Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1.- 8.,below. Stipulated Facts Respondent has documented contamination from the abandoned petroleum storage system. The abandoned petroleum storage system has been properly closed. Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent on Respondent's forms 17-769.900(3) and (4), F.A.C., which was postmarked on or before June 30, 1992. The site is not eligible for cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes, the Early Detection Incentive Program, or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. This site is not owned or operated by the federal government. This site did not have leaking tanks that stored pollutants that are not petroleum products as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes. Respondent was not denied access to this site. Petroleum contamination was not discovered after the application deadline of June 30, 1992. Additional Facts Petitioner, a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Leon County, Florida, is in the business of owning and leasing property. Petitioner is the fee simple owner of property located at 2022 Wahnish Way in Tallahassee, Florida. The property located on Wahnish Way was leased to James T. "Pete" Thomas by Petitioner's predecessor in title. Thomas operated a gasoline station and automobile repair garage on the property. The lease with Thomas was continued by Petitioner without change upon Petitioner's assumption of the legal title to the property in 1985. Prior to Petitioner's assumption of title to the property, Thomas had installed four petroleum storage systems in a four tank pit on the property in the early 1970's. Each tank and its integral piping is a petroleum storage system, as defined by Section 376.301(15), Florida Statutes (1991). In the early 1980's, Thomas and his wholesale gasoline distributor determined that one of the four underground tanks was losing petroleum product. In 1982, Thomas ceased using the southernmost tank in the pit for the storage of petroleum products for subsequent consumption, use or sale. The distributor ceased placing gasoline in the southernmost tank. Later, in compliance with subsequent statutory enactments, Thomas registered all of the tanks, including the abandoned southernmost tank with Respondent by the statutory deadline of December 31, 1984. Although Thomas signed the registration documents as an agent of Petitioner, he was not such an authorized agent and the registration occurred without the knowledge or approval of Petitioner. As a result, Petitioner cannot be viewed as having filed the registration. Petitioner, unaware that Thomas had experienced any product loss problems or that the tanks on the property had been registered by Thomas with Respondent, became aware of both matters following receipt of a letter from government officials of Leon County, Florida, on November 20, 1990. As set forth in that letter, Petitioner was apprised that the tanks were not in compliance with State of Florida standards and would have to be closed or retrofitted to bring the tanks into compliance. Following receipt of the letter, Petitioner informed Thomas that selling of gasoline at the site was to be discontinued immediately. Closure of the tanks, performed in early 1991 by contractors retained by Petitioner, consisted of excavation and removal of the petroleum storage systems from the property. All four tanks were in the tank pit side by side, from the northernmost end of the pit to the southern end of the pit fronting on Osceola Street in Tallahassee, Florida. When the removal was completed, a Closure Assessment form was prepared by one of the contractors, Jim Stidham and Associates, in accordance with requirements of Florida law. During that process, excessive contamination from petroleum product of the soils in the extreme south end of the tank pit was discovered. Excessive contamination, defined as anything more than 500 parts per million, was located beneath the southernmost pump on the southern end of the pump island and in the southern end of the pit. Both soil sample seven in the southernmost end of the pit and soil sample 11 under the southernmost pump document these unacceptable high levels of contamination. A 20 foot soil boring as near as possible to the southernmost tank on the site revealed the unacceptable levels of contamination extended to that depth. As supported by the testimony of James A. Stidham, Petitioner's expert in the assessment of contamination caused by underground petroleum storage tanks, the location of contamination in the pit area establishes that the tank causing the contamination was the southernmost tank. In view of the location of the contamination in the pit area, the tank discovered to have a hole in it at the time of removal was the southernmost tank. The excessive contamination located at the shallow depth of two feet under the southernmost pump resulted from the improper disconnection of piping attached to the pump and is not attributable to the leak in the tank. Each tank was connected by piping on the eastern end of each tank to the corresponding pump. The southernmost pump was not used after 1982 and was missing integral parts by the time the tanks were closed. In the course of exploring options for clean up of the property, Petitioner filed for assistance from Respondent in the form of participation in the ATRP. Unaware of the true date of the cessation of use of the southernmost tank, Petitioner gave the date of last use for all tanks in the pit by stating that the "tanks were taken out of service between December 15, 1990 and January 15, 1991." Petitioner provided this response to Respondent's July 30, 1991 request for further information on August 6, 1991. Although Respondent made an initial determination to deny Petitioner's application in the middle of August, 1991, that action was not communicated to Petitioner. Instead, Petitioner's application was held by Respondent, pending possible amendment to Section 376.305(7), Florida Statutes (1991), the law controlling admission to the ATRP. Respondent held Petitioner's application for a total of 19 months before issuance of a formal decision to deny the application on February 26, 1993. Such delay by Respondent is unreasonable. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application was based upon the eligibility requirement restricting ATRP participants to those situations where the petroleum storage system has not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, and the belief of Respondent's personnel that all storage systems on Petitioner's property had stored products beyond that date. Specifically, Respondent eventually gave notice that it intended to deny Petitioner's application for participation in the ATRP for the following reason: Eligibility in the Abandoned Tank Restoration Program is restricted to those petroleum storage systems that have not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, pursuant to Section 17-769.800(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent utilized provisions of Subsection 376.305(7)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), to permit entry of some applicants into the ATRP, demonstrating that Respondent did not consider the March 1, 1990 deadline contained in provisions of Subsection 376.305(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), to be absolute. As attested at the final hearing by Respondent's employee, Respondent considered "variables" when determining whether to enforce the March 1, 1990, deadline. Those variables comprise the criteria listed in Subsection 376.305(7)(f), Florida Statutes (1991). By use of those variables, Respondent effectively applied provisions of Subsection 376.305(7)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), to some program applicants other than Petitioner and permitted their participation while choosing to refrain from final agency action under that same criteria with regard to Petitioner's application pending subsequent legislative enactment. Petitioner's southernmost tank is an abandoned petroleum storage system that was not required to be registered with Respondent when it was in service; the system came into the possession of Petitioner following its abandonment; was never returned to service; and is not otherwise eligible for cleanup pursuant to Subsection 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes, or Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner's application for participation in the ATRP with regard to contamination resulting from Petitioner's southernmost petroleum storage system. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 1st day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2658 The following constitutes my rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, upon proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-23. Adopted, though not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 3.-4. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings on this point. 5.-11. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. A mischaracterization of the evidence in that the testimony establishes that an existing lease agreement was continued. Accepted to the extent that the evidence establishes that there were four tanks in the pit. Rejected, credibility, weight of the evidence as to the accuracy of the registration form in the face of conflicting evidence. 16.-18. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 19.-20. Accepted. 21.-22. Rejected, subordinate. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. 25.-26. Accepted. 27.-29. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, argumentative. Accepted. Rejected, legal conclusion, argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa Fletcher Allaman Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jefferson M. Braswell Lisa M. Duchene W. Douglas Beason Assistant General Counsels Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, L.B. King, Jr., violated certain rules relating to petroleum contamination site cleanup criteria promulgated by Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), whether he should be required to pay an administrative fine and investigative costs and expenses incurred by the Department, and whether he should take corrective action, as described in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice of Violation) issued on June 15, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record presented by the parties, and those allegations in the Notice of Violation which are undisputed, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is the owner and operator of non-residential property (doing business as King Oil and Tire) located at 16776 Southeast U.S. Highway 19 (at Main Street and Ward Street) in Cross City, Florida. He has owned the property since June 30, 1982. Since July 1978, eight regulated petroleum storage tanks were situated on the property. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 761.200(20), (45), (53), and (65). The Department has assigned facility identification number 15/8839661 to the site. During the intervening time period since Respondent assumed ownership, six of the tanks and their associated piping have been closed or removed, including tank 4 in August 1997 and tanks 5 and 6 in March 2004. Tank 4 was a 1,000 gallon diesel underground storage tank system (UST) originally installed in July 1982, tank 5 was a kerosene UST installed in July 1978, while tank 6 was a waste oil UST installed in July 1978. Only tanks 7 and 8 still remain in service. After tank 4 and the associated piping were closed in August 1997, Respondent conducted a closure assessment in the area of tank 4 and performed soil and groundwater analytical sampling in the area of its former piping run. He then filed a Tank Closure Assessment Report (TCAR) with the Department on August 19, 2003. The TCAR revealed groundwater contaminants above the Department's Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Methylnapthalene in two respects and for Naphthalene. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-777.170(1)(a), Table I. Because of the presence of contamination on the site, on September 3, 2003, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he submit a Discharge Report Form (DRF) and initiate a site assessment, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600, and that he file a completed site assessment report by July 10, 2004.3 Subsection (1) of that rule requires that "[w]ithin 30 days of discovery of contamination, the responsible party shall initiate a site assessment." On September 29, 2003, the Department received the requested DRF. During a tank closure inspection of tanks 5 and 6 performed on March 4, 2004, the Levy County Health Department, acting on behalf of the Department, discovered stained soils in the fill area of tank 6. On May 18, 2004, the Department received a TCAR dated May 7, 2004, for the closure of tanks 5 and 6. The TCAR documented the results of laboratory analytical tests on groundwater samples, which revealed groundwater contaminants above the Department's CTLs for Methylnapthalene in two respects. On May 24, 2004, the Department received from Respondent a copy of a DRF (dated March 9, 2004, as amended on April 9, 2004) for the contamination related to tanks 5 and 6. The DRF was the last report filed by Respondent concerning tanks 5 and 6. On the same date, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he initiate site assessment activities for the discharge related to tanks 5 and 6, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(1). On July 14, 2004, the Department sent Respondent another letter requesting (a) completion of a site assessment and (b) the submission of a Site Assessment Report (SAR) for the discharge from tank 4 (SAR-97), which complied with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(8). (The SAR-97 was originally due on July 10, 2004, but had not yet been filed.) In order to be deemed complete, a SAR must contain all of the information detailed in subsection (8). Also, the letter requested that a SAR for the 2004 discharge (SAR-04) be completed no later than August 1, 2004, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(7). That subsection requires in relevant part that "[w]ithin 270 days of discovery of contamination, the responsible party shall submit to the Department or to the FDEP local program for review two copies of a [SAR] " On July 15, 2004, or the day after the above letter was mailed, the Department received a copy of the SAR-97 from Respondent. The report was then referred to the Department's Petroleum Cleanup Section for its review. By letter dated August 27, 2004, the Department advised Respondent that SAR-97 was under review. The letter also changed the due date for the SAR-04 from August 1, 2004, to November 9, 2004. On September 15, 2004, the Department received correspondence from Respondent requesting an extension of time in which to submit his SAR-04. On December 10, 2004, the Department approved the request and authorized Respondent to file a SAR-04 no later than March 1, 2005. On April 12, 2005, Respondent filed with the Department a Site Assessment Report Addendum (SARA) for the 1997 discharge (SARA-97). The report was dated March 1, 2005. On May 25, 2005, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he file two copies of a supplement to the SARA-97 no later than July 5, 2005, to address certain deficiencies noted in that report, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770-600(11). That subsection provides that "[i]f the [SAR] is incomplete in any respect, or is insufficient to satisfy the objectives of subsection 62- 770.600(3), F.A.C., the Department or the FDEP local program shall inform the responsible party pursuant to paragraph 62- 770.600(9)(b), F.A.C., and the responsible party shall submit to the Department or to the FDEP local program for review two copies of a [SARA] that addresses the deficiencies within 60 days after receipt of the notice." The same letter also requested that a disposal manifest be provided for the tank and piping closures. On July 11, 2005, the Department received a second SARA-97 from Respondent's consultant. On July 14, 2005, it also received the disposal manifest documentation for the closure of tank 4 and its piping. These were the last reports filed by Respondent. On October 4, 2005, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he provide two copies of a third SARA for the 1997 discharge to address deficiencies noted by the Department in the second SARA. The letter indicated that the third SARA was to be filed no later than November 23, 2005. The Department also requested that he provide a completed financial affidavit to justify Respondent's claim that he was financially unable to complete the remaining required cleanup corrective actions at his property. On November 29, 2005, Respondent requested an extension of time to complete the third SARA-97. (The reason for the requested extension was that Respondent's insurance carrier would not give authorization for the work.) On January 12, 2006, the Department advised Respondent by letter that his request had been denied and that he must submit either the third SARA or a financial affidavit, as previously requested, no later than February 15, 2006. In its response, the Department indicated that it did not "consider generic delays by contractors or insurance carriers as good cause for an extension." To date, neither filing has been made. By failing to file the requested third SARA for the 1997 discharge, Respondent has contravened the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-770.600(11) and 62- 770.800(3), which require that within 60 days after notice, a responsible party submit a SARA to address deficiencies noted in a SAR. Respondent's conduct also implicates Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.800(5), which makes it a violation of two Florida Statutes for a responsible party to not submit requested information within the time frame specified. Since March 1, 2005, which was the due date on which a report was to be filed, Respondent has failed to submit an approved SAR for the 2004 discharge, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(7), which in turn contravenes Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.800(3) and (5). To date, Respondent has failed to complete site assessment activities for both the 1997 and 2004 discharges, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(10). That provision states that "[s]ite assessment activities shall not be deemed complete until such time as a [SAR] is approved." To date, Respondent has failed to timely and completely assess and remediate the contamination at his property, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-770. That chapter contains the criteria which apply to the cleanup of a site contaminated with petroleum products. During the course of its investigation of this matter, the Department has incurred expenses "in the amount of not less than $500.00." As mitigating evidence, Respondent offered into evidence Respondent's Exhibits 2-15, the majority of which pertain to his insurance policy and the pending litigation with his carrier, Mid-Continent Casualty Company (MCC), or the priority score funding process, which is the process by which contaminated properties are scored or rated for purposes of determining eligibility to receive state cleanup funds when the responsible party is financially unable to do so. Although evidence regarding the insurance policy and pending litigation was deemed to be immaterial to the issues of establishing Respondent's liability for the violations and responsibility for undertaking the corrective actions necessary to satisfy the violations, the undersigned ruled that it could be used by Respondent as mitigating evidence, if relevant, for the purpose of seeking to reduce the administrative penalty. Respondent's Exhibits 8, 9, and 11 indicate that after he reported the 2003 discharge to MCC, in 2003 the carrier denied coverage for that discharge (on the ground "any 'confirmed release' must commence after the retroactive date of the policy (4/3/98)"). However, MCC initially accepted coverage for the 2004 discharge and authorized Respondent's environmental consultants to conduct a site assessment. The documents further show that in December 2005, or before the 2004 site assessment had been completed and a SAR prepared, MCC reversed its position and denied coverage for the 2004 discharge on the ground there was no "Confirmed Release," as defined by the policy. Respondent then filed his lawsuit seeking a determination that the carrier was responsible for cleanup costs. Respondent asserts that he has expended more than $50,000.00 in pursuing the lawsuit, which is much more than the administrative penalty being assessed by the Department. Respondent points out that prior to the time MCC reversed its position as to coverage for the 2004 discharge in December 2005, he had filed a DFR, TCAR, disposal manifest, SAR- 97, and two SARAs for the 1997 discharge, and a TCAR and DFR for the 2004 discharge, all of which indicate a good faith effort on his part to comply with the assessment requirements. As noted above, the final reports prepared by Respondent's consultant were a second SARA-97 and a disposal manifest for the 1997 discharge, which were filed with the Department in July 2005, and a TCAR and DRF for the 2004 discharge filed in May 2004. Respondent's Exhibit 10A recites language in Coverage B of the insurance policy, which provides in part that MCC "will pay Clean-up Costs by an Insured for environmental damage that an Insured is legally obligated to pay . . . ." Respondent argues that if he acknowledges by affidavit or other proof that he does not have the ability to pay for cleanup costs, he fears that under the above language, MCC would not be "legally obligated to pay." This is because Section 376.3071(7)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that when a responsible party does not have the ability to pay for all of the cleanup costs, the Department "may" enter into an agreement with the responsible party to undertake all or part of the site rehabilitation after "taking into consideration the party's net worth and the economic impact on the party." Respondent contends that if he files an affidavit under this statute, MCC would then be relieved of any responsibility under the policy, and his rights in the lawsuit would be jeopardized. Respondent further points out that several other provisions in the insurance policy prohibit him from completing the assessment until the litigation is concluded. For example, one provision (Section II.B) provides that "No Clean-up Costs, charges, and expenses shall be incurred without the Company's consent," while another (Section II.C) provides that "An Insured shall not admit or assume any liabilities or settle any Claim(s) without the Company's consent." Respondent asserts that these provisions prevent his consultant from conducting any further work on the site without MCC's consent, and if he does so, he will lose the right to reimbursement under the policy. Finally, Exhibits 3 through 6 show that Respondent's property has been assigned a site ranking score of ten points, and that the Department is currently funding sites that are eligible for state restoration funding only if they have scores of 37 points and higher. Thus, Respondent argues that a delay in remediation of the site is not unreasonable. Except for the two discharges at issue in this case, there is no evidence that Respondent has a history of non- compliance or that he gained any direct economic benefit by virtue of the discharges. Although no reports have been filed since July 2005, through counsel, Respondent has kept the Department abreast of his efforts to establish liability on the part of MCC so that the site assessments can resume.
The Issue Whether a proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-6.005(2) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in violation of section 120.52(8)(e), Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact Combs Oil is engaged in the distribution and storage of petroleum products in southwest Florida. The distribution and storage facility (facility) operated by Combs Oil, which is located at 76 Industrial Boulevard in Collier County, Florida, contains both underground and aboveground petroleum storage tanks and is considered a bulk petroleum storage facility. As a bulk petroleum storage facility, the operation does not directly dispense fuel to cars, boats, planes, and the like. Through its operations, Combs Oil distributes petroleum products to retail locations and to entities, such as governmental agencies, golf courses, and the commercial fishing, cattle, and citrus industries. Several years ago, Combs Oil purchased three 29,000- gallon aboveground, double-walled storage tanks and currently desires to utilize the tanks at its facility to store Class I petroleum products. These tanks are considered secondary containment-type tanks. Regulatory officials in Collier County have advised Combs Oil that the company will not be able to store petroleum in the 29,000 gallon aboveground tanks because to do so would be in violation of the 12,000-gallon capacity limit established by NFPA 30. NFPA 30, section 22.11.4.1 (2008), is included within NFPA Standard 1, as referenced in section 633.0215(2), Florida Statutes. NFPA 30, section 22.11.4.1 (2008), provides that where a secondary containment-type tank is used to provide spill control, the capacity of the tank shall not exceed 12,000 gallons. The 2008 version of NFPA 30 made no change to the existing prohibition against the use of secondary containment- type, aboveground tanks in excess of 12,000 gallons. Substantively, NFPA 30, section 22.11.4.1 (2008), is the same as the 2000 and 2003 versions; however, the 2008 version, according to Combs Oil, includes commentary from NFPA's technical committee that was not in previous versions of the rule. The commentary from NFPA's technical committee reads, in material part, as follows, Subsection 22.11.4 was initially added, in 1993, as an exception to the spill control provisions of NFPA 30. The exception addressed the growing use of factory-built aboveground tanks that incorporated some form of secondary containment. The secondary containment is primarily an environmental protection measure and usually takes the form of a double shell with an annular (interstitial) space or an integral spill pan. In developing this exception, the NFPA 30 Technical Committee on Tank Storage and Piping Systems considered many issues and determined that a double shell alone would not provide the level of spill control originally intended. First, the technical committee recognized that secondary containment and spill control are not synonymous. Secondary containment is a term that was originally applied to double shell underground tanks; such tanks have been in use for many years and are now the choice for underground installations, as a result of stricter environmental regulations. The outer shell contains any release of product if the inner primary tank develops a leak. The concept has now been applied to aboveground tanks. However, almost all product releases from aboveground tanks result from overfilling or a break in a pipe connected to the tank. Rarely does an aboveground tank release product because of a leak in its shell. In a sense, secondary containment, when applied to an aboveground tank, is a solution in search of a problem. Second, the technical committee was not convinced that the bare steel outer shell would not fail prematurely from an exposure fire. Their concern arose from the fact that the contained liquid is not in contact with the outer shell and, therefore, cannot absorb the thermal energy impinging on it. Third, for smaller tanks, the outer shell offered virtually no impact protection. Piercing the outer shell would likely result in piercing the primary tank as well. Even if the primary tank were not damaged, secondary containment would have been compromised. Nevertheless, the technical committee determined that an aboveground secondary containment-type tank could be installed without meeting the original spill control provisions of NFPA 30, if the protective features enumerated here are provided. The maximum capacity of 12,000 gal for Class 1 liquids and 20,000 gal for Class II and III liquids was chosen to correlate with the maximum capacities allowed by NFPA 30A, Code for Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages, for aboveground tanks at service stations. Piping connections below the liquid level are not allowed and an anti-siphon device is required to prevent release of liquid should there be a break in the pipeline. The emphasized portion of the quoted material provides the basis for Petitioner's assertion that "NFPA has done no study to warrant the application of this standard to terminal or bulk facilities." Combs Oil did not offer any testimony from any person affiliated with NFPA's technical committee. Combs Oil did not call any witness who has served on NFPA's technical committee. Combs Oil did not offer any documentary evidence showing the workings of NFPA's technical committee as the committee contemplated the inclusion of the newly inserted notes into the technical committee's commentary. Per the requirements of section 633.0215, the Department, as part of its three-year update to the Florida Fire Prevention Code, seeks to amend rule 69A-6.005(2) to reflect the adoption of the 2008 version of NFPA 30. It is undisputed that NFPA 30 governs the facility operated by Combs Oil. It is also undisputed that NFPA 30A, when considered in isolation, does not apply to the facility at issue. Mr. Charles Frank works as an operations review specialist for the State Fire Marshall's Office, Bureau of Fire Prevention. In this capacity, Mr. Frank offers "informal interpretation for various agencies that are looking for code interpretations." Mr. Frank does not serve in a policy-making position with the State Fire Marshall's Office. From 2005 until 2009, Mr. Frank was a member of the NFPA. Mr. Frank is familiar with how NFPA develops and compiles its fire code, but he has personally never participated in NFPA's code development process. Mr. Frank is neither qualified, nor authorized to speak on behalf of NFPA with respect to technical matters related to NFPA's rules. Prior to filing the instant challenge, Combs Oil, pursuant to section 120.542, filed with the Department on or about August 3, 2007, a "Petition for Variance From, or Waiver of, Rule 69A-3[.]012(1), Florida Administrative Code [Waiver]." Petitioner's Waiver application requested that the Department waive the requirements of the applicable rule and allow Petitioner to install the three 29,000-gallon tanks. On or about November 2, 2007, the Department denied Petitioner's Waiver request. In response to the denial, Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, which was assigned DOAH Case No. 08-1714. On July 8, 2008, pursuant to a Joint Motion to Dismiss, the Division of Administrative Hearings issued an Order closing its file and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing statement, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is a Florida corporation in good standing, authorized to do business in this state. The Petitioner owns and controls the site which is the subject matter of these proceedings. Such site is located in Brevard County, Florida. The Department has identified the subject site as DER facility no. 05- 8500985 (the facility). At all times material to this case, the facility consisted of: three underground storage tanks (UST), one 3000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, one 1000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, and one 1000 gallon UST used for storing gasoline; five monitoring wells; and pipes and pumps related to the foregoing system. The facility constituted a storage tank system as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-761.200(38), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner holds, and is named insured for, third party pollution liability insurance applicable to the facility. Such insurance was issued pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. The policy for the foregoing insurance, policy no. FPL7622040, was in force from March 22, 1991 through March 22, 1992. The Department issued a notice of eligibility for restoration insurance to Petitioner for the above-described facility. Based upon the foregoing, the Petitioner is a participating owner or operator as defined in Chapter 17-769, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Section 376.3073, Florida Statutes, Brevard County operates a local program that has been approved by the Department. Such local program is managed by the Brevard County Office of Natural Resources Management (County). In July, 1990, a discharge of diesel fuel occurred at the Petitioner's facility. Petitioner's employees estimated that approximately twenty gallons of diesel fuel filled the pump box overflowed from the pump box across the seawall into the adjacent waters. Upon discovering the discharge, Petitioner shut down diesel fuel dispensing until repairs could be made to the apparent cause of the leak. Additionally, the diesel fuel remaining in the pump box and on top of the tank area was removed. Contaminated soil in the pump box was also removed. The apparent cause of the discharge described above was attributed to cracked pipe fittings which were repaired by Glover Oil Co. within a few days of the discharge. No detailed inspection was made to the system to determine if additional sources of discharge existed. Petitioner did not complete a discharge reporting form (DRF) for the above-described incident until April 18, 1991. The April DRF was completed after Petitioner was directed to do so by Ms. DiStasio, an inspector employed by the County. From August, 1990 until May, 1991, at least one monitoring well at the Petitioner's facility showed free product accumulating in the well pipe. The exact amounts of the free product found are unknown, but reports estimated the level at 100 centimeters. From August, 1990 until September, 1991, the Petitioner did not undertake any measure to explore the origin of the free product found in the monitoring well. Further, the Petitioner did not report the monitoring well testing results as a suspected or confirmed discharge. In April, 1991, an inspection of the Petitioner's facility was performed by Ms. DiStasio. That inspection resulted in a letter to the Petitioner that outlined several violations at the facility. Among those violations listed was the Petitioner's failure to report a suspected or confirmed discharge. At the time of the April, 1991 inspection, Petitioner had reported neither the July, 1990 discharge (a known discharge) nor the monitoring well test results (at the minimum a suspected discharge). In connection with the July, 1990 discharge, following the repairs made by Glover Oil, Petitioner did not have the system pressure tested. Only the area visible from the pump box was checked for leakage. In July, 1991, when Ms. DiStasio performed a re-inspection of the facility, she found Petitioner had not (in the interim period, April through July, 1991) taken any steps to test the system or to remove the fuels from the suspect tanks. Since the free product continued to appear in the monitoring well, a pressure test of the system would have definitively answered the discharge question. Alternatively, the removal of the fuels would have prevented further seepage until the system could be pressure tested. On August 6, 1991, the Petitioner issued a letter that advised the County that it had stopped dispensing fuel at the facility. The tanks were not drained, however, until on or about September 11, 1991. Further, the August, 1991, letter acknowledged that the Petitioner "had proposals for initial remedial cleanup related to diesel contamination in the tank field area." Obviously, the Petitioner must have contemplated a need for such cleanup. On September 11, 1991, at the Petitioner's request, Petroleum Equipment Contractors, Inc. attempted to pressure test the 3000 gallon diesel tank. The purpose of the pressure test was to determine if the diesel system had a leak. The company could not even run the test on the tank because of the defective system. A similar test on the Petitioner's gasoline tank passed without incident. Once the Petitioner learned the results of the test, it initiated Initial Remedial Action (IRA) as described on the IRA report filed by Universal Engineering Sciences. The IRA consisted of the removal of the excessively contaminated soil, approximately 74 cubic yards, and the removal of the USTs. The foregoing work was completed on or about September 15, 1991. On October 4, 1991, the Petitioner filed a discharge reporting form dated October 2, 1991, that identified September 11, 1991, as the date of discovery for the discharge. This discharge discovery was allegedly made incidental to the diesel tank pressure testing failure. No reference was made to the months of monitoring well reports showing a free product. On October 8, 1991, Ms. DiStasio prepared a Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program Compliance Checklist that reported the Petitioner was not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. When Petitioner applied for restoration coverage under the statute on January 31, 1992, such request was denied by the Department on March 6, 1992. The basis for the denial was as follows: Failure to notify the Department of a positive response to sampling within three working days of testing, pursuant to the rule in effect at the time of the initial response (17-61.050(1), Florida Administrative Code). An inspection by Brevard County on April 17, 1991, revealed that free product had been detected in one monitoring well since July 1990. The discharge reporting form was not submitted until October 2, 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying Petitioner's claim for restoration coverage under the Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-2121 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are accepted. Except as found above, paragraph 3 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. It is accepted that Brevard County acted as the local agent in this case. Paragraph 4 is rejected as not supported by the record. With regard to paragraph 5, substituting "A" for "The" and "confirmed" for "discovered" the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. Similarly, with the substitution of the word "confirmation" for "discovery" in Paragraph 6, the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. No suitable explanation was offered by the Petitioner for why, if a discharge were not reasonably suspected, it retained the company to immediately remove the USTs upon the failed pressure testing. Clearly, the Club had a notion the tanks were a discharge problem. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While there was some confusion as to the exact volume of free product in the monitoring well, there was clear evidence that such was reported for many months prior to the confirmation in September, 1991. Further, the main confusion regarding the product found in the well was not as to its existence, but as to the individual's knowledge of the metric measurement of it. One hundred centimeters of product in a two or three inch pipe would not be a minute amount. Except as addressed in the foregoing findings, paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner did not undertake all repairs necessary to abate a discharge problem. Paragraph 10 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Clearly, as early as August, 1990, Petitioner knew or should have known of a discharge problem based upon the monitoring well report; that all of the discharge did not necessarily flow from the fittings that had been repaired is irrelevant. Further, Petitioner did no testing to verify that the replaced fittings had solved the discharge problem (especially in light of the well reports). Paragraph 11 is rejected as an inaccurate restatement of the exhibit. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Incidentally, the hearing in this case was in the year 1992. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as a misstatement of the exhibit cited. Paragraphs 13 through 27 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Brigette A. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Scott E. Wilt MAGUIRE, VOORHIS & WELLS, P.A. 2 South Orange Plaza P.O. Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Phillips Petroleum Company, is the owner and operator of two retail gasoline stations situated at 2675 Volusia Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida and 13987 Walsingham Road, Largo, Florida. On July 6, 1989, Respondent's inspector, Ralph Myrick, made a routine inspection of the "super clean unleaded" gasoline at Petitioner's company-owned station at 2675 Volusia Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. A sample of the super clean unleaded fuel was taken by inspector Myrick and was analyzed by Respondent. The analysis revealed that the super clean unleaded gasoline was contaminated with diesel fuel. On June 20, 1989, Petitioner converted its 4,000 gallon diesel tank to a super clean unleaded gasoline tank. During the conversion, Petitioner used a transport carrier to drain the diesel from the tank to a transport carrier. Petitioner thereafter utilized a maintenance contractor to pump all residue from the bottom of the tank until it was dry. Petitioner thereafter flushed the lines with 100 gallons of new gasoline product before refilling the tank with 3,700 gallons of super clean unleaded gasoline. The diesel which was pumped out and the 100 gallons used for flushing was returned to Petitioner's Jacksonville terminal by a transport carrier. On July 3, 1989, Petitioner received another 1,300 gallons of super clean unleaded gasoline and stored it in the converted tank which had previously been used to store diesel fuel. At the time of Respondent's inspection of the Daytona Beach station on July 6, 1989, Petitioner had sold to the public, at retail, approximately 2,337 gallons of the contaminated fuel. At the time of inspector Myrick's inspection on July 6, 1989, Petitioner was advised of the contamination problem and a "stop order" was issued to correct the problem. In lieu of confiscation, Petitioner posted a refundable bond in the amount of $1,000 and retained the fuel. Petitioner had its transport carrier to again completely drain the converted tank and Petitioner returned 2,663 gallons to its Jacksonville terminal. Petitioner ordered 2,600 gallons of new product which was returned to the subject station for sale. On March 12, 1990, inspector Myrick made a routine inspection of Petitioner's retail station at 13987 Walsingham Road, Largo, Florida. A sample of the detroleum product was taken and analyzed. Respondent's analysis of the sample taken from Petitioner's Largo station revealed that the fuel was below standard. Petitioner's agent Switz admitted that more than 1,000 gallons of fuel had been sold to retail customers at a price at approximately $1.00 or more per gallon. Petitioner placed a $1,000 cash bond in lieu of confiscation to continue operating and to retain the fuel which was analyzed and found to be below standard at its Largo station.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a refund of the bonds posted in the subject cases. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: R. H. Switz Phillips Petroleum Company 3021 Landing Way Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services May Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John C. Whitton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection 3125 Conner Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Mallory Horne, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SuperAmerica of Florida, Inc. (SuperAmerica) is affiliated with SuperAmerica Group, Inc., a corporation with headquarters in Lexington, Kentucky. SuperAmerica markets petroleum products from convenience store facilities in an eleven-state area concentrated in the Ohio Valley and upper Midwest. In 1985, SuperAmerica began constructing convenience store facilities in Florida, and opened its first stores in 1986. It installed state-of-the-art petroleum storage tanks, lines, dispensers and leak detection equipment at each new site. Casey McKenzie became SuperAmerica's administrative manager for its Florida facilities in October 1990. At that time there were approximately thirty-seven SuperAmerica convenience store facilities in Florida. Mr. McKenzie's duties included monthly reporting to corporate headquarters, environmental compliance, and emergency petroleum discharge response at the Florida sites. Mr. McKenzie left Florida in June 1993, after SuperAmerica completed its sale to Shell Oil Company of what was then over fifty sites. Virtually all of SuperAmerica's Florida sites had three separate tanks for different grades of gasoline, plus one tank for diesel fuel. The tanks were either 12,000 or 8,000 gallons in volume. Each site had between twelve and sixteen dispensers, and each dispenser had up to six nozzles for dispensing different grades of gasoline and diesel fuel. The Florida sites, including the sites at issue, experienced high volume sales as they were open twenty-four hours a day and were located in areas of heavy private and commercial traffic. The volume of sales required frequent storage tank refilling, sometimes daily or every other day. The volume of sales and frequent refillings made petroleum discharges in the form of spills, splashes and drips caused by human error a common occurrence. Customer overfill incidents involving small quantities of fuel were the most common occurrence. Other spills resulted when the underground storage tanks were being filled. SuperAmerica had procedures to minimize the risk of spills and to detect the spills or discharges. The tanks were all fitted with Gilbarco automatic tank gauging devices which computed volume of fuel and water in the tanks, the inches of fuel and water and the temperatures inside the tanks. Operators or staff also used long sticks to manually measure volume of fuel and water in the tanks. And a third method of measure was a daily sales inventory. Mr. McKenzie received the reports of these inventories on a periodic basis and store operators were instructed to watch for, and report unexplained discrepancies. To his knowledge, during his tenure as administrative manager, there were no unexplained discrepancies nor discrepancies in those inventories resulting from leaking tanks. At each site, including the sites at issue, there were six groundwater monitoring wells. The wells were generally installed during installation of the underground storage tanks in the same excavation pit. The monitoring wells were accessible through manhole covers on the surface of the concrete pad. Locked caps below the manhole covers were intended to maintain the environmental integrity of the wells. Water entered the wells through slots in the pipes which lined the well, from about a foot below the pad surface and extending below the water table. Prior to June 1991, the SuperAmerica area managers took water samples from the wells each month, performed sight and smell tests and recorded the results on an inspection report. Beginning in June 1991, SuperAmerica hired National Environmental Services and Testing (NEST) to perform the monthly groundwater sampling from the monitoring wells. NEST used a vapor monitoring device (organic vapor analyzer - OVA) in the monitoring wells to detect the pressure of organic vapors in addition to performing groundwater sampling. The monitoring wells at the seven sites at issue contained groundwater. At various times, as more specifically addressed below, NEST's monitoring reports for the sites at issue noted elevated organic vapor readings, odor present, and product in the form of skim, light skim, or sheen. Mr. McKenzie had procedures in place and carried out those procedures to respond to large volume spills or accidents above ground, as well as catastrophic leaks of underground tanks. These were his primary concerns. He did not expect a catastrophic leak in the relatively new equipment, and none occurred. Mr. McKenzie did not attribute any of the reports of elevated vapor readings, odor or presence of petroleum or diesel product in the form of skim or sheen, as evidence of tank or line failure. There are other rational explanations for the readings. Specifically, rainfall could easily dissolve and wash spilled fuel, antifreeze, oil or road grease into cracks in the pad, into manhole covers and onto the ground where it could easily seep into the monitoring wells. As conceded by counsel for SuperAmerica, there was a discharge at each of the seven sites, for purposes of the FPLRIP program. Printed text on the top of the Discharge Reporting Forms advises facilities of their obligation to report discharges or suspected releases within one day of discovery. For each site at issue, monitoring well records contained evidence of odor, product or elevated vapor readings more than one day prior to SuperAmerica's filing Discharge Reporting Forms. After filing Discharge Reporting Forms with DEP, Mr. McKenzie contacted Tanknology Corporation to schedule testing of the tanks and lines. The company was busy and was not able to complete the tests until some time (more than three days) after Mr. McKenzie filed the Discharge Reporting Forms. SuperAmerica did not intentionally cause a discharge at any of the sites, nor intentionally disable leak detection devices. When the Discharge Reporting Forms were filed, Mr. McKenzie was not aware of any spill or other discharge in excess of 25 gallons for which he had failed to file a reporting form within twenty-four hours. As of the date of the hearing there was no conclusive evidence of what caused the odor, product and elevated OVA readings in the monitoring wells. SuperAmerica's expert conjectures that they were caused by surface water runoff, sloppy transport deliveries, customer overfills and other routine problems of the high-volume facilities. In determining whether SuperAmerica was eligible under FPLRIP with regard to the sites at issue, DEP's program administrator, William Truman, considered only whether SuperAmerica properly reported suspected releases and whether it timely tested the storage systems. Those were appropriate considerations. The basis for denial as to each site is more specifically described below. On January 19, 1993, counsel for the parties executed a joint stipulation relating to an eighth facility site. In that stipulation, the agency recited its agreement that failure to report suspected releases within one working day of discovery could no longer, standing alone, serve as a basis for denial of restoration coverage eligibility under 1992 amendments to Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, governing FPLRIP. The stipulation also recited: Nothing in this Joint Stipulation shall be construed to mean that violation of the discharge response requirements contained in section 376.3072(2)(d), F.S. (1992) , and implemented in rules 17-769, 17-769.600(15) and (16), Florida Administrative Code is no longer a valid basis for denial of eligibility for restoration coverage on an incident by incident basis under FPLRIP. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. G) Hudson-DEP Facility No. 51-8837646 DOAH Case 92-6871 (Site 8023) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system located at 9508 SR 52, Hudson, Pasco County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks (USTs): two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTS; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about March 1988. On August 21, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well five was 3800 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2800 ppm. On September 16, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1000 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2000 ppm. On October 15, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 2400, five was 2900 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2200 ppm. On November 20, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 3600, five was 3000 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 6900 ppm. On December 4, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 3100, five was 2800 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 5100 ppm. On January 4, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1100, five was 2400 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2900 ppm. On March 6, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was product in monitor wells four, five and six. The report also indicates there was an odor in monitor wells five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well six exceeded 10,000 ppm. Elevated readings and odor persisted in well six in April and June. On July 14, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1400 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2600 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The form was signed by Casey McKenzie. The form indicates the date of discovery was July 14, 1992 (the most recent date on which NEST sampled the monitor wells). The method of initial discovery was a Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Company. The Type of pollutant discharged was Unleaded gasoline. The Cause of leak and Estimated number of gallons lost were both Unknown. On or about August 26, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. The test report commented that one dispenser had leaks at the nozzle when pumping and the tester had the store put an Out of Order sign on the nozzle. On or about September 1, 1992, the Department issued an order declaring SuperAmerica site no. 8023 eligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. On October 6, 1992, and again on October 21, 1993, the Department issued its amended orders of ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the discharge reported. Melbourne-DEP Facility No. 05-8840685 DOAH Case 93-4402 (Site 8024) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8024) located at 700 West New Haven Avenue, Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1988. On December 13, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 4200 ppm to 8500 ppm. On January 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 1200 ppm to 8000 ppm. On February 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in wells one, two, five and six. There was an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 2100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On March 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an order in monitor wells one and five. The OVA readings for wells one and five both exceeded 10,000 ppm. Odor and elevated readings persisted in April. On June 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well six exceeded 10,000 ppm. There was odor in wells one, five and six. The report contains the notation Charlie will check early July. If readings have not declined, he will file DNF. On July 9, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 220 ppm to 7100 ppm. There was odor in wells three, four, five and six. On July 17, 1992, Brevard County conducted an inspection of the facility. The Natural Resources Management Division of Brevard County is DEP's designated local program for purposes of the FPLRIP. The report noted the excess OVA readings since December. It required a tightness test and investigation into the source of the discharge, and it required a contamination assessment. It also noted that administrative action will be taken on this facility for major violation of 17-761, Florida Administrative Code . . . (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1) On or about July 21, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF indicates the date of discovery was July 9, 1992 - the date on which NEST sampled the monitor wells. The method of initial discovery was Vapor Readings. The Type of pollutant discharged was Unleaded gasoline. The Cause of leak and the "Estimated number of gallons lost were both Unknown. On or about July 28, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On or about July 1, 1993, the Department issued its Order of Ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Cocoa-DEP Facility No. 05-8841566 DOAH Case 93-4402 and 93-4403 (Site 8034) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8034) located at 1600 Clear Lake Road, Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida. The facility consisted of three underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; and one 8,000 gallon UST. The USTs were installed in or about January 1989. On December 13, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well number five. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for wells one, two, three, four and six all exceeded 10,000 ppm. On January 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells one through four and well six. With the exception of well three, the OVA readings for all of the wells exceeded 10,000 ppm. On February 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 2100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On March 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 4100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On or about March 31, 1992, Brevard County conducted an inspection at site no. 8034. The Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form cover sheet prepared by the Brevard County Inspector noted in part: From 12/31/91, OVA readings in all wells have exceeded reportable quantity (>500 ppm); in some instances, 5 wells >10,000 ppm. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2) The Inspection form also noted the facility failed to report Suspected releases within one working day of discovery. The above-referenced Underground Storage Tank Compliance Inspection Form also noted the facility failed to report Confirmed releases (positive response of a release detection device) within one working day of discovery (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2). The form requires a DRF within one day and a tightness test ASAP. On or about March 31, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF was signed by Mr. Casey McKenzie. The DNF indicated the date of test or discovery was March 30, 1992. The method of initial discovery was a DER Compliance Audit. The DNF does not contain information concerning the estimated number of gallons lost. The Cause of leak and the Type of pollutant discharged were both Unknown. On or about April 5, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a tightness certificate. The test report noted no product visible in the monitoring wells, but odor was present. On July 1, 1993 and again on October 21, 1993, the Department issued its order and amended order of ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Sarasota-DEP Facility No. 58-8840985 DOAH Case 93-5734 (Site 8035) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8035) located at 4405 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1988. On September 17, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well six. There was an odor in all six wells. The OVA reading for wells one, two, three and five all exceeded 1500 ppm. On October 18, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Both product and an odor were present in all six wells. The OVA readings for wells one through five exceeded 700 ppm. On November 22, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Both product and an odor were present in all six wells. The OVA readings for wells one, two and five were 2200 ppm, 1200 ppm and 4000 ppm. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Product and odor were present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well five was 3100 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well five was 3200 ppm. On February 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well two was 900 ppm. On March 11, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product in all six wells and odor present in wells one, two and five. The OVA reading for well two was 900 ppm. On April 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in wells one, two and three. On or about April 16, 1992, Sarasota County conducted a routine inspection at the above-referenced facility. The Sarasota County Pollution Control Division is DEP's designated local program agency for purposes of FPLRIP. On the Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form the Sarasota County Inspector noted: Monitor wells 1, 2, 3 and 5 had OVA readings exceeding 5000 ppm. - High readings and product in wells has been recorded in monthly report by the facility since October, 1991. (Respondent's Exhibit 4) The inspector also noted the facility Has recorded high OVA readings in several MW's but not filed DRF. The County Inspector also noted the facility failed to report Any spill, overfill, or other discharge within one working day of discovery and that the facility failed to report Suspected releases within one working day of discovery. The County Inspector made the following notations on the back of the report: Monitoring well log indicates excessive contamination free product in all wells high OVA readings as [far] back as October '91 no records of any tightness testing in regards to the increase of contamination levels found in wells. DRF on file? (Respondent's Exhibit 4) A letter from Sarasota County dated April 22, 1992, required laboratory analysis of monitor well water within 45 days. The analysis was done by NEST and was provided to Sarasota County on June 29, 1992. On July 7, 1992, Sarasota County received the report and requested that SuperAmerica file a Discharge Reporting Form due to the appearance of excessive contamination. On or about July 15, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a DNF with the Department. The DNF indicates July 14, 1992 as the Date of receipt of test results or discovery. On or about August 29, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On or about September 17, 1993, the Department issued its order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Clearwater DEP Facility No. 52-8944446 DOAH Case No. 93-4406 (Site 8036) At all times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8036) located at 4450 Easy Bay Drive, Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. The above- referenced facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1989. On September 16, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 8000 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 3000 ppm. On October 17, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor present in well five. The OVA reading for well five was 8500 ppm. On January 1, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for wells four and five was 1100 ppm. On February 6, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well five. The OVA reading for well five was 400 ppm. On March 11, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 2800 ppm. On April 7, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 650 ppm. On July 13, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 1100 ppm. Casey McKenzie prepared a Discharge Notification Form but did not file it because he believed the local agency had instructed him to hold it pending further investigation. On or about August 28, 1992, Tanknology Corporation performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a Certificate of Tightness. On October 12, 1992, Pinellas County conducted a routine inspection at the above-referenced facility. The HRS Pinellas County Health Unit is the agency's designated local agency for FPLRIP. The County Inspector made the following notation on the Inspection Report Form Cover Page: What actions were taken in response to positive responses in one or more monitor wells for the following months - 10/91; 9/91; 11/91; 1/92; 2/92; 3/92; 4/92; 7/92 - provide copy of monitor these monitor reports - take appropriate actions at this time. (Respondent's Exhibit 5) On or about October 27, 1992, SuperAmerica filed the July 13, 1992 DNF with the Department. The DNF reflected a discovery date of July 13, 1992. The DNF indicated the method of initial discovery was a vapor reading from monitor well testing company. On or about July 1, 1993, the Department issued its order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Englewood-DEP Facility No. 08-8945143 DOAH Case 93-2710 (Site 8038) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8038) located at 2710 South McCall Road, Englewood, Charlotte County, Florida. The facility consisted of four USTs: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about September 1989. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 6200 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 9800 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 2000 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 1100 ppm. On February 13, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 1500 ppm. On April 10, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 1100 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 5900 ppm. An Interoffice Memo dated April 24, 1992, from Mr. McKenzie to the manager of store no. 8038 provided in part: The monthly test of your store's monitor wells revealed the following results which need to be addressed: Monitor well number 5 showed vapor readings exceeding 5900 PPM. This is a reportable quantity to the DER. No previous results have show [sic] levels this high. (Petitioner's Exhibit 38C) This latter assertion is obviously in error given the fact that in December, 1991, the OVA reading for well four was 6200 ppm while the OVA reading for well five was 9800 ppm. On May 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 2100 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 3000 ppm. On June 15, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 2500 ppm. On July 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 1100 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with DEP. The DNF was signed by Casey McKenzie. The DNF indicated the Date of Test or discovery was July 20, 1992. The method of initial discovery was Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Reports. The estimated number of gallons lost and the cause of leak were both unknown. On or about September 1, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On September 4, 1992, Casey McKenzie wrote to DEP's South District Office with regard to the DNFs filed for Englewood Facility and the Punta Gorda Facility. With regard to SuperAmerica's failure to timely report the releases, the letter provided in part: In your letter, you refer to the elevated OVA readings recorded several months ago but not reported. This was simply an error on my part. SuperAmerica began utilizing an outside contractor to perform monitor well sampling at these locations in December. Prior to that, we performed the monthly sampling ourselves using the sight and smell method appropriate for ground water well monitoring... I was not aware of the thresholds for reporting of vapor levels. I was aware we had no sheen or odor present. When our contractor and I finally discussed the importance of the vapor readings and the ramifications involved, we immediately filed Discharge Notification Forms for suspected releases. . . Any errors made in reporting were due to lack of knowledge on my part, ... (Respondent's Exhibit 3) Mr. McKenzie's assertion of ignorance cannot be reconciled with the statements set forth in his Interoffice Memo dated April 24, 1992. See paragraph 85, above. On or about April 23, 1993, and again on October 20, 1993, DEP issued its order and amended order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Punta Gorda-DEP Facility No. 08-9045849 DOAH Case 93-2711 (Site 8039) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of its petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8039) located at 3035 Tamiami Trail, Punta Gorda, Charlotte County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about January 1990. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product in well four. There was an odor in all of the wells. The OVA readings for wells one, three, four, five and six all exceeded 10,000 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well two was 600 ppm; well three was 4500 ppm; well four was 900 ppm; and well five was 2500 ppm. On February 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two, three and five. The OVA reading for well one was 6000 ppm; wells two and three were in excess of 10,000 ppm; well four was 4100 ppm; and well five was 3800 ppm. On March 9, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two, three and five. The OVA reading for well two was in excess of 10,000 ppm; well three was 2000 ppm; and well four was 3000 ppm. 26 On April 10, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well two was 1500 ppm while the OVA reading for well three was 550 ppm. On May 14, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well two was 2200 ppm while the OVA reading for well three was 1100 ppm. On June 15, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in well two. The OVA reading for well two was 7300 ppm; well three was 1500 ppm; and well four was 1100 ppm. On July 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well one was in excess of 10,000 ppm; well three was 2000 ppm; and well four was 3100 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF was signed by Casey McKenzie. The DNF was dated July 24, 1992. However, the DNF did not include the information as to the date of test or discovery of the discharge. The cause of the leak and the estimated number of gallons lost were both unknown. The DNF indicated the method of discovery was a Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Company. On or about August 27, 1992, the agency conducted an inspection at Site 8039. During the inspection, no obvious odors were detected in the monitoring wells, indicating that there may have been errors in the original OVA readings. The agency directed SuperAmerica to have groundwater samples analyzed. The analysis was provided to the agency on October 27, 1992. On or about August 27 and September 4, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the sight and issued certificates of tightness. On or about April 23, 1993, and again on October 20, 1993, DEP issued its order and amended order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. North Ft. Myers-DEP Facility No. 36-8631544 DOAH Case 93-4405 (Site 8006) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8006) located at 4600 Bayline Drive, North Ft. Myers, Lee County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The tanks were installed on or about April 1987. In or about November 1992, SuperAmerica hired Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) to perform an environmental audit in conjunction with SuperAmerica's planned sale of the property. On January 7, 1993, ESE was performing soil borings in the tank farm and pump island areas. Soil samples were being analyzed for the presence of excessive contamination, if any. Those borings were made with a four-inch diameter hand auger. At boring SB-2, near the easternmost fuel island, the ESE employee cracked the fiberglass midgrade unleaded product line with the hand auger causing an underground discharge. SuperAmerica discovered the discharge on January 16, 1992 and filed a Discharge Reporting Form on that same date. On July 1, 1993, DEP issued its Order denying SuperAmerica eligibility for restoration coverage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter its final order denying eligibility to SuperAmerica in cases nos. 92-6871, 93-2710, 93- 2711, 93-4402, 93-4403/93-4404, 93-4406 and 93-5734; granting eligibility in case no. 93-4405; and dismissing case no. 93-2712 (voluntary dismissal). DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The findings of fact proposed by both parties, or stipulated by the parties, have been adopted in whole or in substance, except for the following: SuperAmerica's Proposed Findings of Fact. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial: 11-17, 20-23, 26-29, 39-40, 48-52, 59-66, 72-75, 79-87, 90- 92, 94-96, 98, 101, 104, 106-107, 109-147, 166, 173, 181,183, 203, 211-212, and 220. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence or unsupported by credible evidence: 97, 108, 149-155. DEP's Proposed Findings of Fact. These findings have all been adopted in substance. Additional findings have been made however, to explain the background and include facts common to all of the sites. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, Suite 654 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kenneth Plante General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Gary M. Pappas, Esquire POPHAM, HAIK, SCNOBRICH and KAUFMAN, LTD. 4000 International Place 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, Florida 33138 James M. Ellerbe, Esquire SuperAmerica Group Law Department 3499 Dabney Drive Lexington, Kentucky 40509
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Reimbursement Program established under the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 for the petroleum terminal owned by Gulf Products Division of BP Oil Company at Port Everglades, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 provides for the expeditious cleanup of sites contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum products. The Reimbursement Program, found in Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, provides for reimbursement of the allowable costs of site rehabilitation contaminated as a result of a discharge related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products from a storage tank, or its integral piping or dispensing system. The Reimbursement Program does not provide for reimbursement of cleanup costs for discharges related to the transportation or disposal of petroleum or petroleum products. The site at issue in this proceeding is a terminal facility used for the storage of petroleum and petroleum product located at 1500 Southeast 26th Street, Port Everglades, Florida. This facility is referred to as Gulf Facility No. 46888 and DER Facility No. 068732278 (Gulf Terminal). The subject terminal facility is one of fourteen petroleum storage terminals located at Port Everglades, Florida. Petroleum and petroleum products come to the terminal by ship and are pumped from the ship through permanent pipelines to the large aboveground storage tanks located at the facility. The petroleum and petroleum products are stored in these large tanks until it is time for the product to be distributed to the end user. The Gulf Terminal contains eighteen storage tanks whose total capacity is 650,000 barrels of petroleum or petroleum products. These tanks vary in size, with the smallest having a capacity of 10,000 barrels and the largest having a capacity of 80,000 barrels. One barrel equals 42 gallons. The primary activity of the terminals at Port Everglades is to store petroleum or petroleum products. None of the terminals at Port Everglades, including the Gulf Terminal, refines or produces petroleum or petroleum products. Operation of this facility began in 1946. Petitioner, as the successor to the Gulf Oil Corporation, owned and operated the facility until February 1, 1985, when it sold the facility to BP Oil, Inc. As the previous owner of the facility, Petitioner performed an environmental audit which revealed petroleum hydrocarbon contamination at the site. Petitioner is responsible for the cleanup and is entitled to reimbursement of the allowable costs of the cleanup if the site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program. Any contamination of the soil and groundwater at the site was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products, water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum product or sludges which consist predominately of petroleum or petroleum product constituents. Based on hydrogeological assessment information, Petitioner determined that response action, including ground water cleanup activities, was required at the site. Petitioner hired independent contractors to conduct the response action. In 1986, Petitioner designed a recovery system for petroleum and petroleum product and a ground water treatment system at the site. Through February, 1989, the recovery system had recovered over 12,000 gallons of petroleum or petroleum products, which constitutes the recovery of between 60%- 70% of the total amount in the ground. Through November 1989, Petitioner had expended in excess of $560,000 on its response action at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner advised Respondent of its response action at the site by letter dated January 6, 1988. Petitioner submitted documentation to Respondent concerning hydrogeological assessment at the site which included field and laboratory work and investigation performed for the site from 1984 to the present. Pursuant to the requirements of SUPER Act, Petitioner notified Respondent of its intention to seek reimbursement for money spent conducting response action in accordance with Chapter 17-70, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to petroleum and petroleum product contamination at the site. Petitioner's notice to Respondent was timely and was procedurally correct. On July 13, 1989, Respondent issued its Order of Determination of Ineligibility concerning Petitioner's request for reimbursement. As stated in this order the initial basis for Respondent's denial of eligibility was: The determination is based on the fact that the contamination was not related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products. Sources of contamination at this site include tanker trucks, an oil/water separator, a holding pond, and crude oil and tank-bottom sludge disposal pit. These items are not petroleum storage systems as defined in Section 376.301 F.S. therefore (sic), this site is not eligible for reimbursement under the SUPER Act. ... Respondent clarified its Order of Ineligibility by a Notice to Amend and Clarify dated November 14, 1989, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The notice of denial provides that the site is being denied due to the fact that the disclosed sources of contamination are not petroleum storage systems. One of the criteria for being a petroleum storage system is that it be used or intended to be used for storage of petroleum or petroleum product. It is the criteria that the Department contends is not met in this case; i.e., that the discharges were not intended for storage. Section 376.3071(4), Florida Statutes, specifically limits the use of the Environmental Protection Trust Fund to incidents of inland contamination related to storage of petroleum or petroleum product. * * * The Department recently became aware that prior to 1983, contaminated water was disposed of directly from tanks at the site with no pretreatment by an oil/water separator. As with the disposal of oil and sludge to a pit, the act of intentionally disposing of contaminants to the ground is not "related to storage" as required by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. * * * Wherefore, The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation hereby requests that the Hearing Officer allow for the amendment of the notice of denial of eligibility to include the following basis for denial: Contamination at the site is related to the disposal of petroleum or petroleum product, or water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. Disposal activities including the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water and/or fuel from tanks, oil water separators and sump areas, the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water to a percolation pond, the intentional discharge and disposal of oil and sludge to a disposal pit, and the intentional discharge and disposal of fuel to the ground at the loading rack. Among the causes of contamination of the Gulf Terminal are accidental overfills of tanks and leaks from an integral pipeline. Absent any other source of contamination, the discharges that occurred at the Gulf Terminal due to these causes would be eligible for the reimbursement. Respondent has determined, however, that the following additional sources of contamination render the entire response action ineligible for reimbursement: Discharges of dissolved hydrocarbon molecules contained in water which accumulated in storage tanks; Discharges of petroleum or petroleum products at the loading rack at the terminal; and The discharge of crude oil and of crude oil tank bottoms. TANK OVERFILL During the operation of the Gulf Terminal, petroleum and petroleum products have been accidentally discharged onto the ground. In 1955, an unknown quantity of petroleum or petroleum products was accidentally discharged onto the ground in the areas of tanks 104 and 105 as a result of these tanks being over- filled. Following this massive spill, between 5,000 - 10,000 barrels of product was recovered, while an unknown quantity could not be recovered. PIPELINE LEAK Since 1955, approximately 15,000 additional barrels of petroleum or petroleum products were leaked from an underground pipeline that is integral to the storage system in an area between the loading rack and tank 101, extending toward the west to between tanks 110 and 102. This is the vicinity where the heaviest free floating petroleum contamination exists. DISCHARGE OF CONTAMINATED WATER Florida has adopted the standard code for the design of aboveground storage tanks prepared by the American Petroleum Institute (API-650). The tanks at the Gulf Terminal are in compliance with API-650. The accumulation of water in storage tanks is a problem associated with the storage of petroleum or petroleum products in the storage tanks at the Gulf Terminal and at the other terminals at Port Everglades. Water accumulates in the storage tanks from rainfall and from condensation. The records of the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Station 08063163 (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) accurately depict the rainfall levels at the terminal facility. The total annual rainfall levels are as follows: 1980, 69.67 inches; 1981, 57.9 inches; 1982, 82.92 inches; 1983 75.16 inches; 1984, 59.4 inches; 1985, 63.74 inches; 1986, 64.14 inches, 1987, 58.50 inches; 1988 40.66 inches. Because water is heavier than petroleum and petroleum products, the water accumulates at the bottom of the tanks. It is essential to the proper storage of the petroleum or petroleum products that the water be removed for at least three reasons. First, if the water is not removed, the tanks would eventually become filled with water instead of product. Second, the product contaminated by water, particularly fuel for motor vehicles and aircraft, would not meet specifications. Third, water in the tanks speeds the corrosion of the tank. In order to remove this water that accumulates at the bottom of the storage tanks, a water draw-off mechanism located at the bottom of the tank is a design feature of API-650. When water accumulates in the bottom of the tank, the water is drained out through the water draw-off mechanism. The storage tanks located at the Gulf Terminal are equipped with such a water draw-off mechanism. Throughout the existence of the facility, accumulated water in the tanks has been controlled by discharging the water through the water draw-off mechanism. From 1948 to 1980, water was drained out of the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and on to the ground. Beginning in 1980, the water was taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and piped to a catch basin where an effort was made to recover petroleum product by skimming the water before the water was discharged into the ground. Since 1985, the water taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism has been treated by an oil/water separator which effectively removes all petroleum product before the water is discharged. The purpose of the oil/water separator is to separate petroleum product from water so that the petroleum product can be returned to the storage tank and the water can be discharged. This process serves to prevent the discharge of petroleum product. Up to 1988, the discharges to the ground from the oil/water separator at the Gulf Terminal accumulated in a holding pond. In 1988, the holding pond was eliminated and the water discharges from the oil/water separator were routed to a holding tank prior to treatment by an air stripper and subsequent discharge into the canal adjacent to the property. At all times since 1983, the water drawn out of the tanks has been the subject of permits issued by Respondent which approve the use of the oil/water separator. While it is necessary for the operation of the storage tanks that water be drawn from the tanks, it is not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks for the contaminated water to be discharged onto the ground. The purpose of discharging the water was to dispose of it. There was no intent to recover the contaminated water after it was discharged. Any water coming out of a storage tank is contaminated with dissolved petroleum. It may have solids in it and floating residue or product on it. Between 1946 and 1980, when this water from the storage tanks was discharged to the ground, any contaminates in the water would be discharged along with it. Water has been drained from tanks numbered 101, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112 113, and 114 on a daily basis. The other tanks are drained after a rainfall. An average of one or two inches of water was drained off each time it rained. Following a rainfall, in excess of 30 barrels of water would be drained from the smaller tanks, while approximately 300 barrels of water would be drained from the larger tanks. The discharge of the water drawn from the storage tanks contributed to the contamination of the groundwater at the Gulf Terminal. This type contamination exists in almost all areas of the site. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the contamination to the groundwater caused by the discharge of contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks from contamination to the groundwater which resulted from other causes. Petitioner failed to establish that the contribution to this contamination to the groundwater by the discharge of the contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks was insignificant. THE LOADING RACK The loading rack at the Gulf Terminal is the apparatus by which the petroleum in the storage tanks is dispensed to tanker truck for distribution to consumers. The loading rack is a series of dispensers which operate much like at a service station except that it fuels tanker trucks rather than automobiles. The loading rack is connected by permanent integral piping to the storage tanks. The purpose of the loading rack is to load the transport trucks. Without the storage tanks at the terminal, there would be no need for a loading rack. Over the years, discharges have occurred in the loading rack, usually as the result of human error. Occasional overfills in the 10-15 gallon range have occurred while a truck was being filled. This type discharge is analogous to a spill which occurs at a service station when an automobile is being fueled and the fuel splashes back or overfills the automobile's fuel tank. The supervisor of Respondent's Reimbursement Section testified that this type discharge, absent other causes, would probably be eligible for reimbursement. This testimony conflicts with the official position taken by Respondent in this proceeding that the cleanup caused by the operation of the loading rack is ineligible for reimbursement. In other incidents, small amounts of product ranging from a teacup to less than a gallon, were occasionally discharged while a truck was being drained of one type of product so that the truck could transport another type of product. The loading rack is an integral part of the storage system because without a means of moving the product out of storage and into the distribution system, the storage tanks could not provide a meaningful function. The discharges which occurred at the loading rack during the course of both loading and unloading trucks are insignificant when compared with the other sources of contamination at the site. TANK BOTTOMS In 1956, a storage tank was emptied for the purpose of switching product from crude oil to diesel fuel. At the time the change in product was made, approximately 1000 barrels of sludge and crude oil were disposed of in a pit adjacent to tank 101. Also disposed of was the tank bottom, a hard tar residue which formed at the bottom of the tank. Oil occasionally oozes to the surface in the vicinity of the pit adjacent to tank 101, but the area around the sludge pit has not been found to be contaminated, and the tank bottom has remained a hardened mass. Each tank on the site also had a pit alongside the tank where a tank bottom was disposed. Although it was necessary to remove the sludge and the tank bottoms to be able to properly operate the storage tanks, it was not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks to dump the sludge and the tank bottoms onto the ground or into the pits. The purpose of discharging the crude oil sludge and the tank bottoms was to dispose of them. There was no intent to recover the crude oil sludge or the tank bottoms water after they were discharged. CONTAMINATION PHASES The contamination at the site exists in three phases, floating petroleum product contamination, dissolved petroleum groundwater contamination, and sludge contamination. The contamination in the form of floating petroleum was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products following the tank overfills, the pipeline leaks, and spills at the loading rack. The dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by two primary sources. First, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by floating petroleum product coming into contact with groundwater. Upon such contact, molecules from the floating petroleum would dissolve into the water, causing contamination. Second, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by the discharge of the contaminated water that had been drawn off from the storage tanks. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the dissolved groundwater contamination that was caused by accidental discharges of product from the contamination caused by the discharge of the contaminated water. Petitioner was also unable to establish that the dissolved groundwater contamination caused by the contaminated water was insignificant. The sludge contamination was caused by the discharge of crude oil and crude oil tank bottoms. CLEANUP The sludge contamination is capable of being cleaned up separately from the free floating petroleum contamination and the groundwater contamination at the site. The sludge contamination is separate and distinct from the other contamination at the site both as to the location of the contamination and as to the methods that would be employed to clean up that type of contamination. Free floating petroleum contamination is recovered by drawing down the water level in a well by use of a pump so that a cone of depression is created. The cone of depression is a funnel shaped depression that causes the surface of the underground water table to bend down towards the well in all directions. The free floating petroleum which flows on top of the underground water surface is then recovered by use of a second pump. The free floating petroleum is then pumped into a holding tank where the recovery of free floating petroleum is completed. The recovery of free floating petroleum contamination is usually more expensive to accomplish than groundwater cleanup because more equipment is required. Groundwater cleanup usually takes a longer period of time to accomplish than does free floating product cleanup. The same or a similar well used to recover the free floating petroleum can also be used for the cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The contaminated groundwater is pumped from the well into an oil/water separator where the water and dissolved petroleum is separated, water is taken off the bottom, put through an air stripper, and is returned to the ground through an infiltration unit. Respondent has previously found sites eligible for the reimbursement program even though those sites experienced discharges which alone would render a site ineligible for the reimbursement program. The basis for finding these sites eligible was that the ineligible discharges had become indistinguishable from the eligible discharges and were insignificant by comparison. Petitioner has complied with all procedural requirements for seeking eligibility contained in Section 376.3701, Florida Statutes. Respondent has not been denied access to the Gulf Terminal. Respondent has made no determination that there has been gross negligence in the maintenance of the petroleum storage system locate at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not willfully concealed the existence of a serious discharge at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not falsified any inventory records maintained with respect to the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not caused any intentional damage to the Gulf Terminal. The Gulf Terminal is not owned by the federal government. Petitioner's challenge to Respondent's order of ineligibility was filed in a timely manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that Respondent enter a final order which determines that the subject site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the free floating petroleum contamination, but that the subject site is ineligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the sludge contamination and for the cleanup of the groundwater contamination. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE 89-4521 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner in its Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 1-16, 18-25, 27-30, 33, 36-42, 44, 47-50, and 53-54 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 17, 31-32, 46, and 51-52 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being contrary to the findings made and to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 26 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 34 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as not being established by the greater weight of the evidence. The testimony cited by Petitioner in support of these proposed findings do not establish the proposed findings. The proposed findings conflict with the contents of the Report of Ground-Water Quality Assessment accepted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 35 , 43, and 45 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected to the extent the proposed findings conflict with the findings made and the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact contained in Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order and in Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5, 7-19, 23, 25-31, 33-34, 39- 52, 55-68, and 70-72 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6, 20-22, 24, 32, 35-38, and 69 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 53 and 54 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected because the testimony referred to by Respondent in support of the proposed findings relates to amounts discharged following rainfalls, not amounts discharged daily. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-14 of Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gray Early, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert W. Wells, Esquire Ignacio E. Sanchez, Esquire KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN 2400 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
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.
Findings Of Fact On March 21, 1990, the School Board of Broward County issued an invitation to bid, No. 90-597T (ITB). The ITB sought to purchase a computerized fuel system, less trade-in. The general conditions of the ITB are common to all purchasing by the School Board and are contained on a single green cover sheet; the remainder of the ITB is made up of the special conditions applicable to the specific purchase. According to page 3, paragraph 1 of those special conditions, the School Board solicited bids on a "new on-line automated fuel dispensing and accounting system, less trade-in." The bidders were required to include in their proposals "all software, hardware (except an IBM Series/1 computer, if used), installation, labor, and training to complete the following objectives:" improve the efficiency and control of the Board's existing automated fuel system; improve fuel inventory management by intergrating in-tank monitoring and leak detection into the automated fuel dispensing system. Monitoring and leak detection devices were to be completely integrated using the same communication lines and computer hardware; record the acquisition, transfer and disposal of equipment; automate the collection and transfer of data to the Board's equipment management and financial accounting systems in the same format as the Board's current data and require no additional support or action by the Board; make appropriate reports available to user departments, and schedule and notify remote sites when preventive maintenance is due for a vehicle. Specifications for the system begin at page 10 of the ITB. Section I of the Specifications is a General System Description which fills pages 10-13 of the ITB. Section II at the bottom of page 13, describes a Fuel Dispensing Procedure. Section III, on page 14 describes Operating Procedures. Section IV on pages 15 and 16 specifies Hardware; the system is to include a computer, remote terminals, and actuator cards, installation criteria are also given for power and wiring. Section V, at pages 16-22 of the ITB, specifies Software and Programming. Its subsection I describes tank level monitors and says: The system will provide for in-tank level monitoring devices which are fully incorporated into the system. The tank level system will be as follows: The fuel island terminal will monitor the tank sensoring devices and generate and send a separate transaction each time it calls the Central Control Processor. This transaction will include fuel in inches and in gallons (gaged balance), water level in inches and temperature in degrees Fahrenheit. The most current readings will be stored in the system and will be available on the fuel inventory and receipts report. The calculated balance will continue to be the "primary balance." The Central Control Processor will generate a special transaction (unique transaction code) indicating sudden loss when the gauged balance drops more than the calculated balance by 1%. A special transaction or flag will be generated when more than 1/2 inch water exists in the tank (high water). Deliveries will be captured through the fuel monitor at sites so equipped. All/any manual delivery input will be recorded and flagged, but will not change the tank files. At sites without the monitor, manual readings will still be accepted. The PFR report will show water level, temperature, sudden loss and low inventory (re- order point). The fuel island terminal will also be equipped to monitor hydro-carbon wells. When hydro-carbon is detected the Fuel Infringement Circuit (FIR) will open and the pumps will be shut down. A FIR transaction will also be generated and sent to the Central Control Processor. Hydro-carbon probes will be included for all listed monitoring wells. The School Board received bids from three bidders which were open on April 26, 1990, at 2:00 p.m.. According to the bid tabulation, Tel-Star Systems bid $59,616, Cherokee group bid $882,924 and E. J. Ward, Inc. bid $106,816. Although Tel-Star was the low bidder, board staff believed that its bid did not meet the minimum advertised specifications. Staff intended to solicit bids for hardware for automatic in-tank fuel level monitoring and hydro-carbon well monitoring (i.e., leak monitoring) capabilities, and all software necessary to perform these functions. In reviewing the literature which accompanied Tel- Star's bid, staff had found no mention of hardware to automatically monitor the level of the fuel tanks or to monitor hydro-carbon wells. The marketing director for Tel-Star told staff that the necessary hardware for in-tank fuel level monitoring or hydro-carbon well monitoring was not included in the bid because Tel-Star did not interpret the ITB to require that hardware. Board staff determined the bid should be awarded to E. J. Ward, Inc., as the lowest bidder who met all advertised specifications. To companies dealing in computerized fuel systems, a computerized fuel dispensing and accounting system is separate from a system which provides in- tank monitoring and leak detection, although these two functions can be and are commonly integrated. No single manufacturer makes a system which will provide both computerized fuel dispensing, and in-tank monitoring and leak detection. Separate systems from different manufacturers can be combined to achieve both functions. The sales manager for Tel-Star Systems, Inc., who first reviewed the ITB noted the very brief reference to tank level monitors and hydro-carbon well monitors on page 22 of the ITB. He was unsure whether the bid called for that type of hardware. He discussed the matter with the president of Tel-Star, Mr. DeVoll. It was determined that because the reference to the in-tank monitoring and leak detection (hydro-carbon monitoring) was made only in the portion of the ITB dealing with Software and Programming (Part V), the School Board only wanted an automated fuel system which was capable of being integrated with fuel tank monitors and leak detection (hydro-carbon well) monitors. Based upon the structure of the ITB, this interpretation by Tel-Star and its officers was reasonable. It is also consistent with an objective reading of the bid made by one of Tel-Star's competitors, which also received the Board's invitation to bid and contemplated submitting a bid. According to Mr. Busbee, had he submitted a bid on behalf of his firm, based on the language of School Board's ITB, he would not have included hardware for in-tank level monitoring or leak detection (hydro-carbon well) monitoring. The bid from E. J. Ward, Inc., did include hardware for in-tank monitoring and leak detection, but this was not the result of the wording of the ITB. E. J. Ward, Inc., is the manufacturer of the present fuel dispensing system which the School Board of Broward County uses. Through servicing the account, representatives of E. J. Ward knew exactly what the School Board of Broward County had on site, and what it sought to acquire through its ITB. While E. J. Ward enjoyed no undue advantage by reason of its long association with the School Board, it was able to read the ITB with the gloss of its own experience, and knowledge of what staff intended to procure through the ITB. Its response to the ITB was not solely the product of a reading of the special conditions. The School Board believes that Tel-Star should have taken steps to determine whether the ITB was intended to include fuel level monitoring and leak detection monitoring, and points to page 7 of the Special Conditions, paragraph 30 which states: Any questions by prospective bidders concerning this Invitation to Bid should be addressed to Mr. George Toman, Buyer, Purchasing Department, (305) 765-6119, who is authorized only to direct the attention of prospective bidders to various portions of the Bid so they may read and interpret such for themselves. Neither Mr. Toman nor any employee of the School Board of Broward County is authorized to interpret any portion of the bid or give information as to the requirements of the Bid in addition to that contained in the written Bid Document. Interpretations of the Bid or additional information as to its requirements, where necessary, shall be communicated to bidders only by written addendum. Section 8 of the General Conditions states: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications should be submitted in writing and received by the Department of Purchasing no later than three (3) working days prior to the Bid opening. Tel-Star and its officers made no inquiry of Mr. Toman to attempt to determine whether the Board expected bids responding to the ITB to include hardware for in-tank monitoring and leak detection. Under the wording of paragraph 30, however, it is doubtful that any such inquiry would have been enlightening. Nothing in that paragraph states that if an inquiry is made, anyone at the School Board will attempt to interpret the bid or provide additional information which all bidders will receive through a written addendum. It merely advises potential bidders should any interpretation of the ITB be made by the School Board, it will be communicated through a written addendum. Paragraph 30 does not describe a procedure which Tel-Star should have followed in order to receive a clarification of what the School Board wished to purchase through its ITB. Paragraph 8 also fails to state that requests for interpretations will be answered, or that failure to submit a written question precludes a bidder from relying on the structure and language of an ITB. The references to hardware for monitoring are found only in the specifications for software. The interpretation made by Tel-Star, that its equipment would have to be capable of integration with monitoring hardware which would be separately procured was reasonable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the School Board of Broward County upholding the protest of Tel-Star Systems, Inc., rejecting all bids for the computerized fuel system less trade-in, Bid No. 90-597T, ordering that the bid specifications be clarified, and that a new invitation to bid be circulated. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of September, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on the proposed findings by the School Board of Broward County: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 3. Implicit in Finding 4. 4.-5. Rejected as unnecessary. No party disputes that Tel-Star Systems, Inc., followed the appropriate protest procedures. Discussed in Findings 6 and 7. Rejected as recitation of testimony rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in Finding 9. Discussed in Finding 6. Generally adopted in Finding 10. Copies furnished: Norris J. DeVoll, President Tel-Star Systems, Inc. Post Office Box 791753 San Antonio, Texas 78279-1753 Edward J. Marko, Esquire Marko & Stephany Suite 201 Victoria Park Centre 1401 East Broward Boulevard Post Office Box 4369 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33338 John K. Featherston Vice President E. J. Ward, Inc. 6410 Southwest Boulevard Suite 224 Fort Worth, Texas 76109 Virgil L. Morgan, Superintendent Broward County School Board 1320 Southwest 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
