The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character, in violation of Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes (1995)1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 11B-27.0011(4)(b) and (c),2 by making false statements to police officers; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for certifying and regulating law enforcement officers in the state. Respondent is certified as a law enforcement officer pursuant to certificate number 107546. On January 18, 1993, Respondent and Deputy Paolo Donisi were employed by the West Melbourne Police Department (the "Department"). The Department maintains intoxilyzers for use in prosecuting driving violations involving alcohol.3 Rule 10D-42.024(1)(b) requires the Department to assure that monthly preventative maintenance procedures are conducted on each intoxilyzer by a certified intoxilyzer operator no later than the 31st of each month. Preventive maintenance procedures involve 12 tests that require 1-1.5 hours to complete. Monthly maintenance procedures include a check of the LED display, the diagnostic system, and a chemical test. The chemical test includes a mouth alcohol test and four ethanol tests. The certified intoxilyzer operator maintains a record of the preventative maintenance procedures he or she performs ("maintenance records"). Respondent was a certified intoxilyzer operator for the Department from 1989 through December, 1992. After December, 1992, Respondent's certification as an intoxilyzer operator expired. Respondent performed intoxilyzer preventive maintenance procedures for the Department through May, 1992. In May, 1992, Respondent requested that he be relieved of his responsibility to perform the Department's monthly maintenance procedures. Respondent performed the monthly preventive maintenance procedures for the Department in June, 1992, but did not complete the maintenance records. Sgt. Charles Schrum, a certified intoxilyzer operator, performed the Department's preventative maintenance from July through November, 1992. After November 29, 1992, Sgt. Schrum performed the next preventative maintenance on January 4, 1993. Sgt. Schrum did not request Respondent to perform the preventative maintenance in June, 1992. Sgt. Schrum never expressed any reservations or concerns about his own ability to perform the monthly maintenance. Sgt. Schrum never asked Respondent to perform a backup or supplemental monthly maintenance test. Nor was Respondent authorized to perform such a test. On January 18, 1993, the State Attorney's Office requested that Deputy Donisi provide intoxilyzer maintenance records for the month of December, 1992. Deputy Donisi was not certified as an intoxilyzer operator. He could not access the records himself and requested that Respondent assist him in obtaining the records. The two men entered the room where the intoxilyzer was kept. They found that the Department had not performed the required monthly maintenance for December, 1992. Deputy Donisi asked Respondent what they should do. Respondent stated that he would perform the required maintenance and back-date the maintenance records. Respondent told Deputy Donisi that he may want to wait outside the room so that he did not become involved in the late testing. Deputy Donisi waited in the doorway of the room. Respondent completed the preventive maintenance form in less than 15 minutes. Respondent did not perform any of the preventative maintenance tests on the intoxilyzer. Respondent completed the preventive maintenance form by writing numbers on the form from a previously completed preventive maintenance form. Respondent handed the completed preventive maintenance form to Deputy Donisi. He instructed Deputy Donisi to give the form to the State Attorney's Office. The form falsely stated that Respondent had actually performed the monthly maintenance procedures and that the procedures had been performed at 2:30 p.m. on December 22, 1992. Deputy Donisi subsequently discussed with Sgt. Schrum how easy and quick it was to perform the monthly intoxilyzer maintenance. Deputy Donisi asked how he could become certified as an intoxilyzer operator. Sgt. Schrum inquired about the time it took Respondent to complete the preventive maintenance form and concluded that Respondent could not have performed the monthly maintenance test in 15 minutes or less. Deputy Donisi retrieved the maintenance records from the State Attorney's Office. Deputy Donisi recommended that the State Attorney dispose of those cases affected by the December maintenance records without going to trial. Sgt. Schrum and Deputy Donisi filed affidavits with the Department. The Department began an internal investigation on March 17, 1993. Internal investigators conducted two interviews with Respondent on April 21 and May 10, 1993. During the interviews, Respondent falsely stated that he had performed the monthly maintenance for December, 1992, and that he had conducted the tests on December 22, 1992. Each interview was recorded and transcribed. During the interviews, Respondent stated that he did not record his test in the official log because Sgt. Schrum had a week or so to complete the required maintenance. Respondent stated that he recorded his test results in his field notes. Respondent's field notes are inconsistent with the test results Respondent recorded in the monthly maintenance report he gave to Deputy Donisi. Respondent explained the inconsistency as a transposition error. Department policy requires law enforcement officers, such as Respondent, to keep a daily activity or duty log as part of their regular duties. Respondent's duty log for December 22, 1992, does not include any reference to performing monthly maintenance tests for the intoxilyzer. Records of the computer aided dispatch system used by the Department show that Respondent was at the station on December 22, 1992, from 11:18 a.m. until 2:55 p.m. From 2:55 p.m. until 3:59 p.m., Respondent was dispatched three times. Respondent was dispatched at 3:01 p.m. to an accident but was preempted after 28 seconds. He was dispatched again at 3:29 p.m. to another accident and was on the scene at 3:31 p.m. He was back in service at 3:32 p.m.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 943.13(6) and (7) and Rule 11B-27.0011(4); and suspending Respondent's certificate for one year, including the period, if any, that Respondent has been unemployed by the Department prior to the date of this Recommended Order. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Friends of Lloyd, Inc. is a Florida non-profit corporation formed for the purpose of protecting Jefferson County from harmful development. The Council of Neighborhood Associations of Tallahassee/Leon County (CONA) is a non- profit Florida corporation whose members are the neighborhood associations in Leon county; members of those associations reside in 42 Leon County neighborhoods dispersed throughout Leon County. CONA's purposes and goals include protection of the quality of life and environment in Leon County. The Thomasville Road Association's members are principally residents of Leon County. The Association was formed to promote responsible growth management in northern Leon County. None of the Petitioners are owners or "developers" of a Development of Regional Impact within the terms or scope of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Rather, Petitioners are members of non-profit organizations interested in the environment and growth management of Leon County. The Department of Community Affairs (the "Department") is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to administer and enforce Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Sections 380.031(18), and 380.032(1), Florida Statutes (1987). Texaco is a business entity that proposes to develop a "tank farm" near the community of Lloyd in Jefferson County, Florida. The Texaco tank farm is a "petroleum storage facility" as that term is used in Rule 28-24.021, F.A.C. Colonial is a business entity that proposes to develop a petroleum pipeline that will connect to the Texaco tank farm. The pipeline is designed to carry and contain petroleum products For purposes of standing, the parties have stipulated that certain environmental hazards can reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the existence of the pipeline/tank farm. No competent evidence was submitted regarding those hazards. As a result of the stipulation, Petitioners have each established injury-in-fact so that they are "adversely affected" by the challenged rule to an extent sufficient to confer upon them standing to maintain this action under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. On September 7, 1989, one of the Petitioners sent Respondent a letter suggesting that the proposed tank farm development to be built in Jefferson County should be required to undergo review as a DRI. Enclosed with the letter was a proposed circuit court complaint pursuant to Section 403.412(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioner expressed its intention of filing this circuit court action, but first provided Respondent a copy of the proposed complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.412, Florida Statutes. In two letters dated September 8 and 25, 1989, Petitioner supplied additional information to Respondent concerning the tank farm project and contended that in making its determination as to whether the development must undergo DRI review, Respondent should consider the storage capacity of both the tank farm and the pipeline. On October 9, 1989, Respondent answered Petitioner's first letter, and stated that the proposed project was not required to undergo DRI review because the total storage capacity of the tanks was only seventy-eight percent (78%) of the threshold set out in Chapter 28-24, F.A.C. On October 13, 1989, Respondent answered Petitioner's second and third letters, stating that with respect to the pipeline, it has been long standing departmental policy to interpret "storage facilities" as meaning only the tanks, not the pipeline, when determining whether petroleum storage facilities meet the DRI thresholds set out in Chapter 28-24. The proposed tank farm would have nine tanks with a total capacity of 155,964 barrels, which is, as Respondent determined in its letters, approximately seventy-eight percent (78%) of the applicable DRI threshold for "petroleum storage facilities" set forth in Chapter 28-24, F.A.C. The proposed pipeline's capacity over its approximate forty-five mile length from Bainbridge, Georgia to the tank farm is approximately 34,000 barrels. The proposed pipeline's volume flow capacity from the Florida/Georgia state line to the site of the prosed tank farm is approximately 13,500 barrels over approximately 18 miles. If the pipeline's volume capacity from Bainbridge, Georgia is added to the tank farm's volume capacity, the resulting project would be approximately ninety-five percent (95%) of the applicable DRI threshold in Chapter 28-24. If the pipeline's volume capacity from the state line is added to the tank farm's volume capacity, the resulting project would be approximately eighty-five percent (85%) of the threshold. In either instance, the project would exceed the eighty percent (80%) threshold that may require it to undergo DRI review although the project would be Presumed not to be a DRI under the Statute. The Department does not require developments outside Chapter 28-24's enumeration to undergo DRI review. The Department has never treated petroleum Pipelines as "petroleum storage facilities," or as otherwise subject to DRI review. On Several occasions, the Department has applied the petroleum storage facility guideline and standard to petroleum tank farms without determining whether a pipeline was attached to the tank farm. On one prior occasion, the Department has explicitly stated that Petroleum Pipelines are not subject to DRI review. The Petitioners contend that Department's Position that pipelines are not "petroleum storage facilities" is an invalid policy because it has not been adopted as a rule. There is no dispute the Department's Position on this issue has not been promulgated as a rule. If a facility were represented to be a Petroleum pipeline, but was actually designed as and operating as a petroleum storage facility, the Department would apply the Petroleum storage facility DRI guideline and standard to that facility.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's site located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida, is eligible to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of a gasoline service station located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. Tomas Pequeno, Sr., is the President and owner of X.O. # 1 Corporation. International Petroleum currently operates the facility located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142 pursuant to a lease agreement with X.O. #1 Corporation. The mailing address of the subject facility and of X.O. #1 Corporation is 12190 S.W. 99th Street, Miami, Florida 33186. Aurelio Rodriguez is part owner of International Petroleum and has been the manager and operator of the facility in question since 1988. Since 1988 Tomas Pequeno, Sr., has delegated authority to his son, Tomas Pequeno, Jr., to act on his behalf with regard to the business of X.O. #1 Corporation and the facility located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. At the subject facility there are six underground storage tanks which receive and dispense petroleum products. These underground storage tanks are owned by X.O. #1 Corporation and constitute part of the property leased to International Petroleum. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, there were functioning monitoring wells on the premises for the purpose of detecting leaks in the underground storage system. At the formal hearing, Tomas Pequeno, Jr., testified that on September 21, 1987, an odor of petroleum in one of the monitoring wells on the subject site was detected during a routine inspection of the premises. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., was advised by the inspector that there might be a leak in the system. On November 17, 1987, Mr. Pequeno, Jr., caused the tanks on the premises to be relined. No leaks were detected by the tests that were conducted following the relining of the tanks. Paragraph 9 of the Pretrial Stipulation filed by the parties on July 24, 1991, is as follows: 9. That the date of discovery of petroleum contamination at this facility was September 21, 1987, as indicated by Tomas Pequeno. On December 9, 1988, Petitioner submitted to Respondent an "Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application" which was signed by Tomas Pequeno, Sr., as president of X.O. #1 Corporation. This form had been completed by Tomas Pequeno, Jr., and given to his father for his execution. This form represented that contamination at the site was detected September 21, 1987, by a manual test of the monitoring wells, that the number of gallons lost was unknown, that the petroleum contamination was due to leaking storage tanks, and that the system had been repaired. The cause of the leak in the piping and the cause of the leak in the tanks were stated as being unknown. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., testified at the formal hearing that: "There was never a discharge from that site and there is not a discharge right now at this moment." Mr. Pequeno, Jr., also answered in the affirmative to the following question: "Mr. Pequeno, are you testifying there is no contamination at this facility?" 1/ Mr. Pequeno, Jr., testified further that he submitted the Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application as a precaution in the event contamination was discovered. The testimony of Mr. Pequeno, Jr., at the formal hearing contradicted the representations made on the Early Detection Incentive Program Notification Application. At all times pertinent to this proceeding both Mr. Pequeno, Jr., and Mr. Rodriguez were aware that the primary purpose of a monitoring well is to detect leaks from a petroleum storage system. At all times pertinent to this proceeding both Mr. Pequeno, Jr., and Mr. Rodriguez were aware of the existence of the monitoring wells on the subject site. The Dade County Department of Environmental Management (DERM) had asked the operator of the facility to submit monitoring reports. 2/ Mr. Rodriguez was unable to recall when DERM first requested the monitoring reports, but it is clear from his testimony that the request was made several months before the hearing. The operator knew that monitoring system checks were required and had been requested by DERM to provide reports of those monitoring system checks. The failure to conduct regular, periodic monitoring system checks creates the risk that a leak in a petroleum storage system will continue undetected. Neither the operator nor the owner monitored the underground petroleum storage system on a regular basis until July of 1991, when the operator began to monitor the system on a regular basis and began to keep a log of the results. Since September 21, 1987, Petitioner was aware that a sample of water from one of the monitoring wells (monitoring well #9) at the subject facility consistently contained the odor of petroleum. At the time of the formal hearing, monitoring well #9 still contained the odor of petroleum. On January 26, 1989, Mr. Rodriguez, as the operator of the facility, received a copy of the Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report form completed by a DERM inspector. This report placed the operator of the facility on notice that evidence of a discharge of pollutants had been discovered at the facility. On March 3, 1989, DERM sent to Petitioner by certified mail a letter which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department of Environmental Resources Management acknowledges that you have applied for a state administered cleanup under the "Early Detection Incentive Program" ... . However, a review of the Department's records reveals that the source of contamination has not been determined. Therefore, the discharge of hazardous materials from the underground storage system to the adjacent soils or waters may be continuing. * * * ... [Y]ou are required to: Immediately upon receipt of this letter, CEASE and DESIST from any further unauthorized discharges to the ground and/or groundwater of Dade County. Immediately upon receipt of this letter, hydrostatically test, and repair any leaks to all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, submit to this Department certifica- tion that all underground tanks and transmis- sion lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. ... The letter dated March 3, 1989, was received by Petitioner on March 7, 1989. By that letter, Petitioner was placed on notice that there was a risk that a discharge of hazardous materials from the underground storage system to the adjacent soils and waters was continuing. By that letter, Petitioner was also placed on notice that DERM required that it hydrostatically test all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site in order to determine if leaks existed in the tanks and lines. By that letter, Petitioner was also placed on notice that DERM required that Petitioner certify that all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. Mr. Pequeno, Jr., believed that by having the tanks relined and repaired in November 1987, Petitioner had complied with the requests made in DERM's letter of March 3, 1989. On March 13, 1989, Mr. Pequeno, Jr., called DERM to determine whether the tests that were conducted following the relining and the repair of the tanks in November 1987, satisfied the requirements contained in DERM's letter of March 3, 1989. When Mr. Pequeno, Jr., did not get a response to his inquiry, he assumed that Petitioner was in compliance. Petitioner took no steps until two years later to hydrostatically test its underground tanks and transmission lines. On March 21, 1991, Petitioner had a tank tightness test conducted at the facility. The tank system tightness test conducted on March 21, 1991, indicated that five tanks did not test tight. There was no evidence that Petitioner has filed a certification with DERM that all underground tanks and transmission lines at the subject site are tight and are not discharging contaminants to the environment. No fuel transmission line tightness test has been conducted pursuant to DERM's March 3, 1989, request. As of the date of the formal hearing, Petitioner had not performed a complete investigation to determine the source of contamination as DERM had requested. The underground storage system at the subject site were continuously used for the storage and dispensing of petroleum products from September 21, 1987, to the date of the formal hearing. At all times pertinent to this proceeding deliveries of petroleum products were made to the tanks which had been identified by Petitioner as leaking. Petitioner's failure to conduct a complete investigation to determine the source of contamination, its failure to repair the tanks which failed the tank tightness, and its continued use of these tanks, create the risk that a discharge of hazardous materials may be continuing at the present time. By letter dated February 13, 1991, Respondent denied Petitioner's eligibility to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Notification Program. This letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department of Environmental Regulation has completed its eligibility review of your Early Detection Incentive Notification Application. Based upon information given in this application and a compliance verification evaluation, the Department has determined that this site is not eligible for state-administered cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes (1986) for the following reasons: Failure to have storage tanks tightness tested. Request was made by the Department of Environ- mental Resources Management (DERM) on March 3, 1989. This shall be construed to be gross negligence in the maintenance of a storage system. According to Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statutes, sites shall not be eligible for state- administered cleanup where the owner or operator has been grossly negligent in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. By Pre-Trial Stipulation filed July 24, 1991, the parties entered into certain factual stipulations and framed the following two issues of law to be resolved: Whether X.O. #1 Corporation was grossly negligent as defined under Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statutes, for failing to immediately investigate and abate the source of a petroleum contamination by conducting a tank and line tightness test pursuant to a request by DERM (Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management). Whether X.O. #1 Corporation was grossly negligent as defined under Section 376.3071(9)(b)3, Florida Statues, for failing to make monthly monitoring system checks where such systems are in place.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation which denies the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program for its facilities located at 2188 N.W. 20th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of September, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1991.
The Issue Was Respondent lawfully terminated from his position as a waste water treatment plant operator.
Findings Of Fact 1. Respondent was employed by the Board as a waste water treatment plant operator since at least August 19, 1999. 2. On the night of August 9, 2000, Respondent was present at a dwelling located at 6079 Hilburn Road, Pensacola, Florida. This is a dwelling which is leased by Nicholas Monteleone. 3. Deputy James Newton of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, along with other officers, executed a search warrant at the dwelling located at 6079 Hilburn Road on August 9, 2000. The apparent target of the warrant was Nicholas Monteleone and the crime giving rise to the search warrant was possession and distribution of LSD, a controlled substance. 4. Deputy Newton was stationed at the rear exit of the dwelling during the execution of the warrant. When the officers executing the warrant knocked on the front door of the dwelling, Deputy Newton observed three individuals run out of the back door. 5. Deputy Newton observed the second individual reach into his pants pocket, pull out an object, and throw it on the ground. This individual was identified by Deputy Newton as being the Respondent. Deputy Newton retrieved the object, which was determined to be a small bag containing an unknown substance. The matter in the bag was field tested for controlled substances. The test revealed the presence of cocaine. 6. Charles Peterson is the assistant director of maintenance services for the Board and as such, is Respondent's supervisor. 7. Mr. Peterson learned of Respondent's arrest on August 10, 2000. Subsequent to a meeting between Mr. Peterson, Dr. Douglas Garber, who is the Board's Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources; Mark Pursell; and the Board's risk manager, it was determined that reasonable suspicion existed to believe Respondent possessed cocaine in his body. They decided to require that Respondent submit to a drug test. 8. Mr. Peterson, Dr. Garber, Mark Pursell, and the risk Manager determined that Mr. Peterson should escort Respondent to the Baptist Medical Park Occupational Health facility in Pensacola, Florida. This decision occurred while Respondent was on leave. Mr. Peterson complied with this instruction on August 22, 2000. 9. At the facility Respondent provided a urine sample and signed a statement certifying as follows: "I certify that I provided my urine specimen to the collector, that I have not adulterated it in any manner, that each specimen bottle used was sealed with a tamper evident seal in my presence and that the information provided on this form and on the label affixed to each specimen bottle is correct." 10. Although the sample collector, Cynthia Watkins, deviated from the facility procedures for urine collection, the procedures she used were sufficient to ensure that the urine collected was in fact Respondent's. Her logs indicated that Respondent was the only person from whom she collected urine on August 22, 2000. A proper chain of custody was prepared and the sample was sent to Rapid-Net, a drug testing laboratory in Miami, Florida. 11. On August 30, 2000, the laboratory determined that Respondent's urine contained cocaine metabolite. On August 31, 2000, a medical review officer certified this finding. 12. Respondent had signed a document, on August 19, 1999, certifying that he had received the Board's notice to employees regarding the drug-free workplace policy. Respondent had further certified that he understood that compliance with the policy was a condition of employment. At the hearing Respondent asserted that he was fully aware of this policy prior to the incidents giving rise to this hearing. 13. The Board's "NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES REGARDING DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE PROGRAM" states as follows: "It is a violation of the policy of the School Board for any employee to manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess or use drugs whether in the workplace or away from the workplace including non-working hours." 14, The policy further recites that the Board may require an employee to submit to a drug test upon reasonable suspicion. 15. Respondent took voluntary drug tests and results were determined on August 31, 2000, September 6, 2000, and December 31, 2000. All of these drug tests were negative for controlled substances. 16. The Respondent possessed drugs within his body on August 22, 2000, as demonstrated by a urinalysis based on reasonable suspicion. This possession violated the Board's drug-free workplace policy. It is the consistent practice of the Board to terminate employees who are found to be involved with illegal drugs.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 For Respondent: Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered terminating Respondent, Constantine V. Varazo, from his employment by the Escambia County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 1e(G day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Y L. HOOPKR ) Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this /“@*day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 Mary F. Aspros, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jim May, Superintendent Escambia County School Board Post Office Box 1470 Pensacola, Florida 32597-1470 Honorable Charlie Crist Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether CJC Properties, Ltd. (CJC), is eligible for state restoration funding assistance under the Petroleum Contamination Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program for one or more discharges of gasoline at DEP Facility No. 378943938 (“the facility”).
Findings Of Fact The Facility CJC is a Florida Limited Partnership. It is the current owner of property located at 5691 U.S. Highway 27 North, in Tallahassee. Prior to CJC’s acquisition of the property, the property was owned by Carolyn J. Chapman, John W. Chapman, Jane Chapman Latina, and Carolyn Chapman Landrum (“the Chapmans”). The property was leased to various entities and operated as a gas station. The tanks and dispensers remained in service until November, 1995. The last operator of the facility was Lake Jackson 76, Inc. There were five underground petroleum storage tanks at the facility. Before 1991, one of the tanks at the facility was used for regular, leaded, gasoline. When leaded gasoline was phased out, the tank was used for unleaded gasoline. Site Assessments and Sampling Data On November 30, 1995, the Chapmans employed Petroleum Contractors, Inc., to remove the five storage tanks. During the tank removal, Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists, Inc. (“EGS”) performed an assessment to determine whether the facility was contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. The Underground Storage Tank Removal Report prepared by EGS noted that all five tanks appeared to be intact. Soils in the tank pit wall and bottom were not discolored. No significant contamination was observed directly below the tanks. Soil from the tank pit was stockpiled on the site. EGS observed no significant signs of contamination of this soil. The soil stockpile was also screened with a Flame Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). No organic vapors were detected. An OVA detects any organic vapor, but is used as a screening tool to find petroleum vapors. Department rules require that an OVA reading be performed both unfiltered and filtered. The filtered reading screens out everything but methane and is “subtracted” from the unfiltered reading to determine the presence of petroleum vapors. Twenty-four soil samples were taken from various depths at nine locations in the tank pit. These samples were tested using an OVA. Nine of the soil samples, taken from four locations, had corrected OVA readings indicative of petroleum contamination. EGS concluded that “soil contamination detected in the tank pit is likely the result of a leak in the piping” between the dispensers and the tanks. Soil samples were also taken from three borings in the vicinity of the dispenser island and OVA-tested. In boring D-2, organic vapors were detected from the surface to a depth of approximately seven feet. The OVA readings from D-2 declined with depth. EGS reported that “some contamination was detected beneath a dispenser; however, it does not ‘appear’ to significantly extend below six (6) feet.” EGS did not report both filtered and unfiltered OVA readings for the soil samples taken from the dispenser area, as it had done for soil samples taken from the tank pit and the stockpile. For the dispenser area soil samples, EGS reported a single OVA reading for each sample, without indicating whether the reading was “corrected” after filtering. For this reason, the Department contends that these data are unreliable. CJC points out that EGS stated in the text of its report that the soil samples were filtered. CJC also argues that, because the filtered OVA readings for soil samples taken from the tank pit area were not different from their unfiltered readings, the OVA readings for the soil samples from the dispenser area would not have changed after filtering. The preponderance of the evidence is that the contamination in the dispenser area was petroleum. Based on EGS’ findings during the tank removal in November 1995, Petroleum Contractors, Inc., filed a Discharge Reporting Form on December 1, 1995, stating that there had been a discharge of unleaded gasoline at the facility. In January 1996, the Chapmans applied to participate in FPLRIP based on the discharge reported on December 1, 1995. By order dated January 26, 1996, the Department determined that the reported discharge was eligible for state-funded remediation assistance under FPLRIP. In 1997, another consultant, Levine Fricke Recon (LFR) conducted a site assessment at the facility and submitted its Interim Site Assessment Report to the Department. As part of its own soil sampling at the site, LFR collected a “direct push” soil boring in the dispenser island area, near the place where EGS had reported organic vapors. The boring data showed no petroleum vapors until the interval 16-to-20 feet below ground surface. LFR also collected and analyzed groundwater samples from the site. It reported that a sample taken from beneath the former diesel dispenser contained lead. Because lead occurs naturally in soils, its presence in a water sample does not confirm that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. In 1998, LFR conducted a second assessment of the facility site. It installed and sampled four shallow monitoring wells, designated MW-1S through MW-4S, and three deep monitoring wells, designated MW-2D through MW-4D. Groundwater samples from MW-3S and MW-3D were analyzed for lead, ethylene dibromide (EDB), and 1,2-Dichloroethane. All three substances are usually detected in a groundwater sample contaminated with leaded gasoline. On August 28, 1998, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment II to the Department, which shows lead and EDB were found in a sample taken from MW-3S, but not 1,2-Dichloroethane. LFR did not conclude or express a suspicion in either of its two assessment reports that leaded gasoline had been discharged at the facility. The deadline for submitting a Discharge Reporting Form or written report of contamination was December 31, 1998. A site assessment report received by the Department before January 1, 1999, which contained evidence of a petroleum discharge, was accepted by the Department as a “report of contamination.” The petroleum discharge information received by the Department before January 1, 1999, consisted of the Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, the FPLRIP claim, the Interim Site Assessment Report, and the Interim Site Assessment Report II. Post Deadline Site Assessment Data After the statutory deadline, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment III. This report includes January 1999 groundwater sampling data from four monitoring wells which show the presence of low levels of EDB. When EDB is found in a groundwater sample, it is a common practice to re-sample the well from which the sample was taken. Of the wells that showed the presence of EDB, only MW- 10D was re-sampled, after January 1, 1999. There was no EDB present in the groundwater when MS-10D was re-sampled. In June 2000, as part of the remediation of the contamination at the facility, an area of contaminated soil was removed to a depth of 14 feet. The area of soil removed included the former dispenser area. In January 2003, the Department notified CJC that the $300,000 FPLRIP funding cap would soon be reached. In March 2003, CJC signed a Funding Cap Transition Agreement, acknowledging that “At no time will the DEP be obligated to pay for cleanup of this discharge any amount that exceeds the funding cap.” CJC further acknowledged that it “is responsible for completing the remediation of the discharge in accordance with Chapter 62-770, F.A.C.” In 2005, CJC re-sampled one of the monitoring wells for lead and EDB. Neither substance was present. The site is not currently being actively remediated. Periodic groundwater sampling indicates that concentrations of contaminants are dropping. No further active remediation has been proposed. The cost to complete remediation is a matter of speculation. The record evidence is insufficient to make a finding about future remediation costs. Eligibility Determinations On September 2, 2003, CJC submitted a PCPP Affidavit to the Department, seeking state funding under PCPP. On October 30, 2003, the Department denied CJC eligibility for PCPP funding on the basis that the contamination was covered under FPLRIP and, therefore, was excluded from funding under PCPP. The Department has never granted PCPP eligibility for the cleanup of a discharge previously being funded under FPLRIP. Apparently, in 2005, CJC hired Glenn R. MacGraw, an expert in the assessment of petroleum-contaminated sites, to review the EGS and LFR assessments. In a letter to CJC’s attorney dated August 19, 2005, MacGraw expressed the opinion that “at least 2 discharges have occurred on this site, one in the former tank area, and one in the former dispenser area.” MacGraw’s opinion that there had been a discharge of leaded gasoline was based on the detection of EDB and lead in the groundwater. He also thought the presence of methyl tetra-butyl ether (MTBE) in groundwater samples taken from the tank pit area showed a tank leak of unleaded gasoline. CJC requested FPLRIP funding for the other alleged discharges at the facility. On March 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter formally stating its disagreement that there were other reported discharges and denying eligibility for FPLRIP funding. On March 30, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Ineligibility under PCPP. The amended order added a second ground for denial, that the reported discharge was not shown to have occurred before January 1, 1995. Whether There Was A Second Discharge Eligible for Funding CJC argues that the presence of lead and EDB in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3S shows that there was a discharge of leaded gasoline at the facility. However, LFR reported that the well screen for MW-3S had probably been damaged during installation, because a significant amount of filter sand was observed in the purge water. The Department contends, therefore, that the source of the lead detected in the groundwater sample from MW-3S could have been (naturally) in the soil that entered the well. The Department also discounts the detection of EDB in the groundwater sample because EDB is an ingredient of some pesticides and can show up in groundwater when pesticide has been applied to the overlying land. Furthermore, EDB was not detected in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3D, a deeper well located near MW-3S. MacGraw does not think the EDB came from a pesticide application, because the EDB contamination at the site occurs in an elongated “plume,” in the former dispenser area, whereas one would expect to see EDB distributed evenly over the site if the source was a pesticide application. MacGraw mapped the plume of EDB by using data obtained after the discharge reporting deadline. Michael J. Bland, a Department employee and expert in geology and petroleum site assessment, believes the data from the facility are insufficient to confirm the presence of EDB or its distribution. LFR reported in its Interim Site Assessment that no significant soil contamination was found near the dispenser island. Groundwater samples from MW-3D, a deep monitoring well near MW-S3, showed no EDB, lead, or 1,2-dichlorothane. Bland opined that, if the detection of EDB in the shallow well was reliable, EDB would have been detected in the deep well, too, because EDB is a “sinker.” EDB is persistent in groundwater, so when it is not detected when a well is re-sampled, reasonable doubt arises about the detection in the first sample. Of all the wells sampled in 1999 that showed EDB, only MW-10D was re-sampled in 2003. When the well was re-sampled, there was no EDB. CJC contends that EDB was not found in the re-sampling of MW-10D because of the soil removal in 2000, but the Department contends that the soil removal would not have affected the presence of EDB in MW-10D, because the well is significantly down-gradient of the area of soil removal. It was undisputed that the presence of 1,2- dichoroethane in MW-S3 was not reliably determined. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the contamination reported in the dispenser area is the source of contamination which persists at the facility. The reported contamination only affected the top six feet of soil. The soil removal to a depth of 14 feet in that area in 2000 should have fully remediated the reported contamination. The data upon which CJC relies in claiming eligibility under FPLRIP or PCPP for a second discharge are, at best, incomplete and ambiguous. CJC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. CJC also failed to prove that the reported contamination in the dispenser is associated with a discharge that still exists to be remediated with state assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that CJC is ineligible to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program for the discharge reported to the Department on December 1, 1995, and that CJC has not demonstrated eligibility to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program for any other discharges. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Big "S" Oil Company, operates a gasoline station at 4002 North Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida. The station sells gasoline products to the general public. On or about December 9, 1981, a petroleum inspector of Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, took a gasoline sample for analysis of regular gasoline from the Respondent's storage tanks during the course of a routine inspection. This sample was tested in Petitioner's mobile laboratory and was found to have an elevated End Point of 494 degrees Fahrenheit 1/ Department regulations provide that the End Point for leaded gasoline offered for sale in Florida shall not exceed 446 degrees Fahrenheit. A second test conducted in a private laboratory confirmed the initial testing results. On the basis of this information, a stop sale notice on the tank that dispensed the gasoline was issued on December 9, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Petitioner determined that prior to the issuance of the notice, approximately 1,900 gallons of contaminated gasoline had been sold to the public. A bond of $1,000 was paid by Respondent to Petitioner in lieu of confiscation of the remaining leaded or regular gasoline in the storage tanks (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The hearing was requested to contest the forfeiture of the bond.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be required to forfeit the $1,000 bond posted with Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Petitioner's site is eligible for state- administered cleanup under Respondent's Early Detection Incentive Program.
Findings Of Fact Nana's Petroleum, Inc., owns and operates a service station at 251 East Main Street, Pahokee, Florida. The facility is located within two or three blocks of Lake Okeechobee, which is a Class I drinking water supply. On October 19, 1988, Petitioner applied pursuant to the Early Detection Incentive Program for state assistance due to a suspected discharge of gasoline at the facility. The application indicated that a monitoring well had approximately one-quarter inch of product in it, but that the source of that contamination, though suspected to be from a leak in a line, was unknown. As of the date of the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner still had not performed an investigation to determine the source of the contamination. Failure to investigate the source of a discharge results in the possibility of the discharge continuing. A continual discharge results in the loss of more product from the system, increases the threat to drinking water supplies, and creates other environmental concerns. A discharge of fuel has the ability to harm people or property due to the resulting contamination of groundwater. Once the contamination has reached the groundwater, it can migrate to adjacent surface waters or potable water wells. The failure to stop a discharge, therefore, results in a greater threat to groundwater and to drinking water due to the greater amounts of product in the groundwater. Inventory is taken by inserting a calibrated pole into the storage tank and measuring the level of product in the tank. Due to the angle of the pole, fluctuations in volume due to heating and cooling of the product, and other factors, accuracy is only possible to 1/8 of an inch. One-eighth of an inch equates to 17 gallons in a 10,000-gallon tank. Inventory is accurate only for determining whether large or medium leaks are occurring and is not accurate for the detection of small leaks. Reviewing inventory records is not an acceptable method of investigating the source of a discharge. Only in the last few months has Petitioner been making monthly monitoring system checks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's Early Detection Incentive Notification Application. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of February, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with. the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-5912 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 9 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-8, 10-17, 20, and 21 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 18 and 19 have been rejected as unnecessary for determination. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Thornton 315 Southeast 8th Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 33472 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's site, Circle K General, Inc., Store #2375, located at U.S. #1 and Pennekamp Park, is eligible for restoration pursuant to the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program (FPLIRP) set forth in Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Circle K General, Inc., Store #2375 owns and operates a petroleum storage site located at U.S. #1 and John Pennekamp Park, Key Largo, Florida. The DER Facility ID Number for the site is 448624728. Circle K operates at the site three 10,000 gallon fiberglass tanks which contain gasoline. The tanks currently operated at the site were installed in 1987. Four monitoring wells for the site were installed at the same time as the Circle K tanks were installed in 1987. Monthly monitoring well reports were completed each month beginning on December 12, 1987, and ending on July 30, 1989, by Professional Services Industries on behalf of Circle K. Steve Belin is the individual at Circle K responsible for reviewing or supervising the review of the monitoring well reports for Store #2375. The November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring well report indicated the presence of petroleum odor in all four of the monitoring wells at the site. After receipt of the November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. After receipt of the November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K undertook steps to investigate the source or cause of the petroleum odor. The monthly monitoring report dated March 20, 1989, indicates the presence of a petroleum odor in one of the four monitoring wells. After receipt of the March 20, 1989, monitoring well report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. After receipt of the March 20, 1989, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K undertook steps to investigate the source or cause of the petroleum odor. The July 30, 1989, monthly monitoring well report indicates the presence of petroleum product in all four monitoring wells. The July 30, 1989, monthly monitoring well report was not received by Steve Belin until September, 1989. On July 31 and August 1, 1989, Combustion Engineering installed a set of four new compliance monitoring wells. Circle K contracted for the installation of new monitoring wells because the four existing monitoring wells were only 15 feet deep and were dry. By letter dated August 17, 1989, Combustion Engineering notified Steve Belin that a petroleum odor was detected in the soils retrieved while drilling one of the new monitoring wells and that a petroleum odor was also detected in one of the old monitoring wells. On August 21, 1989, Steve Belin filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department for Circle K Store #2375. After the discharge notification was filed on August 21, 1989, none of the tanks were taken out of service. After the filing of the August 21, 1989 Discharge Notification Form, Circle K inspected the inventory records for the site beginning in October, 1988, through September, 1989, and detected no significant loss of petroleum product. On October 6, 1989, an inspection of Circle K Store #2375 was conducted by Leslie Rueth of the South District Office of the Department of Environmental Regulation. At the time of the October 6, 1989, DER inspection, free product was noted in two of the four new monitoring wells, and all of the wells contained a petroleum odor. On October 19, 1989, the South District Office of Department of Environmental Regulation notified Steve Belin of the October 6, 1989, inspection results and requested (1) that a tank and line tightness test be performed to determine if there was a leak in the petroleum storage system and (2), if free product was present, that an initial remedial action (IRA) be implemented as defined in F.A.C. Rule 17-70.006. An Initial Remedial Action consists of the removal of free product through the bailing or pumping of free product off the water table and may include the removal of excessively contaminated soil. On October 30, 1989, Steve Belin submitted tank tightness test results for the three 10,000 gallon tanks located at Circle K Store #2375. All three tanks passed the tank and line tests. By letter of October 17, 1989, Steve Belin requested ATEC Associates, Inc. to have all of the monitoring wells of Store #2375 bailed of free product once a week for one month. The free product present at Store #2375 resulted from old tanks and piping installed by Circle K's predecessor, U Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17 presence of a layer or odor, or the positive report of a laboratory that the monitoring well sample contains pollutant, shall be treated as a discharge. A properly installed monitoring well should have at least one foot of water in the well in order to be able to take a water sample from the well. If a foot or less of water is present in a monitoring well, a vapor monitoring device should be used to test the wells. From December, 1987, until July, 1989, the Circle K monitoring wells were usually dry. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17 wells must be constructed such that the bottom of the casing is at least five feet below the water level at the time of drilling but no deeper than 25 feet. The monitoring wells constructed at Circle K Store #2375 did not meet the construction specifications set forth in Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-61.050(b)(6) requires discharges to be reported to the Department within three working days of discovery. DER was not notified of a discharge subsequent to either the November 26, 1988, or the March 20, 1989, monitoring well reports, nor did Circle K contain the leak.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for site restoration pursuant to the Florida Petroleum Liability and Insurance Program (FPLIRP). DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2065 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the Respondent's proposed findings of fact (the Petitioner not having filed any): 1.-27. Accepted and incorporated. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate to facts found. 30.-33. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 34.-38. Accepted and incorporated. 39. Cumulative. 40.-41. Accepted and incorporated. 42. Accepted but subordinate to facts found and unnecessary. 43.-44. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Conclusion of law. Accepted but unnecessary. 47.-48. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 49. Cumulative and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Belin The Circle K Corporation Regional Environmental Director 500 South Faulkenburg Road Tampa, FL 33619 Janet E. Bowman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable to Respondent for costs it incurred in removing a drum containing gasoline and water that was located on Petitioner’s property.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner owned a house (Petitioner's property or site), located at 217 20th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The back of Petitioner's property was adjacent to an alley. Next door to Petitioner's property was another house owned by Petitioner. Between September 1995 and December 1995, Petitioner's property was unoccupied and undergoing extensive renovations. Petitioner hired Craig Quirk as the carpenter for the renovation project. Mr. Quirk worked on the project on a full-time basis during the entire period Petitioner's property was being renovated. One morning in late September when Mr. Quirk arrived at Petitioner's property to work, he discovered a wrought-iron stand and a 55-gallon drum in the backyard of Petitioner's property. Prior to that day, the drum had not been on Petitioner's property. Because the stand and drum were in the area where Mr. Quirk usually parked the vehicle, he and a helper dragged the drum and rack to the edge of the yard. The drum had a cap on it and was not leaking. Later that morning, when Petitioner came to the site, Mr. Quirk reported his discovery of the 55-gallon drum on Petitioner's property. At the time renovations were being made to Petitioner's property, Petitioner rented a dumpster which was used as a receptacle for construction debris. Mr. Quirk knew that the house owned by Petitioner and next door to Petitioner's property was on the market. Therefore, during the renovation of Petitioner's property, Mr. Quirk always utilized the dumpster in order to keep Petitioner's property clean. One or two days after learning about and observing the 55-gallon drum on the site, Petitioner telephoned a friend, Anthony Regan, to seek advice about removing the drum from Petitioner's property. At the time of Petitioner's call, Mr. Regan had two-and-a-half years of experience working as a truck driver for a hazardous waste facility. Although Mr. Regan is not a hazardous waste expert, because of his work experience, he is familiar with certain aspects related to hazardous waste and its disposal. Furthermore, Mr. Regan knows individuals within his company who can provide specific information regarding hazardous waste. At Petitioner's request, Mr. Regan went to the site to examine the 55-gallon drum and to assess what should be done with it. After being shown the drum by Petitioner, Mr. Regan temporarily removed the cap from the drum and inserted a stick in it. Based on his observation and assessment, Mr. Regan determined that the 55-gallon drum contained petroleum and water. When Mr. Regan observed the drum, it was not leaking and did not appear to be an environmental hazard. While at the site, Mr. Regan informed Petitioner that county amnesty program might provide assistance in removing the 55-gallon drum from Petitioner's property. Also, Mr. Regan told Petitioner that he would get an estimate from someone at the hazardous waste company for which Mr. Regan worked regarding the cost of removing the drum. Mr. Regan indicated that, after he checked on the county amnesty program and the estimate, he would report his findings to Petitioner. Between eight and ten days after going to Petitioner's property, Mr. Regan shared the results of his inquiries with Petitioner. First, Mr. Regan learned that the county amnesty program would not remove the drum because it did not belong to Petitioner, but had been dumped on Petitioner's property. Second, Mr. Regan reported to Petitioner that the hazardous waste company for which Regan worked could remove the 55-gallon drum from Petitioner's property for $350.00. Mr. Regan offered to look into the matter further, but prior to doing so went out-of-town for four or five weeks. Upon Mr. Regan’s return, Petitioner immediately contacted him to determine if additional information had been obtained concerning removal of the drum. While Mr. Regan had obtained no more additional information regarding removal of the drum, he suggested that Petitioner call the Sheriff’s Office. It was then that Petitioner made calls to several local agencies regarding the removal of the drum. Petitioner first called the police department, which in turn referred him to the county dump. The county dump could not assist Petitioner, but referred him to the Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner then called the Sheriff’s Office and spoke to Bob Aukenbaur, who told Petitioner that it was Petitioner's responsibility to have the drum removed. Because Petitioner was dissatisfied with Mr. Aukenbaur’s response, Petitioner called and attempted to speak to the Sheriff. Although unsuccessful in this regard, Petitioner did speak to an executive assistant, who promised to check into the matter. Approximately two days later, the executive assistant telephoned Petitioner and indicated that he was unable to find an amnesty program that would provide assistance to Petitioner. However, the executive assistant provided Petitioner with the telephone number of the Department of Environmental Protection and suggested that Petitioner call that agency for help. Petitioner then contacted the Department's regional office in Tampa, where he spoke to Jane Donnelly. The focus of Petitioner’s inquiry was whether it was his responsibility to remove the drum that had been “illegally dumped” on his property. After asking Petitioner several questions, Ms. Donnelly promised to get back with him. Several days after Petitioner contacted Department, Leslie Webster, an employee of the Department's regional office in Tampa and a Department trainee, visited the site to investigate the matter. When Ms. Webster arrived at the site, Petitioner and Paul Roney, the project design supervisor, were there. Petitioner showed Ms. Webster where the drum was located and explained to her that the drum had been dumped on his property. After Ms. Webster's on-site investigation, a form entitled "Initial Report of Emergency Response Incident" (Initial Report) was completed and forwarded to the Department's Tallahassee office. Petitioner was not provided with the Initial Report. The form bears the signature of Leslie Webster and is dated November 29, 1995. According to the Initial Report, the date of the incident was two weeks prior and the date the incident was reported to the Bureau of Energy Response was November 27, 1995. These dates do not accurately reflect the date of the incident and the date the incident was first reported. The Initial Report indicates that the incident was reported by Petitioner; that the “type of incident” is identified as “dumping“; that the incident description is noted as “abandoned drum(s)"; that the responsible party is “unknown”, and that the material in the drum is identified as from one to fifty- five gallons of gasoline and water. Also, the Initial Report has a “narrative” section. Nothing in this section indicates that Ms. Webster or anyone in the Department informed Petitioner that he was responsible for having the drum removed from the site. In situations such as this, the Department typically explains to the property owner what his responsibilities are with respect to a nonleaking drum. The property owner is then given a specified amount of time in which to remove the drum. The amount of time given to the property owner to remove the drum from his property varies, depending on the particular circumstances. The Department communicates this information to property owners in person, by telephone, or in writing. However, the Department's preferred manner of providing notice to property owners is to “talk face to face with people and let them know the circumstances they’re under.” When a Department investigator or other staff member visits a site and talks to the property owner about his responsibilities for removing pollutants or hazardous substances, no written notice is provided to the property owner reiterating the substance of the conversation. When Ms. Webster went to investigate the matter related to the drum on Petitioner’s property, there is no evidence that she told the Petitioner that he was responsible for removing the drum and that he was required to do so within a specified time. Likewise, there is no evidence that Ms. Webster told Petitioner that if he failed to remove the drum, the Department would have it removed and assess Petitioner the cost of such removal. Several days after Ms. Webster went to the site to investigate the matter, the drum remained on Petitioner’s property. Concerned that the drum had not been removed, Petitioner again called the Department's regional office in Tampa and spoke to Ms. Donnelly. During this conversation, Petitioner acknowledged that Ms. Webster had been to his property, but he expressed concern that the drum had not yet been removed. Ms. Donnelly then told Petitioner not to worry about it and stated, “I think we’re going to take care of it.” On or about November 29, 1995, the Department of Environmental Protection had the drum removed at a cost of $1,783. By letter dated August 5, 1996, more than eight months after the drum was removed from Petitioner’s property, the Department billed Petitioner $1,873.64 for costs and expenses incurred in removing the drum from Petitioner's property. This amount included administrative and investigative costs of $90.64 and $1,783 for the removal of the drum. Pursuant to the letter, Petitioner was given thirty days from the date of the letter in which to remit the amount due. Petitioner refused to pay the $1,873.64, and on the date of the hearing, the amount remained outstanding. The Department has incurred litigation costs of $2,090.93.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department dismissing the claim against Petitioner, James J. Wooten, and finding that he is not liable to the Department for $3,964.57 in costs. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: James J. Wooten, pro se 145 25th Street, South CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1997. St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Kathelyn M. Jacques, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Office of the General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Petitioner's service station site known as Siesta Key Exxon Village, at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, is eligible for state administered cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Weeks Oil Company, Inc., owns and operates a service station, Siesta Key Exxon, located at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. On December 21, 1988, Petitioner applied, pursuant to the Early Detection Incentive Program (EDI), for state assistance due to a suspected discharge of gasoline at the facility. The application indicated that a manual test of a monitoring well, conducted on December 16, 1988, detected contamination. After free product was discovered in the monitoring wells in December, 1988, subsequent monitoring well reports for the months of January - May, 1989, indicated the presence of free petroleum product. The January, 1989, monitoring report indicates six inches of free product; the February, 1989, monitoring report indicates twelve inches of free product; the March, 1989, report failed to indicate the presence of free product; and both the April and May, 1989, monitoring reports indicate the presence of sixteen inches of free product. Purity Well Company, the monitoring well contractor retained by Weeks Oil, bailed free product out of the monitoring wells once a month during the period January through May, 1989. On May 23, 1989, Richard Steele of the Sarasota County Pollution Control Division conducted an Early Detection Incentive Program Inspection at Siesta Key Exxon, 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, DER Facility #588521170. During the inspection, Mr. Steele examined the monitoring well reports for Siesta Key Exxon for the months of January through May, 1989. Evidence of contamination was indicated by each month's monitoring well report, and the amount of free product indicated by the monitoring well reports increased over time. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele observed a minimum of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three. As part of the Early Detection Incentive Program inspection, Mr. Steele requested inventory records for Siesta Key Exxon, which records were provided on June 7, 1989. Inventory records for January, February, March and April, 1989, indicated a total shortage of 441 gallons of gasoline. Mr. Steele's inspection report of May 22, 1989, indicates that no initial remedial action other than the bailing of monitoring wells occurred subsequent to the December, 1988, EDI application. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele was neither provided with any evidence of repairs to the petroleum storage system made for the purpose of acting upon monitoring well reports, nor did he visually observe any evidence of repair. By letter dated May 24, 1989, from Richard Steele to Weeks Oil Company, Mr. Weeks was informed of the presence of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three and specifically requested a tank tightness test. The May 24, 1987, letter requested Mr. Weeks to send the results of the tank tightness test to the Sarasota County Pollution Control Office or the Department of Environmental Regulation district office. Mr. Weeks discussed with Steele the fact that the contaminants appeared to come from tanks no longer in service, which tanks were scheduled for relining. Mr. Weeks did not consider it practicable to test tanks scheduled for relining and thought Steele agreed that he could delay the testing until the tanks were refitted. Mr. Steele never made such a commitment, and the tank test was never conducted. On October 20, 1989, the tanks at Siesta Key Exxon were excavated and fiberglass coated. The August 22, 1989 ineligibility determination cites as the reason for denial, the failure of Weeks Oil to conduct a tank tightness test as requested by Sarasota County or otherwise immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, The ineligibility letter concludes that failure to immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, shall be construed as gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system, which precludes participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program. A tank tightness test should be performed by the owner or operator of a petroleum storage system where there are any discrepancies in inventory records or monthly monitoring system checks. Rule 17-61.050(4)(c) 3., Florida Administrative Code, requires upon discovery of an inventory discrepancy that investigation of the system "shall not stop until the source of the discrepancy has been found, the tank has been tested, repaired, or replaced, or the entire procedure has been completed." Pursuant to Rule 17-61.050(6), Florida Administrative Code, the owner or operator of a storage system shall test the entire storage system whenever the Department has ordered that such a test is necessary to protect the lands, ground waters, or surface waters of the state. Specifically, the Department may order a tank test where a discharge detection device or monitoring well indicates that pollutant has been or is being discharged. Given the inventory record discrepancy and the amount of free product continually observed in the monitoring wells at Siesta Key Exxon, it was appropriate for Mr. Steele to request a tank tightness test. The bailing of a contaminated monitoring well is not an appropriate method of determining the source of petroleum contamination. The failure of Weeks Oil Company, Inc., to timely conduct a tank test as requested by Sarasota County, acting on behalf of the Department, creates a risk of or the potential for greater damage to the environment because a continual unchecked discharge leads to the release of more petroleum product into the environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet D. Bowman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2400 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 James B. Weeks, Jr. Weeks Oil Company Post Office Box 100 Sarasota, FL 34230 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
