Findings Of Fact On January 14, 1981, Normandy Texaco received a load of product consisting of 4,900 gallons of regular, 1,500 gallons of hi-test unleaded, and 2,350 gallons of regular unleaded gasolines. Samples were taken on January 16, and by report issued on January 23 the hi-test unleaded tested at 88.4 octane. This is 2.6 octane less than the registered octane level of 91.0. A stop-sale Notice was issued on January 23. After posting a bond in the amount of $1,000.00, the hi-test gasoline was released to Normandy Texaco, and pumped into the regular unleaded tank on January 27. Mr. Obi made a claim with Texaco, Inc., whose tanker delivered the gasoline, for mis-delivery by cross pumping the product into his tanks. This claim was settled by payment of $36.16 to Obi by Texaco. These facts are not disputed by the parties.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of William J. Obi for return of the $1,000.00 bond posted in lieu of confiscation of substandard unleaded gasoline, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 2nd day of April, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William John Obi 1766 Jones Road Jacksonville, Florida 32220 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1980, Respondent converted one of its service station fuel tanks from gasoline to diesel. The tank was cleaned by Garrison Petroleum Equipment Company at Pinellas Park. Respondent paid $67.08 for this service. That same day, Respondent received 5,176 gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel from Jack Russell Oil Company, Inc., of Clearwater, a Union 76 dealer. On March 18, 1980, a standards inspector employed by Petitioner took samples from the Respondent's gasoline and diesel pumps. These samples were delivered to Petitioner's portable laboratory in Clearwater where they were analyzed. The gasoline was found to be satisfactory, but the diesel sample showed fuel contamination. The tests were conducted in accordance with the methods and standards established by Rule 5F-2.01(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the "flash point" of the diesel sample was 88 degrees F, but must be 125 degrees F or above to meet the established standard. Petitioner's inspector then returned to the Pronto Car Wash station where he issued a stop-sale order to Respondent. Subsequently, the inspector accepted Respondent's cash bond in lieu of fuel confiscation. This procedure, agreed to by both parties, allowed Respondent to pay $865.36 to the State of Florida and retain the contaminated fuel. Respondent originally paid $5,286.25 for 5,176 gallons of diesel fuel. He had sold 736 gallons of this amount at the time of the stop-sale order on March 18, 1980. Total sales of this diesel fuel amounted to $865.36, which was the amount of bond demanded by Petitioner. Respondent paid $200 to Patriot Oil, Inc., to remove the contaminated fuel, but received a $3,225 credit for this fuel. Respondent does not deny that the fuel was contaminated, but seeks to establish that he acted in good faith. Respondent had the tank cleaned prior to the diesel changeover and dealt with established tank cleaning and fuel wholesaling companies. In addition, he kept the tank locked at all times after delivery of the fuel. Respondent does not contest forfeiture of his bond, but seeks refunds of state and federal taxes paid on the unsold fuel. However, Respondent was correctly informed that refund of tax payments will require him to communicate with agencies which are not parties to this proceeding.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter its order declaring forfeiture of Respondent's $865.36 bond posted in lieu of confiscation of contaminated diesel fuel. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephenson Anderson Pronto Car Wash 220 34th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Whitton, Chief Gasoline and Oil Section Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-8584
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found. On January 15, 1980, Nick Pappas, a petroleum inspector with respondent's Division of Standards, took samples of regular and no lead gasoline from petitioner's station No. 582 located at 3130 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. An analysis of the samples was performed in the Tallahassee lab showing lead contents in the amount of 0.56 grams per gallon in the no lead gasoline sample. The standard for unleaded gasoline offered for sale in Florida is 0.05 gram of lead per gallon. A second sampling and analysis was performed approximately eleven days later because more gasoline had been dumped into the tank since the first sampling. Test results indicated essentially the same level of lead content in the unleaded gasoline. The respondent thereupon issued a "stop sale notice" on January 26, 1980, due to the high content of lead in the product. Tom Nestor, the station manager, was informed that he had several alternatives, including confiscation of the product, with the petitioner posting a bond in the amount of $1,000.00 for the release of the product to be sold as regular gasoline. Having elected this alternative, a "release notice or agreement" was entered into on January 28, 1980. Respondent received a bond in the amount of $1,000.00 from Petitioner, and this amount was deposited into the Gasoline Trust Fund. Tom Nestor admitted the truth of the above facts and admitted that he did not check the product after it was dumped into the tank. He stated that the driver of the delivery truck delivered the product to the wrong gasoline tank. According to Mr. Nestor, the tanks at his station were not properly marked at the time the delivery was made. The "premium" tank was being used to dispense "unleaded" gas, and the deliverer dumped "regular" gasoline into the "unleaded" tank.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner's request for a return of the cash bond be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Golden Lariat is a service station in the business of selling regular, regular unleaded, and unleaded premium gasoline to the public. Each type of gasoline is stored in separate underground tanks by the Golden Lariat at its place of business at the intersection of State Road 69 and Interstate 10 in Jackson County, Florida. On July 23, 1987, James Hall visited the station to do an unannounced routine inspection of the premises. When he pulled up in his vehicle, he saw a hose running from the unleaded regular tank to the unleaded premium tank. The hose was connected to a small pump which in turn was hooked to Respondent's 12 volt battery. The pump was not running at the time Mr. Hall conducted his inspection. In view of what he had witnessed, Mr. Hall decided to check the gasoline Respondent was offering for sale to the consuming public from its tanks and related gasoline pumps. Mr. Hall was particularly interested in the results the lab would obtain on the premium-unleaded gas. He took samples of all three types of gasoline offered for sale by Respondent. The samples were forwarded to the Department's laboratory in Tallahassee and were tested to determine whether they met departmental standards for each type of gasoline. The antiknock index or octane rating that the premium unleaded gasoline tested at was 88.6 or 2.4 units lower than departmental requirements. The premium unleaded should have had an octane rating of 91 or higher in order to meet departmental standards. The results strongly indicated that the unleaded premium had been mixed with a lower octane gas such as regular unleaded, thereby yielding a lower average octane rating for the premium unleaded. The regular unleaded gasoline had an octane rating of 87.3. When Mr. Hall questioned one of the owners of the Golden Lariat, Mr. Bowan, Mr. Bowan indicated he was pumping water with the pump. Mr. Hall testified that pumping water would not be unusual since the station had had problems with water infiltration into its gasoline storage tanks in the past. However, an owner would not pump water from one tank into another tank as was indicated by what Mr. Hall had seen. The evidence clearly establishes that the Golden Lariat intentionally mixed its unleaded premium with its unleaded regular gasoline. This was done in an attempt to sell an otherwise cheaper and lower grade gasoline to the consuming public compared to the gasoline the Golden Lariat represented the consumer was buying. In light of the above facts the Department elected to allow the Golden Lariat to post a $1,000 bond in lieu of confiscation of the 1,700 gallons of gas in the unleaded premium tank. The bond was posted on August 24, 1987, and the gasoline was subsequently removed. No evidence was presented by petitioner as to the amount of gasoline sold by respondent out of the unleaded premium gasoline tank. However, Respondent did not appear at the hearing after notice was mailed to him on March 22, 1988. The notice was mailed well in advance of the hearing and afforded Respondent adequate warning of the upcoming hearing. By failing to appear at the hearing after adequate notice, Respondent is deemed to have abandoned its claim to a refund; and therefore, Respondent is not entitled to a refund of any portion of the bond it posted in lieu of confiscation. Rule 22I-6.022, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact 1. On January 13, 1975, 6500 gallons of gasoline was stop-saled by the Petitioner under the authority of Section 525.06, Florida Statutes. That section gives the Petitioner the right to confiscate and sell substandard gasoline. In lieu of having its gasoline confiscated, the Respondent previously posted a $2700 bond which prevented its retail outlet from being closed while confiscation proceedings would have been held. This hearing was convened to consider whether said bond should be` confiscated. At this hearing it was announced that there were no substantial disputes of material fact and that the Respondent admitted that said gasoline had been substandard. It was agreed among the parties that the Respondent should pay unto the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services a sum in the amount of $908.54, which represented the amount of substandard gasoline which had been sold by the Respondent before the quality of its gasoline was discovered. It was not alleged that the cause of the substandard product was intentional on the part of the Respondent and it was assumed that negligence or lack of care on the part of the Respondent was the reason for this contamination.
Recommendation It is, therefore, recommended that the Petitioner in settlement of this matter retain the amount of .$908.54 from the $2700.00 bond that was posted by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of August, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Albert H. Stephens, Esquire 125 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida Attorney for Respondent Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Attorney for Petitioner
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner's Antiknock (octane) Index number of its petroleum product was below the Index number displayed on its dispensing pumps.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and the entire record compile herein, I make the following relevant factual finding. Rafael Ruiz is the owner/operator of Coral Way Mobil, an automobile gasoline station, situated at 3201 Coral Way in Coral Gables, Florida. Ruiz has operated that station in excess of ten (10) years. On or about May 13, 1987, Respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, received a customer complaint alleging that the fuel obtained from Petitioner's station made her automobile engine ping. Respondent dispatched one of its petroleum inspectors to Petitioner's station at 3201 Coral Way on May 14, and obtained a sample of Respondent's unleaded gasoline. Inspector Bill Munoz obtained the sample and an analysis of the sample revealed that the produce had an octane rating of 86.9 octane, whereas the octane rating posted on the dispenser indicated that the octane rating of the product was 89 octane. On that date, May 14, 1987, Respondent issued a "stop sale notice" for all of the unleaded product which was determined to be 213 gallons. Petitioner was advised by Inspector Munoz that the unleaded produce should be held until he received further instructions from the Respondent respecting any proposed penalty. On May 15, 1987, Petitioner was advised by John Whittier, Chief, Bureau of Petroleum Inspection, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, that the Antiknock Index number of the sampled product was 2.1 percent below the octane rating displayed on the dispenser and that an administrative fine would be levied in the amount of $200 based on the number of gallons multiplied times by the price at which the product was being sold, i.e., 213 gallons times 93.9 cents per gallon. Petitioner did not dispute Respondent's analysis of the product sample, but instead reported that he had been advised that three of the five tanks at his station were leaking and that this is the first incident that he was aware of wherein the product tested below the octane rating displayed on the dispenser.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $200 payable by Petitioner to Respondent within thirty (30) days after entry of the Respondent's Final Order entered herein. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Rafael E. Ruiz c/o Coral Way Mobil 3201 Coral Way Miami, Florida 33145 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Senior Attorney Office of General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 514, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture, and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 2399-0800
Findings Of Fact On Thursday April 19, 1979 an inspector for the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Petitioner, took a sample of gasoline that had been supplied by Pay-Less Oil Company, Inc. from a no-lead pump at the Pick- Kwick station located at 9694 Ulmerton Road, Largo, Florida. This sample was shipped to Tallahassee for analysis on Friday, April 20, 1979 and on Tuesday, April 24, 1979 Respondent was notified that the product in the tank had an excess lead content and a Stop Sale Order was placed on this tank. To release the gas and free the tank for further use Respondent posted a $1,000 bond. The tank from which the sample was taken had been filled a short time before. By the following day (one day after the sample had been taken) 442 gallons of gasoline had been sold from this tank. By the time Respondent was notified on April 24, 1979, 1,780 gallons of gasoline with the excess lead content had been sold. Following notification from Petitioner that his gas was bad Respondent, after posting the bond and moving the gas to a leaded gas pump, investigated the incident. This investigation revealed that a new driver had some 250 gallons of leaded gas left in his tank wagon after filling the tank at another station and in dumping this gas at the Umberton Road Station, by mistake, dumped the gas in the no-lead tank. Because he was afraid of being fired he failed to disclose his mistake until after the sample had been taken, the lead content verified and the drivers confronted with explaining how it could have happened. Petitioner's policy in these contaminated gasoline cases is to allow the gasoline supplier to post a bond equal to the retail price of contaminated gasoline that had been sold from the tank but not to exceed $1,000, upon which if the gas can be sold as another grade the Stop Sale will be lifted. This is the amount forfeited by the supplier rather than have the gasoline confiscated.
The Issue The issue presented here concerns the alleged violation of the Antiknock (Octane) Index, Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code. In particular, tide Respondent is accused of having gasoline in a pump labeled as "premium leaded" which carried an octane reading of 91.9 at a time when the registration for "premium leaded" on file with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services indicated a rating of 95 octane. FINDINGS OF FACT 1/ On April 14, 1981, an employee of the Petitioner went to the Sunshine- Jr. Stores, Inc.'s, Store No. 335, located at Highway 40 and Interstate 75, in Marion County, Florida, for purposes of inspecting gasoline products being dispensed from that facility. One of the pumps at the store was labelled "premium leaded" gasoline and carried an octane rating on the pump as 91.5. (This octane rating was the same as was displayed on February 26, 1981, the date of the last inspection, when a sample test revealed a rating of 94.4.) The April 14, 1981, sample of fuel taken from the pump marked premium leaded," 91.5 octane, was analyzed, and the octane rating was shown to be 91.9. On April 14, 1981, the date of the more recent test, the Antiknock Index (Octane) in the sworn registration by the Respondent on file with the Petitioner, indicated that the "premium leaded" gasoline being dispensed was 95 octane. In view of the fact that the difference between the test reading taken on April 14, 1981, from the "premium leaded' pump, and that reading registered with the Petitioner exceeded the factor (1), to the extent of being a (3.1) factor, a claim was brought against the Respondent by the Petitioner based upon the alleged violation of Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code. The action was in the form of a Stop Sale Notice. The fuel was then released to the Respondent upon the basis of a Release Notice or Agreement, by which the Petitioner received a $1,000.00 bond in the form of a cashier's check, in lieu of the confiscation of the gasoline in the "premium leaded" pump. Subsequent to the inspection of April 14, 1981, in which the gasoline was sampled in the pump marked "premium leaded," that dispenser has been relabelled to reflect "oremium unleaded" fuel and the octane rating displayed on the pump continues to be 91.5.
Recommendation The facts presented in this cause show that the customers of the Respondent were not being told that the "premium leaded" fuel that they were being sold carried a 95 octane rating, instead, the rating shown was 91.5, which was less than the 91.9 reading found in testing the fuel extracted. In addition, the Respondent eventually took steps to identify for the public the fact that the fuel in the tank was unleaded and not leaded fuel. The reason for delay is explained in comments by the Respondent's representative offered in mitigation of any penalty to be imposed. He stated that the problem with labe11ing had occurred after an attempt on the Respondent's part to switch from "premium leaded" fuel to premium unleaded" fuel had been delayed, causing a concern that the amount of "premium leaded" remaining in the tank when the transition period occurred not contaminate the "premium unleaded" fuel that was being used to replace the former "premium leaded" and mislead a customer by causing him to believe that he was receiving "premium unleaded," when he was in fact receiving a blend of premium fuel containing lead. Technically, the Respondent dispensed fuel from a pump labelled "premium leaded" which was below standards when contrasted with the sworn registration Antiknock Index (octane); however, in view of the fact that the pump indicated an octane rating lower than the test rating on April 14, 1981, it is, RECOMMENDED: That no assessment be made and that the bond amount of $1,000.00 be returned to the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1981.
Findings Of Fact On February 10, 1978, a petroleum inspector, David Potter, in carrying out his routine inspection, took a gasoline sample for analysis of unleaded gasoline from the Easy Shopper Store located on U. S. 41 South, Brooksville, Florida. This sample was tested by the state laboratory at Tallahassee, Florida, and on February 17, 1978, the Tallahassee laboratory notified Mr. Potter that the unleaded gasoline was illegal in that in contained .240 grams of lead per gallon, which is in excess of .05 grams per gallon allowable under the Respondent Department's regulation. On the basis of this information, Potter went to the Easy Shopper Store and placed a stop-sale notice on the tank that dispensed unleaded gasoline. On this same date, February 17, 1978, the Petitioner was allowed to deliver 1200 gallons of unleaded gasoline in an effort to reduce the lead content already existing in the tank. Another sample was taken from the tank after the 1200 gallons was added, and it was dispatched for analysis. On February 20, 1978, Potter was notified by Tallahassee laboratory that the lead content in subject tank contained .520 grams per gallon and was therefore illegal. On the basis of this, the Petitioner, James R. Wilkes, was allowed to post a bond in the amount of $507.91 for the value of 834 gallons that was sold by Easy Shopper Store from the last delivery before the first sample and the stop-sale. The Petitioner was then allowed to pump out the illegal unleaded gasoline and put it in a regular tank to be sold as regular gasoline. On March 13, 1973, Mr. Potter sampled the Petitioner's unleaded product at Huey's Service Station located at U. S. 19 South, Inverness, Florida. The unleaded gasoline sample was dispatched to the Tallahassee Laboratory, and the analysis indicated that the lead content was .069 grams per gallon established by the Respondent's Department's regulations. As a result of the analysis of the gasoline sample, Mr. Potter placed a stop-sale against Huey's Service station's unleaded gasoline tank, and the Respondent posted a bond of $206.70 which was the value of the gasoline sold before the stop-sale. Upon the posting of the bond the Petitioner was allowed to pump out the remaining gasoline and refill the tank with a new product. The contaminated product that was recovered by the Petitioner from Huey's Service Station was delivered on February 15, 1978, in the amount of 500 gallons, and on March 1, 1978, in the amount of 300 gallons. On or about March 3, 1978, the Petitioner discovered the cause of the gasoline contamination. He found a leak from the No. 3 compartment to the No. 4 compartment on his delivery truck, which caused the regular gasoline to mix with the unleaded gasoline. Promptly upon discovery of the leaking compartment, the Petitioner had the tank compartments repaired by the Tank Welding & Service Company, Inc., located in Tampa, Florida. There is no dispute as to the facts, and the only connection on the part of Petitioner is that although the gasoline was contaminated it was not an intentional act of the Petitioner, and he feels he should not be penalized in the amount of $507.91 and $206.70 under the circumstances of this case. Respondent contends that Section 525.06, Florida Statutes. does not allow for any discretion on the part of the Respondent in its confiscation of the remaining contaminated gasoline, other than the agreement between participating parties which allowed the Petitioner to post bonds in the amount of $507.91 and $206.70, which is the value of the gasoline Petitioner dispensed to the public at Easy Shopper Store and Huey's Service Station. Respondent contends that most similar incidents are non-intentional.
Recommendation It is recommended that upon payment by the Petitioner of $507.91 and $206.70, respectively, the bond of the Petitioner be cancelled and this case be closed DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of April 1979. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James R. Wilkes, Marketer American Petrofina Company Post Office Box 1042 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Mr. John Whitton Bureau of Petroleum Inspection Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for clean up costs associated with the Initial Remedial Action, (IRA), activities of the Abandoned Tank Restoration Program performed at his facility, and if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact At all times the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, (Department), has been the state agency in Florida responsible for the administration of the state's Abandoned Tanks Restoration Program. Petitioner is the owner and operator of Mohammad's Supermarket, Department facility No. 29-8628197, a food market and gasoline station located at 3320 Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa. Petitioner has owned and operated the facility for approximately the last ten years. The facility in question included three 5,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks and one 5,000 diesel underground storage tank. The diesel tank has not been used for the storage of diesel product for the entire time the Petitioner has owned the facility, at least ten years, but the three gasoline tanks were in use after March 1, 1990. Gasoline tanks were reinstalled at the facility and are still in use. In March, 1993, Petitioner removed all four underground storage tanks from the facility and performed initial remedial action. The field and laboratory reports of the soil and groundwater samples taken at the site at the time the tanks were removed showed both gasoline and diesel contamination. In October, 1993, the Petitioner submitted an application for reimbursement of certain costs associated with the IRA program task to the Department. Thereafter, by letter dated August 5, 1994, the Department notified Petitioner that it had completed its review of the reimbursement application and had allowed Petitioner 25% of the total amount eligible for reimbursement. This was because since the Petitioner continued to use the gasoline tanks after March 1, 1990, the Petitioner's ATRP eligibility is limited to clean up of only the diesel contamination. Petitioner's application for reimbursement covered the entire cost of the tank removal, both gasoline and diesel, and did not differentiate between the costs associated with the remediation of the gasoline contamination and those associated with the diesel contamination. The 25% allowance was for the one tank, (diesel fuel), which was eligible for ATRP clean up reimbursement. The Department subtracted from the personnel costs in the amount of $5,996.25, claimed in Section 2A of the claims form, the sum of $45.00 for costs associated with ATRP eligibility status; $497.50 claimed as a cost associated with the preparation of a Tank Closure Report, and $3,508.75 claimed as costs associated with the preparation of a preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, (CAR). These deductions were made because costs associated with ascertaining ATRP eligibility status, the preparation of a Tank Closure report, and the preparation of a preliminary CAR are all costs ineligible for reimbursement. These three ineligible costs total $4,051.25. When this sum is deducted from the amount claimed, the remainder is $1,944.50. The Department then reduced this figure by prorating it at 25% for the diesel tank and 75% for the gasoline tanks, disallowing the gasoline portion. With that, the total reimbursement for Section 2A, personnel, costs is $486.25. Petitioner claimed $1,765.00 for rental costs, (Section 2C), associated with soil removal, from which the Department deducted the sum of $1,550.00 which represents costs associated with the preparation of a preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, (CAR), which is not eligible for reimbursement. The balance of $215.00 was reduced by the 75%, ($161.27), which related to the three gasoline tanks, leaving a balance of $53.75 to be reimbursed for rental costs attributable to the diesel contamination. Petitioner also claimed $12,865.75 for miscellaneous costs associated with soil removal. This is listed under Section 2I of the application. From that figure the Department deducted the sum of $9,455.99 as costs attributable to the three gasoline tanks. In addition, $2,017.43 was disallowed because it related to the preliminary CAR, and $3,151.99 was deducted because the tank was removed after July 1, 1992. The applicable rule requires justification in the Remedial Action Plan, (RAP), for removal of tanks after that date. Such costs, when justified, can be reimbursed as a part of a RAP application. A further sum of $1,759.66 was deducted from the 2I cost reimbursement since the applicant got that much as a discount on what it paid. Together the deductions amounted to $16,385.07, and when that amount is deducted from the amount claimed, a negative balance results. Section 3 of the application deals with soil treatment. Subsection 3I pertains to such miscellaneous items as loading, transport and treatment of soil. The total amount claimed by Petitioner in this category was $13,973.44. Of that amount, $10,480.00 was deducted because it related to the three gasoline tanks. The amount allowed was $3,493.44, which represents 25% of the total claimed. Category 7 on the application form deals with tank removal and replacement. Section 7A relates to personnel costs and Petitioner claimed $4,187.00 for these costs. Of this, $3,140.25 was deducted as relating to the three gasoline tanks and amounted to 75% of the claimed cost. In addition, $1,046.75 was deducted because the diesel tank was removed after July 1, 1992 and there was no justification given for the removal at that time. This cost might be reimbursed through another program, however. In summary, all personnel costs were denied, but so much thereof as relates to the diesel tank may be reimbursed under another program. Section 7C of the application form relates to rental costs for such items as loaders, trucks and saws. The total claimed was $2,176.00. Of this amount, $1,632.00 was deducted as relating to the three gasoline tanks, and an additional $544.00 was deducted as being associated with the non-justified removal of the diesel tank after July 1, 1992. As a result, all costs claimed in this section were denied. In Section 7D, relating to mileage, a total of $12.80 was approved, and for 7G, relating to permits, a total of $28.60 was approved. In each case, the approved amount constituted 25% of the amount claimed with the 75% disallowed relating to the three gasoline tanks. Section 7I deals with miscellaneous expenses relating to tank removal and replacement. The total claimed in this section was $2,262.30. A deduction of $1,697.11 was taken as relating to the three gasoline tanks, and $565.69 was deducted because the removal after July 1, 1992 was not justified in the application. This cost may be reimbursed under a separate program, but in this instant action, the total claim under this section was denied. Petitioner asserts that the Department's allocation of 75` of the claimed costs to the ineligible gasoline tanks is unjustified and inappropriate. It claims the majority of the costs where incurred to remove the eligible diesel fuel contamination and the incidental removal of overlapping gasoline related contamination does not justify denial of the costs to address the diesel contamination. To be sure, diesel contamination was detected throughout the site and beyond the extend of the IRA excavation. The soil removed to make room for the new tanks was contaminated and could not be put back in the ground. It had to be removed. The groundwater analysis shows both gasoline and diesel contamination at the north end of the property furthest from the site. The sample taken at that point, however, contains much more gasoline contaminant than diesel. Petitioner contends that the costs denied by the Department as relating to gasoline contamination were required in order to remove the diesel contamination and Petitioner should be reimbursed beyond 25%. It contends that the diesel contamination could not have been removed without removing all four tanks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner request for additional reimbursement of $27,653.82 and affirming the award of $6,629.07. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Francisco J. Amram, P.E. Qualified Representative 9942 Currie Davis Drive, Suite H Tampa, Florida 33619 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
