equal monthly installments. Bobby Baldwin testified that he is financially unable to pay even the revised penalties of $3,500. There are exhibits in the record that relate to Bobby Baldwin’s personal finances. However, Bobby Baldwin is not named in the NOV. BR Baldwin, Inc., alone, is responsible for any penalties. The Department contends that a respondent’s inability to pay or difficulty in paying a penalty is not a mitigating factor that can be applied to reduce penalties. The statute does not identify inability to pay as a mitigating factor, but neither does it exclude its consideration. See § 403.121(10), Fla. Stat. The issue is moot in this case, however, because the Department has already stipulated to the reduction of the penalties by 50 percent.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is eligible for restoration funding (but not insurance coverage) under the Florida Pollution Liability Insurance and Restoration Program (FPLIRP) for cleanup of discharges from underground petroleum storage tanks (USTs) underlying Petitioners' real property.
Findings Of Fact Scott C. Miller, Richard D. Miller, Sr., and Richard D. Miller, Jr. as partners in "the Miller Partnership" (hereafter, Petitioners) acquired fee simple title to the site of a former gasoline station (active petroleum retail outlet) from Gulf Oil Corporation by a warranty deed dated January 30, 1984. None of Petitioners' principals have ever been in the business of storing or selling petroleum products. At the time of purchase, the site contained five 3,000 gallon underground petroleum storage tanks (USTs) and two 550 gallon USTs. These tanks had been in use by Petitioners' predecessor in interest Gulf/Chevron, until January 30, 1984, the date Petitioners bought the real property, and Petitioners knew of the presence of the tanks at the time of purchase. Pursuant to the deed, Petitioners also acquired title to the tanks. The deed contained a restrictive covenant specifically prohibiting Petitioners from using the storage tanks for a period of three years, but did not restrict Petitioners from removing the storage tanks. At the time Petitioners took possession, none of them intended to put the storage tanks back in service, and no Petitioner has ever used the tanks for any purpose. On May 21, 1984, the Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER's) Stationary Tanks Rules, Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. came into effect. None of the Petitioners' principals had actual knowledge of the substance or effective date of Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. until early 1989, shortly before they ordered the seven USTs removed from the subject property. At some time prior to March 8, 1989, Petitioners entered into negotiations with their tenant, Jack Bush, a used car dealer, to sell the subject property to Mr. Bush. During negotiations, Mr. Bush informed Petitioners that something would have to be done with the USTs on the property and made their removal by Petitioners a condition of sale. The Petitioners engaged Charles D. Chambers as an authorized agent of Petro Environmental Services, Inc. (Petro) to remove the storage tanks. Scott C. Miller understood that he had employed Mr. Chambers to do whatever was necessary to comply with DER regulations, but Petitioners' decision to remove the storage tanks was not based on any contact with DER or representations by any of its employees. Physical removal of the tanks was accomplished March 1, 1989. During the course of tank removal, Mr. Chambers discovered petroleum- contaminated soil on the site, which had not contained fuel for years preceding Petitioners' purchase, and Mr. Chambers notified DER on March 10, 1989 with a "Discharge Notification Form, 17-1.218(3)" (P-11). It is unlikely that the contaminated soil would have been discovered but for the removal of the USTs, but there is no evidence that removal of the tanks resulted in contamination of the soil or that they had leaked during any period of ownership by the Petitioners. The removal of the tanks was immediate and clearly within 90 days of discovery of the contamination, but not within 90 days of Petitioners' knowledge of existence of the tanks. See, 17-61.050(3)(c)1 F.A.C. Upon receipt of the "Discharge Notification Form," Tim Dohaney, an Environmental Specialist II with DER's Pollutant Storage Tank Program based in the DER Jacksonville District Office sent Scott Miller o/b/o Petitioners a Request notice (P-2) dated March 16, 1989 which requested, among other things, that Petitioners submit a registration form to indicate that the storage tanks had been removed. This notice specifically provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Upon reviewing the registration files for this facility it was determined that the facility has never been registered. Therefore, it is requested that you complete the enclosed tank registration form and tank installation form to show the removal of the tank systems. The completed forms should be returned to this office within ten (10) calendar days upon receipt of this notice. This request also listed several procedures necessary to bring the site into compliance. On June 26, 1989, Mr. Dohaney notified Petitioners of an inspection to be conducted on July 18, 1989. The letter - Notice of Inspection (P-3) requested, among other things, that an updated registration placard be available on the site. The specific language provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department is in receipt of a Discharge Notification Form completed on March 10, 1989 for the referenced facility. As required by Chapter 17-61, on the day of inspection, you should have available at the facility: 5) The updated registration placard. This letter also specified several other items that must be available during inspection to show that the site had been in compliance. On July 18, 1989, Dohaney, Scott Miller, and an attorney for Petitioners' predecessor in interest, Gulf/Chevron, met on the site. During the inspection, Dohaney informed the others that restoration coverage for the site might exist under FPLIRP, and Miller and the Gulf/Chevron attorney expressed interest in obtaining same. The conversation concerning FPLIRP was initiated by the attorney. At the time of the inspection, however, the USTs had still not been registered, although they had been physically removed from the site approximately three and a half months earlier by a method DER's tank expert and spokesman, Mr. Svec, acknowledged was permitted by DER's rules (TR-90-91). After the inspection, Mr. Dohaney completed and served on Petitioners a July 18, 1989 "Inspection Report Form" (P-4) which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The tanks remained on-site, improperly abandoned until 3-89 when they were removed. Violations - as shown on page 1 & 23 1) tanks are not/were not registered; 3,4) updated registration form not submitted upon tank removal; 49, 50, 51) cleanup has not begun - owner will be applying for restoration coverage under HB430. Thereon, under the heading, "13. Tanks properly abandoned? 17- 61.050(3)(c)," Mr. Dohaney had checked the column for "yes," but added, "Tanks had been on- site, improperly abandoned since approx. 1984," and checked the "yes" column for "removed." The inspection form also noted or reiterated improper abandonment, contamination discovered at time of 3-89 abandonment, lack of registration, and that groundwater had been contaminated. By way of a July 19, 1989 letter (P-5), Mr. Dohaney again requested that the tanks be registered and directed Petitioners and the attorney for Gulf/Chevron to contact DER's Tallahassee Bureau of Waste Planning concerning the possibility of restoration coverage, using the following language: Mr. Robert W. Wells, Jr., Attorney for Chevron USA and you expressed an interest in applying for restoration coverage and subsequent State Cleanup for your site under the guidelines of House Bill 430. Therefore, it is requested that you contact the tank regulation section of the Bureau of Waste Planning (BWPR) in Tallahassee at (904) 488- 3935 for information regarding the program and an affidavit that must be completed by you and returned to the Department. The registration/notification form that was given you during the inspection should be completed and returned to this office within ten (10) calendar days upon receipt of this Notice (Emphasis supplied). On August 1, 1989, Mr. Chambers subsequently submitted to DER an executed updated "Storage Tank Notification Form 17-61.090(3)" (P-11). Receipt of this form was acknowledged by Mr. Dohaney as an "updated registration form" for removal of the USTs in a letter dated August 10, 1989 (P-6). In this letter, Mr. Dohaney further notified Petitioners via their attorney as follows: As of this date, this office has no further requests regarding this location. However, as discussed, the district office is awaiting a determination by DER-Tallahassee on this site's eligibility status regarding the restoration program of the FPLIRP program. If the site is denied eligibility, an assessment and cleanup will be required by the responsible party. All DER witnesses at formal hearing acknowledged that they regarded the August 1, 1989 "Storage Tank Notification Form 17-61.090(3)" (P-11) as Petitioners' "registration," albeit late registration in their eyes. Mr. Scott Miller properly interpreted his July 18, 1989 conversation with Mr. Dohaney and all of the foregoing notifications to mean that DER found Petitioners' tanks to have been "properly abandoned." However, despite all of the foregoing written notifications, Mr. Scott Miller also interpreted his July 18, 1989 conversation with Mr. Dohaney and Mr. Dohaney's August 10, 1989 letter (P-6) as DER's assurance that Petitioners' site would qualify for restoration funding, and in that state of mind, he directed Petitioners' attorney to submit an application to DER for FPLIRP restoration benefits. Petitioners' decision to apply for coverage, however, was also based upon conversations with the Gulf/Chevron's attorney, with Mr. Chambers, and with Petitioners' own attorney. Petitioners' application for restoration funding was dated August 11, 1989 (P-8). DER subsequently denied eligibility for the site on the basis that the tanks were not in compliance with Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. in that they had been improperly abandoned in accordance with Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. and had not been registered in accordance with Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. Thereafter, by a "Warning Notice" (P-1) from Mr. Dohaney on November 27, 1989, DER attempted to fine Petitioners for noncompliance with Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. and for leakage, but this "Warning Notice" was withdrawn pending outcome of the instant proceedings (P-9). In interpreting its own rules and mission, DER does not view the act of tank removal by itself as constituting compliance with Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. Its standing operating procedure, according to Mr. Svec, a DER expert and agency spokesman, is to regard Chapter 17-61 F.A.C. as applicable to sites such as Petitioners' site even after physical removal of USTs (TR 93). In assessing eligibility, DER reviews tank compliance "history," including whether the tanks were properly abandoned in accordance with the time frames established within the Chapter. For eligibility, agency personnel interpret the statute and rules to require that a tank must be in continuous compliance with the rules and to further require that an updated registration be submitted within 10 days of tank removal. The agency also views a failure in registration to be such a major violation of the registration requirement imposed by statute and rules that it cannot be waived by the agency pursuant to the latitude granted it by Section 376.3072(3)(b) F.S.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order approving Petitioners' application for Florida Pollution Liability Insurance and Restoration Program restoration coverage. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-5251 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: Accepted: 1-4, 5-9, 10-11, 15-16, 20-26, 28-40, 45-47, 50. Irrelevant: 12-13. Immaterial: 14 (except that effective date is accepted), 17. 18 is rejected because it is stated as a conclusion of law; however, the age of the petroleum discharge is discussed in the Recommended Order. 27 is rejected because it is stated as a conclusion of law and as legal argument. Rejected as legal argument and not dispositive of the issue of rule interpretation in de novo proceedings. However, for all the reasons enunciated in the Recommended Order, proper abandonment has been found and concluded both in fact and in law: 41-44, 51-52. Subordinate and unnecessary: 48-49. There is no 19. Respondent's PFOF: Accepted: 1-9, 11, 13-25, 27-35, 36-41, 43, 50, 57. Rejected because stated as legal argument or as a conclusion of law: , 10,12, 26, 49, 51-56, 58-64. In most instances they are also direct quotations of agency witnesses' testimony and cumulative. Although the agency's interpretation of statutes and rules are to be accorded much weight, they are not required to be found as facts where, as they are here, cumulative or unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative to the facts as found: 42, 44-48. COPIES FURNISHED: Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Turner, Ford & Buckingham, P.A. 1904 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Gary Early Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner failed to obtain a permit for abandoning an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system septic tank, and failed to notify Respondent so that Respondent could inspect the system prior to abandonment, in violation of Section 386.0065, Florida Statutes (1997), and, if so, whether Petitioner should pay a $500 fine. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for issuing citations under Chapter 386 and is the licensing authority for Petitioner. The Osceola County Health Department (the "Department") is an agency of Respondent. All Pro Services ("All Pro") practices septic tank contracting in Osceola, Orange, and Seminole counties. All Pro is a Florida corporation wholly-owned by Mr. Wayne H. Crotty. Mr. Crotty is licensed in the state as a septic contractor pursuant to Chapter 386. Mr. Crotty has been in the septic tank business for over 25 years. He has extensive experience in septic tank repair and contracting. Mr. Crotty also has had experience in the rule-making process conducted by Respondent pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 10D-6. He has participated in various committees and held offices in the Florida Septic Tank Association. (Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.) In the summer of 1996, Petitioner submitted an application to the Department for a repair permit. Petitioner sought to install a standard drainfield utilizing gravity fall from the existing septic tank of a mobile home owner who used the mobile home facility as a day-care center. The existing drainfield was antiquated, clogged, and had ceased disposing effluent properly. Petitioner made arrangements for the day-care center to refrain from using water or sewage for a period of hours so that the drainfield could be repaired. The application came to the attention of Mr. Thomas Franklin Wolf, Director of the Department's Environmental Health Section. Mr. Wolf did not accept the site evaluation in the application. He chose to perform his own evaluation of the repair site. When Mr. Wolf performed a site evaluation, he placed the seasonal high water table two inches higher than the high water table stated by Petitioner in the application for a repair permit. As a result, Mr. Wolf issued the permit at an elevation that would have required either the use of a pump system or elevated plumbing lines in the existing septic tank to meet the higher elevation deemed necessary by Mr. Wolf. The higher elevation established in the permit could be accommodated in either of two ways. The plumbing underneath the mobile home, along with the septic tank, could be raised. Alternatively, a new pump, and other equipment meeting the requirements of Chapter 10D-6, could be installed. The repair permit issued by Mr. Wolf contemplated the use of a new pump chamber complete with alarm. Pumps fail, are problematic, and are expensive. A conventional gravity-fed drainfield line is preferable, whenever feasible, to the use of a pump chamber system and is less expensive. Petitioner determined that the plumbing and septic tank could be elevated to meet the higher elevation requirements thereby avoiding the need for a pump system and its increased cost. This lower-cost alternative satisfied the requirements of Chapter 10D-6 for a septic tank drainfield. Based on past experience, Mr. Crotty believed he could obtain the Department's approval of this alternative to the pump chamber requirements of the permit. The Department had no objection to an alternative that achieved the higher elevation requirement with a gravity-fed system. One risk associated with Petitioner's alternative was that the existing septic tank might not withstand the rigors of being excavated and raised and could break during the repair process. After conferring with the homeowner about the matter, Petitioner proceeded to elevate the existing plumbing lines and septic tank. Petitioner began excavation and removed the lid from the existing septic tank. Petitioner then determined that it would not be feasible to lift the tank up and reinstall it at the higher elevation due to the age and style of the tank. Petitioner determined that the best way to proceed was to abandon the old tank and to install a new tank at the higher elevation. Petitioner replaced the existing septic tank without obtaining a separate abandonment permit. Petitioner did not need a separate abandonment permit. The repair permit was inclusive of the abandonment of the existing tank. In a previous repair effort for another customer, Petitioner broke the existing septic tank while attempting to elevate the tank to a higher location. The prior incident led to a disagreement between Petitioner and the Department over whether a separate abandonment permit was required for replacing a tank in the course of a repair. Petitioner wrote a certified letter to the Department and Department's counsel memorializing an understanding reached during discussions with Department representatives. Any requirement for a separate abandonment permit in the course of a repair was tabled pending further review by the state health office in Tallahassee. The letter further stated Petitioner's understanding that under Chapter 10D-65, the replacement of an existing tank was provided for through a repair permit, and that no separate abandonment permit is necessary for an abandonment which occurs in conjunction with a repair effort. The letter was received by Mr. Wolf on behalf of the Department. In response, the Department specifically informed Petitioner that the replacement of an existing tank is provided for through the repair permit. Mr. Wolf never retracted this position in his dealings with Petitioner. At about the same time, the state health office, through its acting Health Officer for Environmental Health, issued an interoffice memorandum advising every district administrator in the state that a separate abandonment permit is not required when an existing tank is abandoned during repair. The interoffice memorandum stated, in relevant part: This addresses permitting procedures when a septic tank is abandoned in conjunction with a system repair. Since the repair and tank abandonment inspections can be conducted at the same time, a separate permit and fee is not required if a tank is abandoned in conjunction with a repair permit. The repair permit should specify the abandonment requirements from s. 10D-6.053, F.A.C., and the requirements to have the abandonment inspected. If an additional inspection visit is required for either the repair or abandonment, the unit should charge the $25.00 re-inspection fee. Respondent's memorandum served as the Department's official interpretation of its rules relating to abandonment procedures. The memorandum made a separate abandonment permit unnecessary because the repair permit "is inclusive of the abandonment if the abandonment is necessary." The repair permit in this case suffices as an abandonment permit. Petitioner relied upon the representations of Mr. Wolf personally as well as the Department memorandum of February 18, 1996. Based upon Department policy, Petitioner was not required to amend its permit application to seek specific approval for abandonment of the existing tank, because the tank was being abandoned in conjunction with a repair permit. Petitioner pumped out, ruptured, and demolished the old septic tank with the exception of the inlet end wall and the sidewall closest to the tank. Petitioner left intact the latter portions of the old septic tank for inspection purposes and for stabilization. Petitioner placed the lids and the broken pieces of concrete from the tank alongside the new septic tank that was installed. Mr. Crotty requested an inspection by the Department. Inspector Garner arrived on the scene with a standard probe. The probe is a tool useful for inspecting on-site sewage disposal systems. Mr. Crotty informed Mr. Garner that Petitioner had abandoned the old tank and replaced it with a new one. Mr. Crotty took Mr. Garner over to the site and specifically pointed out the remaining sidewall of the old tank and the lids piled up on-site and remaining from the old tank. Mr. Garner inspected the repairs and satisfied himself that Petitioner had installed a new septic tank in the place of the old tank and had done it in a way that would allow gravity feeding to the new drainfield. The repairs dispensed with the need for a pump and were accomplished at a lower cost to the customer. After the inspection on August 13, 1998, and a subsequent review on August 14, Inspector Garner approved the installation by Petitioner. The approval specifically approved the use of a gravity-fed line rather than the use of the pump contemplated in the permit. The approval constituted the "construction final" approval for the septic system that was repaired. Rule 10D-6 does not specify when the inspection for an abandonment of a septic tank in conjunction with a repair is to occur. Nor does it say anything about requesting an inspection before the tank is filled with sand or other suitable material and covered. It was Inspector Garner's practice, and the unwritten policy of the Department, to conduct inspections of damaged septic tanks at the same time the Department inspected repair constructions. The practice of the Department in such an inspection was to inspect the abandoned tank after it had been pumped and the bottom ruptured, but before a new tank was installed. According to Department practice, the inspection of an abandonment in conjunction with a repair must determine that the tank had been pumped and that the bottom of the tank had been opened or ruptured or collapsed to prevent the tank from retaining water. The inspection can only occur after the tank has been pumped out, opened, ruptured or collapsed. Inspector Garner arrived for the inspection after abandonment of the old tank. Mr. Garner does not dispute that Petitioner abandoned the old tank, but maintains that the abandonment was accomplished without proper notification to the Department. Mr. Garner approved the construction, but recorded x- marks on the approval form adjacent to a box for abandonments and next to "tank pumped" and "tank flushed and filled." Mr. Garner also recorded on the form under "explanation of violations" a notation that the old septic tank "was abandoned without any inspection of [sic] verification." The promulgated rules of the Department and Respondent do not require an inspection before an abandoned tank is filled with sand, or other suitable material, and covered. It was the Department's unwritten policy, evidenced by its practice, to insist that inspection of the abandoned septic tank occurred before the tank is actually crushed. The promulgated rules of Seminole and Orange counties do not require inspection prior to abandonment of an existing tank. The unwritten policies of Seminole and Orange counties deviate from those of the Department. The Seminole County Health Department ("Seminole") also received the Department's interpretive memorandum regarding abandonment of septic tanks in conjunction with repairs. Seminole concluded that abandonment inspections should be conducted simultaneously with the final inspection for repairs. At that point, the old septic tank is already ruptured and filled with sand. Seminole adopted the practice of inspecting abandoned septic systems with a probe to verify the pump-out and the rupturing of the old tank. It is the same type probe used by Mr. Garner and the Department. The probe allows a department employee to verify all of the requirements of Rule 10D-6.053 for abandonment. The Orange County Health Department ("Orange County") also received the interpretive memorandum concerning abandonment of septic tanks in the course of repair procedures. By the time the memo was received, however, it was already the practice of Orange County not to require a separate abandonment permit for an abandonment as part of a repair. In Orange County, inspectors permitted abandonment inspections to occur at the point where the tank was already collapsed and covered with sand. The inspection was accomplished with the use of a probe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding Petitioner not guilty of the allegations against it and dismissing the citations. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Marya Reynolds Latson Marion County Health Department Post Office Box 2408 Ocala, Florida 34478-2408 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath and Gilchrist, P.A. Post Office Box 3791 Orlando, Florida 32802-3791 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of real property located at 726 North Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida, also known as DEP Facility No. 64-9100172. The Petitioner has been the owner of this site from 1982 to the present. From approximately 1984 and 1988, it was leased to a Mr. Jack Delaney. Apparently, during that time or before, the site was used as an AAMCO transmission repair shop and automobile repair facility. The Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP, Department), is an agency of the State of Florida responsible, in pertinent part, for the administration of Florida's Abandoned Tanks Restoration Program. Through an agreement with Volusia County, Florida, the county where the subject site is located, the Department has delegated to the Volusia County Environmental Control Division inspection and regulatory authority for purposes of cleanup of sites contaminated by petroleum, petroleum products or hydrocarbons. The facility in question included two 1,000-gallon underground storage tanks and three 550-gallon underground storage tanks (UST's). All of the tanks, when in service, had contained petroleum products of one form or another. The tanks at the front or "street-side" end of the facility property, tanks one and five, most likely contained gasoline, when in service, although at the time of inspection and remedial action, the tanks were filled with water. All of the storage tanks at the facility were removed under the supervision of the Volusia County environmental regulatory agency. The tanks were properly disposed of by a qualified subcontractor, and the contaminated soil at the site was removed and stored in a segregated, protected fashion, until shipment to a thermal processor to be burned and thus cleansed of its petroleum-related pollutants. The Volusia County Environmental Control Division made an inspection of the subject site and on September 10, 1987, informed Mr. Delaney, the lessee, that a considerable amount of soil contamination, due to petroleum or petroleum products, was present on the site. The Department maintains that the finding by the county agency was that the soil contamination was due to improper surface disposal of used oils. Mr. Ed Smith, who testified for the Petitioner, has been involved as a petroleum de-contamination contractor for such sites hundreds of times and was present throughout the cleanup operations conducted at the subject site. He established that, indeed, there were spillages of used and waste oils and petroleum products at the site but that a great deal of the contamination also resulted from underground leakage from the storage tanks, or some of them. Preponderant evidence was not adduced by the Department, merely through its reliance upon DEP Exhibit 1, Request No. 59, to show that the contamination at the site solely resulted from surface spillage, in consideration of the testimony of Mr. Smith, which is accepted. On or about September 19-20, 1990, five underground storage tanks were removed from the facility site by Hydroterra Environmental Services, Inc., a contractor at the site. Thereafter, an underground storage tank closure report (closure report) for the AAMCO transmission facility was prepared by Hydroterra Environmental Services, Inc. That report is in evidence as the Petitioner's Exhibit 20. The report and testimony reveals that a total of three 550-gallon underground storage tanks were removed from the facility. There were two 550- gallon underground storage tanks located in front of the facility, known as tanks one and five. When those two tanks were removed, both were found to contain water. It is not clear what originally was stored in those tanks, but they were, in all likelihood, utilized for the storage of gasoline. The closure report concerning tank one and tank five reveals that the fuel-dispensing capability of those tanks was discontinued many years ago. One of the tanks, tank one, leaked. It had holes caused by corrosion. An environmental consultant, however, utilizing an organic vapor analyzer (OVA), performed soil-monitoring tests during the excavation and removal of these two 550-gallon UST's, which were thought to have formerly contained gasoline (tank one and tank five). His single OVA reading at that site showed a "0 PPM" (parts per million) for that sampling location associated with the excavation of tank one and tank five near the front of the AAMCO facility. The environmental consultant also obtained a groundwater sample during excavation and removal of those two tanks. The sample was analyzed for the presence of benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene (BETX). The parameters for BETX are utilized to determine the presence of petroleum contamination. The analytical results for that sample for the tank one and tank five excavation site indicate that the parameters for those hydrocarbon compounds were all below detectable limits. Analytical results for the water sample, however, did indicate the presence of chlorobenzene. Chlorobenzene is associated with solvents, is an aromatic hydrocarbon compound and is a form of petroleum, that is, it is made from crude oil derivatives. With regard to these two tanks and, indeed, all of the tanks excavated, there was an absence of "free product" on the water table. That is, gasoline, waste oil or other forms of petroleum or petroleum products were not separately identified and existing on the surface of the groundwater table. Upon visual inspection, as shown by the Petitioner's Exhibit 20, the closure report, the testimony of Mr. Smith, as well as the photographs in evidence, tanks one, five, four, and six had multiple holes from small "pinhead size" to one inch in diameter. The tanks thus would have leaked any contents contained therein. Upon excavation of the tanks from the site, they were cleaned, de-commissioned, and transported to Jacksonville, Florida, to a subcontractor for disposal as scrap. Tanks two and three were determined to be intact, with no apparent holes. Tank one had one or more holes. The evidence shows that that tank was suspected of containing gasoline during its useful life, although when it was excavated, it was found to be full of water. The OVA and groundwater tests taken in conjunction with the removal of tanks one and five from the site near the front of the facility do not show excessive contamination, however. This is corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Smith, testifying for the Petitioner, who is a licensed pollutant storage tanks specialty contractor and a general contractor. He has removed hundreds of underground storage tanks and conducted many such cleanup projects. He himself supervised the removal of the tanks and was on site virtually every day. With regard to the removal site for tanks one and five, which were in close proximity to each other, he confirmed that he felt that the site was "clean". Thus, it has not been demonstrated by preponderant evidence that tanks one and five contributed to the contamination of groundwater and soil at the site. In the rear of the AAMCO transmission facility, there were two 1,000- gallon UST's. One of them had been used for storage of waste oil and transmission fluid (tank two). The second 1,000-gallon UST, tank three, had been used for storage of new transmission fluid. Tanks two and three were located on either side of a concrete apron at the rear door of the transmission shop. Tank two was excavated separately from tanks three, four and six. There is no evidence that tanks two and three, the two 1,000-gallon tanks, had holes or other sources of leakage. During the excavation and removal of tank two, an OVA was used to perform the soil monitoring tests. A single reading of 328PPM was recorded for the sampling location associated with the excavation and removal of tank two. A groundwater sample (MW-SB No. 3) was obtained from the tank pit, where tank two was excavated and removed. That sample indicates that there was a "odor of solvents". The analytical results for that groundwater sample indicate an analysis for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene, showing that the parameters for benzene and ethylbenzene were below detectable limits. However, the analytical results for that sample indicate that chlorobenzene and 1,4- dichlorobenzene were above detectable limits, with significantly-elevated readings, representing excessive contamination with these constituents. These are consistent with the presence of aromatic solvents. Such compounds are hydrocarbons, being derived from petroleum. The groundwater sample related to tank three also showed very high levels of xylene, chlorobenzene, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene; volatile, aromatic hydrocarbon compounds derived from petroleum. The excavation pit for tank three yielded a groundwater sample of similar quality, in terms of the odor of solvents and elevated levels of the above-mentioned hydrocarbon compounds associated with solvents. Tank six, a 550-gallon tank, was located immediately adjacent to and in close proximity to tank three, between tank three and the concrete apron at the rear door of the transmission shop. It contained water at the time it was excavated and inspected. However, it had been used for storage of petroleum or petroleum products of unknown nature. Because of the nature of the business located at the site, the petroleum products contained in the other nearby tanks and because of the petroleum products saturating the soil in the area immediately surrounding and beneath the tank, it is inferred that the tank contained waste oil, transmission fluid, or solvents at various times and occasions. The excavation for tanks three and six, as well as "tank No. four", which was actually the 55-gallon oil and water separator, was one continuous excavation. The water sample taken with regard to the location of tank six shows significantly-elevated levels of chlorobenzene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and xylene. The Department's witness, Mr. Register, acknowledged that elevated levels of pollutants in the pit associated with tanks four, three and six were consistent with the presence of solvents and waste oil or "oils and greases". Mr. Smith, the certified pollution specialty contractor supervising and conducting the project, described in his testimony how one can recognize contaminated soil in the field and that soil is saturated when one can squeeze petroleum compounds out of the soil with the hand. This shows excessive contamination of soils at such a site, as was acknowledged by Mr. Register, the engineer for the Bureau of Waste Cleanup for the Department, who testified. Mr. Smith thus established that the soils in the pit at the rear of the facility were saturated with petroleum or petroleum products. These were derived from waste oils and greases, consisting of waste oil and transmission fluid, as well as solvents. The pollutants leaked from tanks six and four, although Mr. Smith acknowledges in his testimony that tank four is not really considered to be a storage facility but, rather, a 55-gallon drum used as an oil/water separator, connected by a clay pipeline to a catch basin immediately in the rear of the apron and rear door of the building. In summary, through Mr. Smith's testimony, it was established that there was excessive contamination at the site, as shown by the saturation of the soils in the excavation pits from which the tanks were removed, in the manner described above. Under Mr. Smith's supervision, all appropriate remedial action was done at the site, all contaminated soil was removed and cleansed at an appropriate thermal treatment facility. The site was declared "clean" by the county agency referenced above, which had supervision of the project under its agreement with the Department. The initial remedial action task undertaken by the Petitioner, as shown by Mr. Smith's testimony, included removal of excessively-contaminated soils, as defined under Section 62.770.200(2), Florida Administrative Code, concerning the excavations at the rear of the transmission shop. Tank six is the only storage tank shown to have been leaking at the rear of the shop, but the spread or diffusion rate and area of contamination which leaked from that tank through the excavation area is not precisely definable. In any event, a significant portion of the soil in the excavation area at the rear of the transmission shop, including that occupied by tank six, was shown to be excessively contaminated and much of it emanated from tank six, especially evidenced by its central location in the contaminated portion of the site. Removal of that contaminated soil was part of the initial remedial action task. Likewise, the removal of the tanks was part of the performance of the initial remedial action task. In fact, all of the excess contamination could not be removed by removal of the soil without removing the tanks first, to get access to the excessively-contaminated areas beneath the surface grade. There is, however, no evidence that the initial remedial action task, with regard to each tank and tank site, which included removal of the tanks and excessively- contaminated soils, included any necessity to recover "free product" with regard to any of the tanks or tank locations. Finally, it is shown that transmission fluid and waste oil, as well as the other, solvent-related constituents of the contamination at the site, are petroleum or petroleum products. They can be, and are used, as a mixture amounting to a "liquid fuel commodity made from petroleum" and such waste petroleum products are often used in Florida, particularly for boiler fuel to fire industrial-type boilers. These compounds found at the site are both petroleum and petroleum products and are hydrocarbons, as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes. It was thus demonstrated that the contamination at the facility was the result of a discharge of petroleum products, from a petroleum storage system, in the manner and for the reasons delineated more particularly above. On or about January 30, 1991, the Petitioner filed an abandoned tank restoration program application form with the Department. The Department issued the Petitioner an "order of eligibility" under that program for the abandoned tank restoration, which final order was entered on August 16, 1991. That order of eligibility is limited to "contamination related to the storage of petroleum products, as defined in Section 376.301(10), Florida Statutes. On February 14, 1992, the Petitioner filed a reimbursement application for all allowable costs with the Department. On or about April 28, 1993, a "final order of determination of reimbursement" for allowable costs was issued by the Department, which denied all reimbursement of cleanup costs associated with contamination of the property. That action was the result of the Department's position that the contamination resulted from improper disposal of petroleum products at the AAMCO transmission facility and not due to contamination of the site from the storage tank system.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Protection awarding reimbursement for the cleanup of DEP Facility No. 64-9100172 in accordance with the considerations, findings and conclusions made above. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 93-3313 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-7. Accepted. 8. Rejected, as constituting argument and not a proposed finding of fact. 9-10. Accepted. 11. Accepted, as to those tanks delineated more particularly in the Hearing officer's findings of fact. 12-13. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted. 3. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. 4-12. Accepted, but not all of which are materially dispositive. 13-19. Accepted, but not necessarily materially dispositive. 20-23. Accepted. 24-25. Accepted, but not material. 26. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-29. Accepted. 30. Accepted, but not materially dispositive. 31-34. Accepted, but not in themselves materially dispositive. 35-36. Accepted. 37-39. Accepted, but immaterial. 40-45. Accepted, but not in themselves materially dispositive. 46-49. Accepted. 50. Accepted, only as an indication of the Department's position. 51-55. Accepted. 56-64. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 65. Accepted. 66-69. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, and erroneous as a matter of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Owens & Riggio, P.A. 125 North Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated at hearing to the factual findings set forth in paragraphs 1-5 below. Stipulated Facts The Petitioner has four underground tanks. Two tanks are located at Petitioner's facility in Port Everglades and two tanks are located at Petitioner's facility at Miami International Airport. All four tanks are registered as "stationary tanks" with Respondent. The Petitioner filed a request for reimbursement with the Respondent pursuant to section 376.3071(12)(b), Florida Statutes. The Respondent's denial with regard to the facility at each site was based on "...the fact that this facility is not a petroleum storage system as defined in section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes." Subsequent to the Respondent's denial of the Petitioner's application, the Respondent conducted an additional inspection of the Port Everglades site. The Petitioner timely filed a petition for a formal administrative hearing in response to Respondent's denial. Other Facts Petitioner, Everglades Pipeline Company, is a single, unified pipeline facility. The sole purpose of the system is to transport petroleum product along a route from a receiving pumping station at Port Everglades via a 35 mile pipeline to various terminals and ending at a terminal at the Miami International Airport. The pipeline facility transports 400 to 3000 barrels of petroleum product per hour. The petroleum product transported by Petitioner usually consists of jet A turbine fuel, JP-4 military fuel and railroad diesel fuel. Various pipe lines, not owned or operated by Petitioner, transport petroleum product from major petroleum companies to the Petitioner's receiving station at Port Everglades where the product enters the Petitioner's pipe line facility. The process of placing the petroleum product in the care of Petitioner is known as a "custody transfer." While the product is in Petitioner's custody for purpose of transport to its destination, ownership of the product does not change. At all times, the product remains the property of the company acquiring the Petitioner's transportation service. After transfer to the Petitioner's custody and during the transportation process, tests are constantly performed on the product for the purpose of maintaining quality control. During the testing process, an amount of the petroleum product is withdrawn from the pipeline through a one fourth inch pipe. Samples for testing purposes are then taken from the quantity of the product so removed. The excess of that quantity is channeled to two underground tanks at the Everglades station and temporarily held there for later injection back into the pipeline for delivery, with the same batch of product from which it was drawn, to the recipient at the other end of the pipeline journey. In the Miami station, the same process of withdrawal of a quantity of the product occurs, with two underground tanks there fulfilling the same holding function as that performed by the tanks at the Port Everglades facility. While each of the four tanks have been registered as required by section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes, such registration is not deemed dispositive of whether the tanks are petroleum storage systems since registrations are accepted at face value by the Respondent and no independent verification of registration is made. The two tanks at the Everglades facility have a 2100 gallon, or approximately 50 barrel, capacity. The two tanks at the Miami facility have a 1764 gallon capacity. These four tanks, known as "sump" tanks, perform other functions in addition to temporarily holding amounts of product from which samples are taken. Strainers in the pipeline sometimes become clogged from impurities in the product being transported. When this happens, the product is back washed within the pipeline through the strainers to unclog them. The product used in this back wash operation is then cleansed and placed in the tanks for subsequent re- injection in the pipeline with the batch of product from which it originated. The contaminants are placed in a strainer tank. The strainer tank is necessary for the effective operation of the pipeline. It was conceded in testimony of Petitioner's witness at hearing that this tank is not a petroleum storage system. Maintenance of the system sometimes requires the draining of product from the pipeline into the sump tanks. As soon as the maintenance is completed, the product is re-injected into the pipeline with the batch from which it was drawn. A safe pipeline system requires the existence of the sump tanks to hold maintenance drainage material. The tanks at the Port Everglades station are also used to hold product when pressure builds up in the pipeline system from thermal causes or other conditions which require that pressure in the system be relieved. The product drawn off at these times is re-injected in the pipeline into the batch of product from which it originated. Some form of pressure relief is necessary for safe and effective operation of the pipeline system. The process of reinserting the product back into the pipeline is a manual operation to the extent that personnel are required to open certain valves. The product is not automatically re-injected. However, the sump tanks exist solely to "take care of the individual stations or terminal." While possible to operate the pipeline without the tanks, there is no use or purpose for them except as part of the pipeline facility. An additional tank exists at the Port Everglades station as part of a scavenger system for recovery of product from the ground, but no evidence was presented to show the tank was stationary or registered. The tank is not a petroleum storage system pursuant to section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes. In addition to the two sump tanks, two barrel shaped tanks sit above the ground at the Miami International Airport terminal. These tanks have the capacity to hold 1000 barrels or 42,000 gallons of petroleum product. Neither of these tanks is registered with the Department, nor was evidence introduced that they were otherwise licensed or comply with petroleum storage system requirements of section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes. These barrel tanks were identified at hearing as a relief tank and a settling tank. The relief tank serves the same purpose of providing pressure relief for the system as do the sump tanks at the Port Everglades station. As with the sump tanks, the product is re-injected into the pipeline as soon as the upset condition causing overpressurization is past. The tank also serves to hold certain types of contaminated product until the owner can remove it from the system. The other barrel tank at the Miami station is used as a "settling" tank to filter contaminants from petroleum product. This tank is a treatment or process tank, as opposed to a petroleum storage system. The barrel tanks at the Miami Station, like the sump tanks there and at the Port Everglades station, serve only the product transportation function of the pipeline. They are necessary for safe and effective functioning of that transportation system. Each of the Petitioner's tanks is integrally related to the transportation of product from Port Everglades to Miami. Their sole purpose is the safe and effective functioning of the pipeline. As established by testimony of John Svec, Respondent's expert on petroleum storage facilities, the Petitioner's tanks function for the convenience of the transportation system. The process of taking the product out of the pipe line, holding it, and putting it back into the pipe line is a transportation function. While the Petitioner's tanks temporarily hold petroleum product, they do not store that product in order to provide a supply for future use within the context of that term's use in the field of petroleum marketing. The term "supply" means the buying or selling of product. The Petitioner does not engage in buying and selling. Custody of materials is assumed solely for transportation of that material by the Petitioner's facility. The holding function of the tanks is a part of the overall purpose of the entire pipeline facility to transport petroleum product. Petitioner's exhibit 11 establishes that the original Senate version (Senate Bill 206) of the SUPER Act of 1986 made no mention of pipeline facilities for purpose of inclusion under coverage of the Act. The committee substitute for Senate Bill 206 did include pipelines. This inclusion was carried over to the committee substitute for the committee substitute, only to be deleted from the final enrolled version of the Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for reimbursement eligibility. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-5374, 87-5305 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Included, finding 1 and 6. Included, finding 13. Rejected as unnecessary for result reached. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Included in finding 8. Summarily included in finding 11. Summarily included in finding 14. Summarily included in finding 16 with exception of the last two sentences. Testimony on this point indicated holding tanks do provide relief for system pressures. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Generally included throughout findings. Not necessary for result reached. Not necessary for result reached. As to manual valves, included in finding 17. Remainder rejected as unnecessary for result reached. Opinion as to tanks rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached concerning the system. Unnecessary to result reached. Unnecessary to result reached. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Unnecessary to result. Unnecessary to result. Unnecessary to result. Included in finding 6. Included in finding 6. Included in finding 6. Included in finding 7. Included in finding 12 and 13. Included in finding 8. Included in finding 14. Included in finding 15. Included in finding 16. Included in finding 17. Included in finding 20. Included in finding 18. Included in finding 19. Included in finding 20. Included in finding 21. Included in finding 23. Included in part in finding 21. Remainder rejected as unnecessary. Included in finding 23. Included in part in findings 23 and 24. Included in finding 24. Included in finding 24. Included in finding 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Pettigrew, Esquire Luis R. Figueredo, Esquire 5300 Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131-2339 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Twin Towers Office Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
