The Issue The issue for determination is whether Angie's Quality Cleaners, d/b/a Tony's Cleaners, DEP Facility No. 139500552 is eligible for state-administered cleanup under the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program pursuant to Section 376.3078, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Angie's Quality Cleaners, d/b/a Tony's Cleaners, DEP Facility No. 139500552 (Respondent Cleaners) operates as a drycleaning facility at 1197 West 35th Street, Hialeah, Florida. Colombina Holding Company, N.V., Inc. (Intervenor) is the owner of the real property located at 1197 West 35th Street, Hialeah, Florida. Respondent Cleaners made application with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) for state-administered cleanup under the Drycleaning Solvent Contamination Cleanup Program (Drycleaning Cleanup Program). By letter dated October 25, 1996, Respondent DEP notified Respondent Cleaners, among other things, that its application was approved and that it was eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Cleanup Program. Prior to Respondent Cleaner's approval to participate in the Drycleaning Cleanup Program, Metropolitan Dade County (Petitioner) issued to Respondent Cleaners a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action (NOV) for contamination at the drycleaning facility. The NOV required Respondent Cleaners to assess and remediate the contamination and to pump out and clean a soakage pit. Having received the NOV, Respondent Cleaners obtained the services of an environmental consultant to assess the contamination on the site and to propose a plan of remediation. Respondent Cleaners maintained contact with Petitioner and advised Petitioner of the progress. Petitioner required Respondent Cleaners to submit a Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) and IW Process Change Plans for the facility. Respondent Cleaners complied with the requirement. By letter dated November 21, 1996, counsel for Respondent Cleaners made inquiry to Respondent DEP as to whether pump out or cleaning of contamination in a soakage pit was included within the Drycleaning Cleanup Program. On November 20, 1996, Petitioner's Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) conducted a routine inspection and a receptor survey of Respondent Cleaners. No violations were observed by the inspector. Respondent Cleaners has not remediated the contamination at the facility site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order finding Angie's Quality Cleaners, d/b/a Tony's Cleaners, DEP Facility No. 139500552 eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Contamination Cleanup Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1998.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the above-named Respondents applied pesticide chemicals to a pre-construction application site for pre-treatment for termites and wood-destroying organisms, which was contrary to label instructions, by not applying the specific amount (volume) and concentration designated by the label in alleged violation of Section 482.051(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 5E-14.106(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents are certified operators and applicators employed by pest control companies in the Panama City area. Stephen W. Daniels holds License No. 43026. Earl G. Pettijohn holds License No. 92006. Mr. Pettijohn is an applicator at Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., and Mr. Daniels is a certified operator for Environmental Security of Panama City. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure, operations, and practices of pest control operators, applicators, and licensed pest control businesses in the State of Florida. The pre-construction termite treatment in question occurred on October 16, 2001. The treatment or job site was at the new construction of the Northwest Florida Community Hospital at 1360 Brickyard Road, in Chipley, Florida. Two trucks were used on the October 16, 2001, job: one was a truck marked "Killingsworth Environmental," driven by Mr. Pettijohn; the other truck was marked "Atlas" and was driven by Mr. Daniels. The chemical used in the pre-treatment for termites at the job site was a soil pesticide known as "Cyren-TC." The label for Cyren-TC indicates a requirement of 0.50 percent to 1.0 percent concentration, with an aqueous emulsion used for pre-treatment for termites. The laboratory report and analysis of the pesticide sample taken from Mr. Daniels' truck tank, at the hose end, was found to contain 0.38 percent chlorphyrifos (active ingredient), which represents a 24 percent deficiency from the minimal required rate of 0.50 percent per the Cyren-TC label. The Respondents, Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn, were called by the contractor of the job in Chipley on the evening of October 15, 2001, with his request that they perform a pre-treatment termite treatment the next morning for a monolithic slab described as being of an area of 12,000 square feet. The Respondents, therefore, filled their trucks, mixing the pesticide, based upon that measurement on the evening of October 15, 2001. They arrived at the job site the following morning at 7:15 a.m. They did not use the two trucks to treat any other sites between the filling of the trucks and their arrival on the job site in question on the morning of October 16, 2001. Upon inspecting the job site, Mr. Daniels measured the slab and determined the actual square footage to be approximately 9,300 square feet. That figure is not disputed. The truck Mr. Daniels was driving had a tank and spray capacity of 700 gallons. The 700 gallons was represented by a 500-gallon tank and by an additional 200-gallon tank. The truck was completely filled when it arrived on the job site. The truck Mr. Pettijohn was driving contained a capacity of 600 gallons in two tanks of 300 gallons each. It was completely full when it arrived at the job site. Mr. Owens, the Department's field inspector who testified in support of the Administrative Complaint, did not inspect either truck to determine or estimate their total capacities. He was not aware of how much either truck employed on the job in question actually held in total volume. He also did not observe how much chemical was left over still in the tanks in each truck when the first treatment application effort had concluded, on or shortly before 9:00 a.m., on October 16, 2001. The Respondents applied an aqueous emulsion of Cyren-TC to the 9,300 square foot monolithic slab by spraying a volume from each truck. Mr. Daniels' truck pumped five to seven gallons per minute, and Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped seven to nine gallons per minute. Both trucks were fitted with gravity-fed pumps. The pumps on each truck would pump a higher volume, closer to seven gallons per minute or nine gallons per minute respectively, as to Mr. Daniels' and Mr. Pettijohn's trucks when the tanks were more nearly full because of the higher pressure feeding the gravity-fed pump. The volume per minute pumping rate would gradually decrease as the level in the tank became lower. Both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn started pumping at essentially the same time or within one minute of each other. Mr. Daniels testified that he and Mr. Pettijohn applied the pesticide for 73 minutes measured by the digital clock on his radio. Mr. Daniels determined the amount of time necessary to pump the pesticide on the site from both trucks by taking an average of the output volume of the pumps on each truck. He began timing the application when he pulled the hose to the far end of the slab and turned it on. When the treatment application was complete, Mr. Daniels had approximately 50 gallons of chemical remaining in the 500-gallon tank on his truck. He had not yet used any of the 200-gallon tank on his truck. Mr. Pettijohn had approximately 55 to 60 gallons of chemical left from the two tanks totaling 600 gallons on his truck when he started the application. The testimony as to the amount of chemicals left in the tanks after this first application is unrefuted and is accepted. Mr. Daniels established that, although when the tanks were approaching empty (when the calibration was made by Mr. Owens), at which time Mr. Daniels' tank would only pump at a rate of five gallons per minute, that the pumps would pump at a higher rate, approaching seven gallons per minute as to Mr. Daniels' truck and nine gallons per minute as to Mr. Pettijohn's truck, when the tanks were full. Consequently, if one takes an average of the output volume for each truck of slightly over six gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck and slightly over seven gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck, one arrives at an application volume for Mr. Daniels' truck of 438 to 450 gallons of chemical applied. One also arrives at a volume applied for Mr. Pettijohn's truck of approximately 547 gallons if one uses an average application rate of 7.5 gallons per minute. Since the testimony as to the remaining product in the tanks is unrefuted because Mr. Owens did not observe the amount of product left in the tanks on the two trucks, and if one uses an average application rate of 7.5 gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck and six gallons per minute or slightly more for Mr. Daniels' truck, one arrives at a figure of between 50 and 60 gallons of product remaining in Mr. Pettijohn's truck, and approximately 50 to 60 gallons remaining in Mr. Daniels' truck if one uses Mr. Daniels' factor of 73 minutes to multiply times that average application per minute rate. Thus, the approximate amount of product remaining in the tanks of both trucks being unrefuted, it is thus established that Mr. Daniels' figure of 73 minutes as the application time is most nearly correct. While the pre-treatment application was being performed, Investigator Owens was parked at a nearby parking area observing the application procedure and timing it with a stopwatch. Mr. Owens determined that Mr. Daniels had pumped for 45 minutes and 30 seconds and Mr. Pettijohn pumped for 45 minutes. Using Mr. Owens' figure of seven gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck and five gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck (the lowest pumping rates) for the entire pumping operation (which for the reasons found above is not accurate), Mr. Owens came up with an approximate application volume for Mr. Daniels' truck of 228 gallons and approximately 315 gallons for Mr. Pettijohn's truck. This figure is not realistic when one considers the amount of product left in the tanks of the two trucks at the end of the first application operation. There certainly was not an excess of 250 gallons of product left in the 500-gallon tank of Mr. Daniels' truck and 285 gallons of product left in the tank of Mr. Pettijohn's truck at the end of that first pumping operation on or before 9:00 a.m., on October 16, 2001. It cannot be determined from the testimony and evidence why there is such a great disparity in the time period Mr. Owens postulated for the treatment operation he observed, versus the most accurate 73-minute period established from Mr. Daniels' testimony. After confirming that the Respondents had completed their application effort, Mr. Owens conducted an inspection with regard to both trucks, obtaining information, and filling out necessary paperwork. Mr. Owens then took a sample from Mr. Daniels' truck only when he completed the calibrations of the trucks. That calibration, as found above, noted an application rate of five gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck at a point when there was only approximately 50 gallons of product left in the 500-gallon tank to feed the gravity-supplied pump on Mr. Daniels' truck. Mr. Owens took a sample of the pesticide from the hose-end of the pump on Mr. Daniels' truck and placed it in a 32-ounce jar covered with a lid. The jar was not pre-labeled with a sample number. Mr. Owens taped the lid of the jar, and initialed it, so that the tape seal could not be broken without disturbing his initials and put the jar in the trunk of his car in an ice chest with ice. As a matter of practice, Mr. Owens does not offer a duplicate sample to an operator unless he asked for one and he did not ask Mr. Daniels to sign the tape on the jar. Mr. Owens did not take a chemical sample from Mr. Pettijohn's truck and there is no evidence as to what concentration of pesticide was in the tank on Mr. Pettijohn's truck. In the two pesticide applications on the morning of October 16, 2001, Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped a total of 600 gallons of product on the site. It is not possible to make a factual determination as to the chemical concentration of the volume of product in Mr. Pettijohn's truck. The water used to mix the chemical for application at the job site was obtained from the water plant in Panama City. It had been, at some point, chemically treated with chlorine. There is no evidence as to any chlorine content in the water, which is chemically treated with chlorine, at least in the potable water stage and possibly in the waste water treatment stage. The sample was collected, as noted above, on October 16, 2001, but was not delivered to the laboratory to be analyzed as to the pesticide concentration until October 26, 2001. There is no indication on the laboratory report of the actual date of processing by the lab, but the final report was issued on November 14, 2001. There was at least a lapse of ten days from collection to analyzation by the laboratory. Testimony was presented concerning a study done by a Clemson University scientist which indicated that chlorine in municipal tap water was enough to degrade pesticides like that involved in this case by a factor of 32 percent in three hours. It has not been established that that occurred here, although logically some chlorine content may have been in the water that was used to mix the chemical. It is also well-known in the pesticide industry that an appropriate reaction and safeguard for a chemical spill of Chlorpyrofos is the application of bleach or chlorine to neutralize or degrade the chemical. It is not clear whether the deficient concentration pumped from the Daniels'-operated truck resulted from only chlorine content in the mix water or by the lapse of time caused by mixing the chemical the evening before it was to be used the following morning (in the interest of arriving at the job site early that morning per the instructions of the contractor). It may have been simply operator error in the proportions of water to chemical which were mixed when the tanks were filled or a combination of these three factors. Moreover, it cannot be determined precisely what concentration was actually deposited on the surface at the job site because Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped approximately 600 gallons of total volume on the site in two applications and Mr. Daniels' truck pumped approximately 438 to 450 gallons in the first application and approximately 220 gallons in the second application, and the concentration of the chemicals pumped from Mr. Pettijohn's truck is unknown in so far as the evidential record in the case is concerned. Thus, it cannot be definitively determined what concentration of chemical actually was deposited on the surface of the job site. In any event, after Mr. Owens had calibrated the pump on Mr. Daniels' truck and taken his sample, both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn rolled up their hoses, got in their trucks, and left the job site. After they left the job site, Mr. Owens notified the builder that the pre-treatment had been inadequate in terms of the volume of pesticide applied and so the builder requested that Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn return and apply more chemical. They arrived at the job site some 15 to 20 minutes after they had initially left and began spraying the additional chemical in the second application that morning. When Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn returned to the site, Mr. Daniels told Mr. Owens that he disagreed with Mr. Owens' volume calculations. In any event, Mr. Owens directed both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn to pump additional volume onto the site. Thus, at Mr. Owens' direction, they pumped the volumes remaining in their trucks onto the site (with the exception of approximately 30 gallons, which was finally remaining in Mr. Daniels' truck), for a total of approximately 1,280 to 1,300 gallons being pumped on the job site. Thus, in light of the above calculations and findings, the site actually received approximately 280 to 300 gallons more than the prescribed labeled rate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondent Stephen W. Daniels in the amount of $350.00, and it is further recommended that the Administrative Complaint as to Respondents Earl G. Pettijohn and Environmental Security of Panama City be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 3rd day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert O. Beasley, Esquire Litvak & Beasley, LLP 220 West Garden Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 13503 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3503 Jack W. Crooks, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Room 520, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Mail Stop 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether Robert A. Pace has violated Section 482.161(5) and (6), Florida Statutes, and Rules 10D-55.04(4) and 10D-55.35(2), Florida Administrative Code, and therefore should be denied a pest control identification card and the opportunity to take the examination to become a certified pest control operator.
Findings Of Fact Testimony and evidence was introduced by DHRS from various witnesses regarding Pace's activities as the holder in the past of a pest control identification card with both Suncoast and Bay Area Control Companies, and as an emergency certified pest control operator for Suncoast Pest Control Company. From that testimony only the following factual allegations were proven. All other allegations against Robert A. Pace as stated in the letters of denial clearly were not proven by substantial and competent evidence. On or about March 21, 1974, Pace was a holder of a pest control identification card as an employee of Suncoast Pest Control. At this time Pace was also a partner in this company. On that date, Robert Pace offered to conduct a free termite inspection of the residence of Melvin Redlin. The inspection was conducted and live termites were shown to Mrs. Redlin by Pace with the explanation that they had been found in the area of the tub trap or plumbing service access in the bathroom of the Redlin's home. On the same day, Pace solicited a termite treatment contract with the Redlins. Treatment for subterranean termites was begun by employees of Suncoast Pest Control, but while it was in progress, one of Redlin's neighbors stated that he had never seen termites. One of the Suncoast employees stated that he had some live termites in the truck and showed Redlin and others a log infested with live termites. At that point Redlin became irate, suspecting that the individual who had inspected his home had shown his wife termites taken from the truck and not from the plumbing access space. Redlin ordered all work by Suncoast to cease. At the time Redlin directed them to stop, chemicals were being introduced into the ground around the slab foundation of the Redlin home. Before leaving, a Suncoast employee poured a jar of chemicals into the tub trap. Three weeks later, in response to a complaint by the Redlins, William Bargren, who is qualified as an expert witness in entomology and who is employed as an investigator with DHRS, inspected the Redlin's residence. Bargren found no evidence of prior termite infestation. On or about July 1, 1974, a contract for the treatment of subterranean termites was solicited from John A. Johnson by Suncoast Pest Control Company. This contract bore the signature of Robert A. Pace as a representative of Suncoast; however, Johnson was unable to identify Robert A. Pace at the hearing and described the man with whom he had dealt as being taller and heavier than Pace. Pursuant to this contract, the Johnson's house was treated for subterranean termites and certain structural repairs were made in the attic by employees of Suncoast. William Bargren, identified above, testified that upon his subsequent inspection of the home, in his opinion, it was only partially treated. Bargren found evidence of previous subterranean termite infestation but concluded that the inner walls of the foundation of the house had not been treated. For the treatment of the subterranean termites and repairs to the house Johnson wrote checks payable to Suncoast in the amount of One Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars and Forty-Five Cents ($1,822.45) and One Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Five Dollars ($1,155.00). Pace was not an emergency pest control operator until July 10, 1974. The deposition of Mrs. Annie Symons, admitted pursuant to stipulation of the parties, indicates that in October, 1974, an employee of Suncoast Pest Control known only as "Joe" to Mrs. Symons inspected her residence for termites. Mrs. Symons had recently purchased the house and obtained a termite inspection and certificate prior to purchase certifying there was no evidence of termite infestation. The Suncoast employee inspected Symons' residence and advised her that her house had an active termite infestation showing her a piece of wood with live termites. Mrs. Symons called Southern Labs, the pest control firm which had conducted the original inspection. Michael Spokes, an employee of Southern Labs, reinspected Symons' residence and found no evidence of termite infestation. Concerned at the conflicting reports, Mrs. Symons contacted the Division of Health and her house was inspected by David Jones, an etomologist qualified and accepted as an expert witness at hearing and employed by the Division of Health as an inspector. Jones inspected Symons' house and could find no evidence of termite infestation. In October, 1974, Pace was the emergency certified pest control operator for Suncoast. There was no evidence introduced that Suncoast was advised of the Symons matter and that Pace was on notice of the conduct of his employee. On or about July 23, 1975, Robert A. Pace, Philip Nicholson and Rick Draper went to the residence of Irene Shipley, 301 East Lake Fern, Lutz, Florida. Mrs. Shipley was offered a free inspection by Mr. Pace which she accepted. While Pace talked with her outside of her house, Rick Draper inspected her house and a mobile home belonging to her son located to the rear of her property. According to Mrs. Shipley, Draper went under both structures and produced insects which he identified as termites. Mrs. Shipley and Pace stood outside during the inspection and discussed and negotiated a price for treating both structures. Pace stated that he would spray under both homes, the woodwork and the attic for One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) for each home. Eventually a price of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) was negotiated to treat by spraying both homes. The area under and around both homes was sprayed, and an attempt to spray the attic was made but was thwarted by an inner roof. After completing the Work, Mrs. Shipley gave a check to Pace payable to him in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00). Pace gave her a contract for pest control treatment. Subsequently, Mrs. Shipley became concerned and asked the assistance of the Division of Health. William Bargren, identified above, conducted an inspection of both houses. Under Mrs. Shipley's home he could find no evidence of subterranean termite infestation but did discover dry rot, and under the mobile home, Bargren found evidence of a prior subterranean termite infestation. Bargren stated that in his opinion the treatment given both homes was insufficient because there was no evidence trenching around the house supports or boring in the pilings which he discovered under the mobile home. In October, 1975, Frank Logan contacted Robert A. Pace, while Pace was treating a home for subterranean termite infestation. Logan stated that he was impressed with the work being done and asked for Pace's card. Logan stated that he knew that his home was infested with termites and later called Pace and asked for Pace to inspect his home. Pace conducted an inspection of Logan's home and advised Logan that he had a subterranean termite infestation. Pace testified that he also saw no evidence of what he took to be an inactive dry wood termite infestation in Logan's attic. Subterranean termite treatment was made of Logan's home; however, when Logan's problems were unabated for a year, he contacted the Division of Health. William Bargren, identified above, inspected Logan's residence and found evidence of subterranean termite infestation, a substandard treatment for subterranean termites, and an active dry wood termite infestation in Logan's attic. The subterranean termite treatment was substandard in that the voids in the concrete block foundation had not been drilled and treated. Bargren also testified that the signs of dry wood termites which Pace described as having seen would not indicate an inactive infestation but an active infestation. Bargren did not offer any opinion as to whether the dry wood infestation was over a year old. Bargren stated that dry wood termites are not effected by control treatment for subterranean termites because they do not require contact with the ground. Pace and his colleague, Nicholson, who had assisted Pace on the job, each thought that the other had treated the foundation. ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pace is charged with the violation of Section 482.161 (5) and (6) and Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code, arising out of his conduct in providing pest control services to Melvin Redlin. Because Mr. Redlin demanded that the employees of Suncoast cease treatment of his home prior to their having completed the job, a charge of negligently treating the Redlin residence cannot be sustained. Because live termites were shown to Mrs. Redlin, strong evidence did exist of an active infestation if the termites were from the bathroom plumbing service access. If the termites were introduced by Pace into the Redlin home, clearly Pace would be guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 482.161(5) Florida Statutes. Based on Bargren's testimony that no evidence was found in the bath plumbing service access area of a prior subterranean termite infestation, together with the fact that treatment of that area was done rapidly without opportunity to substantially clean the area, the Hearing Officer finds that such a false representation was in fact made by Pace. Evidence introduced by DHRS clearly indicated that Pace was not an emergency certified pest control operator until July 10, 1974. The treatment of the Johnson residence occurred on July 1, 1974. Rule 10D-55.35, Florida Administrative Code, applies only to certified pest control operators; therefore, Pace cannot be held accountable under that rule for his own activities or the activities of Suncoast employees with regard to the termite control treatment of the residence of John A. Johnson. Bargren found evidence of a prior subterranean termite infestation at the Johnson residence; therefore, there could have been no misrepresentation of an infestation. Bargren did find that the foundation of the Johnson residence was not properly drilled and protected with pesticide. Therefore, Pace did not use methods suitable for the treatment of subterranean termites in violation of Section 482.161(5), Florida Statutes. Although the certified pest control operator for Suncoast on July 1, 1974, would have been responsible for Pace's failure, Pace himself cannot avoid responsibility for his failure to properly treat the Johnson residence by virtue of the provisions of Rule 10D-55.35, supra. There is clear evidence that an employee of Suncoast other than Pace misrepresented the facts of an infestation to Annie G. Symons contrary to Section 482.161(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code, in October, 1974. At that time Pace was an emergency certified pest control operator. There was no evidence introduced that Pace was contacted by Symons or by DHRS regarding misrepresentation to Annie G. Symons by an employee of Suncoast. Pace cannot be vicariously liable under the provisions of Section 482.161(5) or Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code, where knowledge of a misrepresentation is required. Although responsible for the pest control treatments as a certified operator, Pace cannot be considered liable for the misrepresentations of a Suncoast employee when Pace was not aware a contract had been made. Pace clearly violated Rule 10D-55.05(2), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to give Mrs. Shipley a copy of the contract before the work was done and payments made. It was clear that the nature of the treatment Pace was to perform was clearly explained to Mrs. Shipley prior to the commencement of the work. Bargren found prior evidence of subterranean termite infestation under one of the homes, and damage to the wood under the other as a result of dry rot. In any event, the inspection of the premises was by Rick Draper, and although Pace sold Mrs. Shipley the contract, it is clear that Mrs. Shipley knew that Pace did not conduct the inspection of the houses because she was talking with Pace outside while watching Draper inspect the house. Bargren's testimony was that the treatment was substandard, and he also testified that the prior infestation of subterranean termites under the mobile home had been stopped. The testimony indicated that bargaining went on between Pace and Shipley regarding the treatment that would be applied and the price for the treatment. Treatment in accordance with this agreement was performed or a good faith effort made. Considering the circumstances there is not substantial and competent evidence of a violation of Section 482.161(5) or (6), Florida Statutes, or of Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code. Pace is charged with not providing adequate subterranean termite treatment and not treating an active dry wood termite infestation at the residence of Frank Logan. Bargren's inspection revealed evidence of a prior subterranean termite infestation which had been controlled and an active dry wood termite infestation in Logan's attic. Bargren's inspection took place over one year from the date of Pace's initial inspection and treatment. Pace stated that he saw evidence of what he took to be an inactive dry wood infestation when he initially inspected Logan's residence. No evidence was obtained concerning whether the infestation of dry wood termites was over one year old. Testimony was received that dry wood termites will not be affected by subterranean termite control measures; and, further, dry wood termites may fly into a building and start a colony if preventive measures have not been taken. Logan testified that the initial treatment by Pace did not control the termites because he kept seeing them. Pace was negligent in treating for subterranean termites in that he failed to assure that the foundation voids were treated contrary to Section 482.161(6), Florida Statutes. The length of time between Bargren's inspection and Pace's treatment together with the manner of infestation of dry wood termites creates sufficient doubt regarding the allegation of Pace's failure to properly identify the dry wood infestation to find the allegations not proven. The individual allegations proven above are not significant when taken singularly; however, the evidence taken as a whole presents a picture of high pressure salesmanship by Pace and those with whom he was associated, together with poor workmanship in application of treatments. In one instance the evidence is clear that Pace made a misrepresentation of a termite infestation where evidence was lacking. He did solicit contracts on occasions in which another employee made the inspections and he lacked specific knowledge of the conditions found. As part owner of Suncoast, Pace had the responsibility to oversee his employees which he failed to do. Pace should have taken greater care to insure his employees had properly inspected homes, and were dealing honestly and forthrightly with customers. As an employee, Pace did not treat homes in a workman like manner in accordance with accepted practices. The course of conduct engaged in by Suncoast and Pace's failure to control his employees cannot be overlooked.
Recommendation Considering the findings of fact generally and the conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services deny Pace's application to take the examination to become a certified pest control operator on the basis that Pace has not actively worked in pest control for some months, that substantial and competent evidence exist which indicates that Pace's expertise in pest control is lacking, and that his prior conduct raises questions of his business reputation and his ability to supervise employees. The Hearing Officer would further reand that Lewis S. Hall's request for an identification card for Pace be disapproved on the specific basis that Pace misrepresented an infestation to Mrs. Marian Redlin, which reflects adversely on Pace's business reputation and good character. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Wollett, Esquire Nixon E. Farnell, Esquire 521 Oak Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 Barbara Dell McPherson, Esquire Post Office Box 2417 F Jacksonville, Florida 32231
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.
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Florida law regulating the manner in which pesticide chemicals are to be utilized and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the duty to prosecute administrative complaints against operators, applicators, and licensed pest control businesses pursuant to Section 482.011, et seq., Florida Statutes. Respondent is at all relevant times a licensed operator and applicator, subject to Petitioner's regulatory jurisdiction. On or about February 21, 2004, Respondent was performing preconstruction termite treatment services at a job site at 7750 Okeechobee Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida, utilizing a pesticide known as Dursban TC. Label instructions for Dursban TC provide that a 0.5 percent concentration be utilized for preconstruction treatment for the prevention of subterranean termites. Baker admits he did not follow the label instruction; rather, the concentration of pesticide was less than one tenth of the 0.5 percent concentration provided for on the label instructions as regards the pre-construction soil treatment for subterranean termites. Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6) states in pertinent part: Pesticides used for treatment for the prevention of subterranean termites for new construction shall be applied at the specific amounts, concentration, and treatment areas designated by the label. Baker defends his failure to follow the label instructions on the grounds that such instructions call for a higher concentration of pesticide than is actually necessary to accomplish an effective termite treatment. Even if, as Baker contends, the label instructions suggest a higher concentration of pesticide than is actually necessary to accomplish an effective termite treatment, that is not grounds for him, or Petitioner, to disregard the Rule mandating that label instructions be followed. Pesticide usage is highly regulated due to the potential of such chemicals to impact public health, safety and welfare. § 482.011, et seq., Fla. Stat. Changes in the regulations must come from the legislature, and cannot be made on an ad hoc basis by individual operators.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing a fine of $400.00 against Respondent for violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106 (6). DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 5th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard J. Hochman, Esquire Law Offices of Howard J. Hochman 7695 Southwest 104th Street Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33156 David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda D Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue is whether a permit should be issued to Respondent, Lake Environmental Resources, LLC (LER), authorizing the construction and operation of a construction and demolition debris disposal facility in unincorporated Lake County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties LER, whose mailing address is Post Office Box 2872, Windermere, Florida, is a limited liability company authorized to do business in the State. LER's principals are Linwood Brannon and Richard Bazinet, both of whom have had at least ten years' experience in the operation and construction of demolition debris disposal facilities. The Department is an agency of the State that is authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2005)2, to evaluate applications and issue permits for construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling facilities. The permit in issue here was processed, reviewed, and approved for issuance by the Department's Central District Office in Orlando, Florida. Petitioners Miriam Resto and Jim Taylor did not appear at the final hearing or otherwise present any evidence as to where they resided or how their substantial interests would be determined by the issuance of a permit. Petitioner Timothy L. McCormack resides at 11321 Valley View Road, Howey-in-the-Hills, Florida. Mr. McCormack's home is "a little over a mile" north-northwest of the proposed facility. His concern with the proposed facility is generally over contamination from the landfill, and not contamination occurring at the property. Petitioner John A. Mapp, Jr., resides at 21307 County Road 561, Clermont, Florida, which is approximately one-half mile from the proposed facility. Mr. Mapp's home is upgradient from the facility and consequently he has no "individual concerns" as to how the proposed facility would affect his home. He is concerned, however, with potential groundwater contamination from the facility. Petitioners David and Lisa Cimini did not testify at the final hearing or otherwise present any evidence as to where they resided or how their substantial interests would be determined by this proceeding. According to the Partial Pre- Hearing Stipulation filed by Respondents, however, they reside at 21423 County Road 455, Clermont, Florida, which is near the proposed facility. Background On July 26, 2005, LER filed an application with the Department for a permit authorizing it to construct and operate a facility for construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling in an unincorporated area of the County. A lengthy definition of construction and demolition debris is found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(27), which reads as follows: discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of a structure, including such debris from construction of structures at a site remote from the construction or demolition project site. The term includes rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter which normally results from land clearing or land development operations for a construction project; clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and metal scraps from a construction project; effective January 1, 1997, except as provided in Section 403.707(12)(j), F.S., unpainted, non-treated wood scraps from the facilities manufacturing materials used for construction of structures or their components and unpainted, non-treated wood pallets provided the wood scraps and pallets are separated from other solid waste where generated and the generator of such wood scraps or pallets implements reasonable practices of the generating industry to minimize the commingling of wood scraps or pallets with other solid waste; and de minimus amounts of other non-hazardous wastes that are generated at construction and demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best management practices of the construction and demolition industries. Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other types of solid waste will cause it to be classified as other than construction and demolition debris. The facility will be located on a 44.33-acre site one- half mile west of State Road 561, off County Road 455, in an unincorporated part of Lake County. Based on this description, it appears that the facility will be located east of Howey-in- the Hills, west of Tavares, and approximately half-way between Astatula and where State Road 561 crosses the Florida Turnpike to the southwest. The site presently has an active sand mine (borrow pit) that covers an area of approximately twenty-two acres. The facility intends to recycle metal, concrete, asphalt, wood chips, and PVC (polyvinyl chloride) and will serve areas in Lake County and nearby communities. In response to LER's initial application, the Central District Office submitted a Request for Additional Information dated August 22, 2005, asking for additional well and site information, operations plan details, and financial assurance clarification. On October 20, 200, LER submitted its Response to Request for Additional Information. While the application was being processed, Mr. Cimini advised the Department that two additional wells surrounded the property, including one that had recently been installed on property owned by Mr. Gary Sprauer that lies within five hundred feet of the limits of waste disposal of the facility. On November 18, 2005, the Department submitted an additional Request for Additional Information, in which it brought up the fact that Mr. Cimini had advised the Department of the existence of these wells. On November 28, 2005, LER submitted its Response to Request for Additional Information, in which it stated that only one well, which belonged to a Mr. Sprauer, had been drilled within five hundred feet of the proposed facility; that there was no electricity to the well; that the nearest residence was approximately seven hundred feet away; and that the well was not approved or being used as a potable water well. Therefore, LER asserted that the Department should not treat the Sprauer well as a potable water well subject to the five-hundred-foot setback from potable water wells for landfills established in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.300(2)(b). LER's submittal provided additional information on the geology and operational aspects of its proposed facility. On December 6, 2005, LER submitted additional information in response to items discussed at a meeting held between the Department and LER on December 2, 2005. The submittal contained further information about potential drinking water wells around the proposed facility, and LER reasserted that the Sprauer well should not be treated by the Department as a potable drinking water well. Based upon its own investigation, however, the Department concluded that the Sprauer well "was a bona fide drinking water well for domestic supply." On January 6, 2006, Mr. Bradner, a Department solid and hazardous waste program manager who was assisting in the processing and review of the application, wrote a memorandum to the file confirming that the Department considered the application complete as of December 6, 2005. On February 10, 2006, LER provided additional hydrologic and operational information in order to try to convince the Department not to apply the five-hundred-foot setback to the Sprauer well. This information showed that the Sprauer well would be upgradient from the proposed facility. The Department allows waste to be placed within five hundred feet of an existing potable water well based upon site-specific conditions as demonstrated by an applicant. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.300(2)(b). On March 27, 2006, in response to the Department's comments on its submittal of this additional information, LER submitted further hydrologic and modeling information to support its contention that groundwater flowed away from the well belonging to Mr. Sprauer. On April 27, 2006, LER provided the Department with further refinement of its groundwater model to demonstrate that there would be no impact to the Sprauer well. On May 4, 2006, the Central District Office issued notice of its intent to approve the application and issue a permit to LER. Of significance here is the fact that the Department did not require LER to install a liner and leachate collection system. This was consistent with the terms of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.730(4)(a), which does not require a liner unless the Department demonstrates that the facility is "reasonably expected to result in violations of ground water standards and criteria." On May 17, 2006, Petitioners filed their Petition challenging the issuance of the permit. As grounds, Petitioners alleged that there is a substantial risk that the surrounding groundwater will be contaminated by leachates from the facility, and that the Department should accordingly require LER to (a) install a liner and associated leachate recovery system in their facility and (b) post a surety bond necessary to maintain the system in good working order and to fund a toxic cleanup should it become necessary. The Proposed Project Among other things, the application included an engineering report, an operations plan, a geotechnical evaluation of the stability of the site, a hydrological investigation, a stormwater management plan, a reclamation and closure plan, and financial assurance documentation. These elements are required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 701.730, which governs this type of application. The proposed facility is to be located on a 44.33-acre parcel in a rural area that has been the site of a sand and clay borrow pit. The pit has been mined for the last thirty years, has been permitted by Lake County as a mine since 1986, and before being used as a mine was the site of an orange grove. As explained by Mr. Golden, the proposed facility's project manager, the site is "high and dry" and "a good site for a landfill." The water table is at least one hundred feet below the ground surface. There is a confining layer of clays and sandy clays approximately one hundred fifty feet below the ground surface at the site of the proposed facility, and the layer has very low hydrologic conductivity, that is, 1,000 to 10,000 times less permeable than the surface sands. The Floridan Aquifer is approximately two hundred feet below ground surface. The horizontal velocity of the groundwater at the site is approximately two feet per year, and the vertical velocity about 1.3 inches per year. As a result, the groundwater monitoring system at the proposed facility would detect any contamination that might be emitted. In addition, approximately twenty feet of dry soils underlying the landfill would absorb whatever comes out of the landfill to begin with, just like a septic tank. The confining layer would be approximately one hundred to one hundred twenty feet below the landfill base and would be anywhere from twenty to forty feet deep. As a result, it is highly unlikely that any potential contaminants that hypothetically might be emitted from the facility would ever reach the Floridan Aquifer. The Proposed Permit On May 4, 2006, the Central District Office issued its intent to issue the permit. Attached to that intent to issue was a Draft Permit. The Draft Permit restricts disposal of solid waste exclusively to construction and demolition debris (as defined in the rule cited above) and requires LER to comply with an Operations Plan developed by LER. Among other things, the Operations Plan provides for operators trained in spotting and turning away unacceptable waste and other screening procedures to ensure nondisposal of unacceptable waste. The Operations Plan exceeds minimum Department rule requirements. The Operations Plan prohibits disposal of CCA (chromated copper arsenate) pressure treated wood and has a special screening procedure to ensure that these wood products do not come into the facility. The Draft Permit requires LER to install a system of groundwater monitoring wells that surround the property at both shallow and deep depths to detect any potential contaminants coming off of the site. Thus, LER will be required to monitor the surficial aquifer, the Floridan Aquifer, and adjacent wells to ensure protection of area groundwater. The wells will act as a form of early warning indicator so that corrective action can be undertaken in the event the wells show a potential threat to drinking water beyond the property boundary of the proposed facility. The Draft Permit requires two wells to be installed immediately to the north of the Sprauer well, even though it is upgradient from the site. To be conservative and prudent, the Department is requiring that the number of wells that LER must install be substantially greater than the minimum required under Department rules. Based upon the hydrologic evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, Mr. Golden concluded that LER has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will not discharge pollutants in contravention of Department standards or rules. Mr. Bradner agreed with this conclusion and likewise concluded that LER had provided reasonable assurance that the proposed facility will comply with all of the required statutes and rules. The weight of the evidence supports these conclusions. The weight of the evidence also supports Mr. Golden's conclusion that based upon the hydrologic evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, the proposed facility will not be a source of contamination for wells within or greater than five hundred feet of the proposed facility. In the same vein, Mr. Bradner determined that the Sprauer well was the only existing potable drinking water well within five hundred feet. Both experts concluded that the Sprauer well would not be adversely impacted based upon the Department's review of the groundwater modeling data provided to it by LER. Finally, the weight of the evidence supports Mr. Golden's conclusion that, based upon the hydrologic evaluation and the proposed permit conditions, the Department should not require LER to install a landfill liner at the proposed facility. Mr. Bradner agreed with that conclusion. Petitioners' Objections In their Petition, Petitioners have raised the following objections to the issuance of a permit: That because the proposed facility would have no liner, the local environment and drinking water supplies would not be adequately protected from contamination; That the application significantly underestimates the amount of recharge to local aquifers; That the application ignores or underestimates the ecological fragility of the area; and That the location of the Sprauer well should require a reconfiguration of the footprint of the proposed facility. As relief, the Petition asks that the Department require a liner and associated leachate recovery system and adequate financial assurance to ensure proper operation and cleanup if necessary. During opening argument, Petitioners raised one more issue not previously raised in their Petition — - the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed facility in conjunction with two other landfills in the area. This allegation was not timely raised, however, and has been disregarded. The positions taken by Petitioners (other than cumulative impacts) appear to be interrelated, that is, the Department should require a liner because the area is ecologically fragile and recharge is greater than calculated by LER. In support of their position, Petitioners first presented the testimony of Mr. McCormack, who is engaged in the commercial nursery and landscaping business. Mr. McCormack identified the presence of CCA treated wood as his main concern from a contamination standpoint. His concern is that a possible spread of leachate will result from mingling the wood with rainwater or groundwater and that the surrounding groundwater (which ultimately flows into Double Run Springs, the Harris Chain of Lakes, and the Floridan Aquifer) would be adversely impacted. Mr. McCormack estimated that the edge of the Double Run Springs system was approximately 2,500 feet, or around one- half mile, from the site. He expressed the opinion that it was physically impossible to remove such wood prior to its being landfilled. Mr. McCormack conceded, however, that he was not an expert on landfill management or hydrology and had no personal experience with the operation of a landfill. There is specific language in LER's Operations Plan prohibiting the disposal of CCA treated wood and requiring best management practices to enforce the prohibition against the disposal of CCA treated wood. This requirement is mandatory, and not voluntary, and provides reasonable assurance that CCA treated wood would not be a potential source of contamination. The testimony of expert witnesses Bradner and Golden, who expressed this view, is accepted as being more credible on this issue. Petitioners also presented the testimony of Mr. Mapp, who critiqued the hydrological investigation performed by LER by asserting that the recharge to the Floridan Aquifer is four or five times the amount stated in the application. He also opined that LER's evapotranspiration rates were understated.3 Mr. Mapp is a systems analyst for Lockheed Martin Missiles and has a master's degree in business and an undergraduate degree in physics. While highly educated, Mr. Mapp has no prior experience in any kind of hydrologic, geologic, chemical, or similar types of analyses, or any analyses of the rate of transport of chemicals in the environment. The knowledge and opinions rendered in this case by Mr. Mapp were obtained through personal research after the permit application was filed. Mr. Mapp opined that LER's recharge calculations constitute a "significant discrepancy." He acknowledged, however, that his estimate of the true speed of downward flow of water at the site of the proposed facility was "just off the cuff" and did not factor in the effects of applying cover to, and the filling and capping of, the landfill. He did not know how fast particular contaminants may migrate through the groundwater or what volume of waste might be necessary to cause a violation of groundwater quality standards. He also could not give a specific calculation of where a contaminant might be located after a set period of years. Unlike the other experts in this case, the witness had not calculated Floridan Aquifer recharge rates or otherwise used Darcy's Law.4 Even if the permit application underestimated the recharge rate, the thickness of the confining layer below the base of the proposed facility, which was conservatively estimated, would cause groundwater to flow horizontally, not vertically, once the confining layer is reached. As explained by Mr. Golden, LER did not rely exclusively on the recharge calculations that Mr. Mapp relied upon in determining recharge rates. Separate information regarding the permeability of the confining layer provides additional support for the recharge calculations. Mr. Mapp also opined that LER's evapotranspiration rate calculations were underestimated, based upon his review of a study of a deforested site elsewhere in the Lake Wales Ridge. He assumed the evapotranspiration rate in that study (for a site located fifteen miles away) would be applicable to the site of the proposed facility, and he then assumed that the evapotranspiration rate identified in the permit application for the proposed facility would be applicable only to the properties adjacent to the proposed facility. There is, however, no scientific basis for drawing an analogy between the borrow pit that is the location of the proposed facility and the deforested site with different geological characteristics about which Mr. Mapp read in the study he relied upon for his conclusions. Furthermore, LER undertook site-specific analyses of the permeability of the soils underlying the site of the proposed facility, whereas Mr. Mapp's calculations were based upon assumptions drawn from a study of a site fifteen miles away. The testimony of Mr. Golden is found to be credible and persuasive on this issue. Finally, there was no evidence concerning Petitioners' contention that LER should post a surety bond necessary to maintain the system in good working order and to fund a toxic cleanup should it become necessary. Therefore, no modification to the permit in this respect is required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the application of Lake Environmental Resources, LLC, for a permit authorizing the construction and operation of a construction and demolition debris disposal and recycling facility in unincorporated lake County. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 8th day of November, 2006.
Findings Of Fact An administrative complaint was filed against Respondent Earl W. Adams, a registered real estate broker on July 27, 1977. Respondent holds license no. 0148042. The complaint alleged: That Mildred Muranyi contacted Respondent in May, 1976, for this services to locate investment property. Respondent suggested that Mrs. Muranyi consider the motel business and specifically the Seascape Motel owned by Joseph J. Brex and his wife. That Respondent drafted a contract under which Mrs. Muranyi agreed to purchase the Seascape Motel; that at the insistence of Mrs. Muranyi Respondent Adams placed a provision in the contract relating to termite inspection; that Respondent stated that he would have the Seascape Motel inspected for termites on behalf of Mrs. Muranyi; that at Respondent's request Broker Dorothy Kincel instructed Mr. Ken Treat of Terminix Pest Control to inspect the Seascape Motel; that upon beginning the inspection, evidence of termites and termite damage was found and this information was brought to the attention of Respondent whereupon Respondent contacted Mr. Baughn Kestetter of R.W. Collins Pest Control and requested a termite inspection of the Seascape Motel; that Respondent instructed the pest control agent to inspect only certain units of the Motel; that thereafter Respondent requested a clearance letter from Mr. Kerstetter regarding termites and was thereupon advised that inasmuch as the inspection was incomplete, no clearance letter would be given. That on or about June 16, 1976, Respondent wrote Mrs. Muranyi and advised her that the Seascape Motel had been inspected by Collins Pest Control for termites and no evidence of any infestation was located; that in reliance upon the representations of Respondent Mrs. Muranyi, on July 12, 1976 closed the sale and purchased the Seascape Motel. The Hearing Officer finds: The subject property, the Seascape Motel, was inspected by two termite companies, one company, Ken Treat of Terminix Pest Control began inspection and the inspector found termites present and notified the owner of the property. No Evidence was produced to show that Respondent had notice of the finding of the termites. A second pest control company, R.W. Collins Pest Control, was contacted but could not make a complete inspection of the property for the reason that part of the units were not available to the inspector. The inspector notified Respondent Adams that he could not write a clearance letter inasmuch as all units had not been inspected. The original contract had been changed by the parties to state that the property was sold in "as is condition." A letter of June 16, 1976 from Respondent Adams to the purchaser, Mrs. Milly Muranyi gave notice that no full termite inspection had been made. The Respondent, however, appears to be less than candid inasmuch as the broker stated in part "I would do nothing, I wouldn't do anything else regarding termite inspection prior to closing . . ." It is inconceivable that a person with knowledge of damage that can be done by termites could in good faith state that he would close a deal for himself in which the termite damage was unknown. Mr. Adams has dealt with coastal property which is subject to termite damage and it is good business practice to determine any damage that might be done to any structure before purchased. (a) Petitioner contends: that the representations and activities of the Respondent amounted to a fraud on the purchaser; that once evidence of termite damage to the property for sale was discovered by one firm the inspection was cancelled; that the inspection by the second pest control company was limited to portions of the property that were not infected by termites. (b) Respondent contends: that at the time the contract was signed the property was being bought in "as is condition" and that the contract shows a waiver of the termite clause and was initialled by the parties; that the purchasers were represented by a competent attorney; that the condition of the contract was not predicated upon "termites or not termites" and that the price of the motel had been lowered from the original asking price.
Recommendation Dismiss the complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Earl W. Adams 206 Sand Dollar North Indialantic, Florida 32903
Findings Of Fact Reimbursement Program The Florida Legislature created the reimbursement program to provide for rehabilitation of as many petroleum contamination sites as possible, as soon as possible. Section 376.3071(12)(a), Florida Statutes. The Legislature intended that those responsible persons who possessed adequate financial ability should conduct site rehabilitation and seek reimbursement in lieu of the state conducting the cleanup. Section 376.3071(12)(c), Florida Statutes (1993). When owners and operators of the site or their designees perform site remediation program tasks under any of the programs created by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, those entities become entitled to reimbursement from the Inland Protection Trust Fund (IPTF) of their allowable costs at reasonable rates. Section 376.3071(12)(b), Florida Statutes. "Allowable" costs are those which are associated with work that is appropriate for cleanup tasks. Section 376.3071(12)(d), Florida Statutes, requires DEP to: Reimburse actual and reasonable costs for site rehabilitation; and Reimburse interest on the amount of reimbursable costs for applications filed after August 14, 1992, at a rate of 1 percent per month or the prime rate, which- ever is less. Interest shall be paid from the 61st day after an application is filed with the department until the application is paid, provided the department determines the application is sufficient; otherwise, interest shall be paid commencing on the date the application is made sufficient until the application is paid. . . . A site owner or operator may engage the services of firms to perform remediation activities on a site and may designate an entity to receive reimbursement for such work. Section 376.301(14), Florida Statutes. Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code (as revised in April of 1993), contains DEP's rules which were in effect at the time Petitioners submitted the instant applications. This chapter is currently located in Chapter 62-773, Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code establishes procedures and documentation required to receive reimbursement from the IPTF. Rule 17-773.100(4), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 17-773.100(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: "review and approval of reimbursement applications shall be based upon the statutes, rules and written guidelines governing petroleum contamination site cleanup and reimbursement which were in effect at the time the work was performed or the records of activities and expenses were generated, as applicable. . . . In order to be reimbursable, an applicant must break charges in an application into applicable units and rates. Rule 17-773.100(5), Florida Administrative Code. DEP has a predominate rate schedule to determine whether an allowable cost is reasonable. DEP bases its predominate rates on a study of average rates that contractors charge for a particular task. Requests for reimbursement must apply to costs which are "integral" to site rehabilitation. Rule 17-773.100(2), Florida Administrative Code. "Integral" costs are those which are essential to completion of site rehabilitation. Rule 17-773.200(2)(11), Florida Administrative Code. After integral costs have been identified and incorporated on a units and rates basis in an invoice, the invoice may be marked up at two levels. These markups are subject to certain limitations established by DEP rule: There can be no more than two levels of markups or handling fees applied to contractor, subcontractor or vendor invoices (Rule 17-773.350(9), F.A.C.); There can be no markups or handling fees in excess of 15 percent for each level of allowable markup applied to contractor, subcontractor or vendor invoices (Rule 17-773.350(10), F.A.C.); and There can be no markups or handling fees applied to invoices between any two entities which have a financial, familial, or beneficial relationship with each other (Rule 17-773.350(11), F.A.C.). In order to be reimbursable, costs must have been actually "incurred." Rule 17-773.700, Florida Administrative Code. "Incurred" means that allowable costs have been paid. Rule 17-773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code. When the "person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation" (PRFCSR) has no financial interest in the site, DEP considers the following costs as incurred when the program task is complete: Reasonable rates, including profits associated with the work performed, claimed for the use of their own personnel or equip- ment with documentation pursuant to Rule 17-773.700(7), F.A.C.; and Allowable markups or handling fees applied to their paid contractor, subcontractor, or vendor invoices pursuant to Rule 17-773.350(9), (10), and (11), F.A.C. Rule 17-773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code. Other rules reference limitations on the ability of an entity to take a markup. Rule 17-773.600(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: . . . If the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation manufactured the [capital expense item], or a markup is otherwise prohibited under Rule 17-773.350(9), (10) or (11), Florida Administrative Code, no markup of the equipment shall be allowed. Rule 17- 773.700(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: Costs claimed in a reimbursement application for the employees, equipment or materials of the site owner, site operator or any entity which has a financial interest in the site or a familial or other beneficial relation- ship with the site owner or operator shall be considered to be in house and reimburse- ment shall be limited to actual costs only. No fee, markup, commission, percentage or other consideration shall be allowed. . . . Rule 17-773.700(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part as follows: Pursuant to Rule 17-773.200(9), Florida Administrative Code, reasonable rates, including profits, may be claimed for the personnel and equipment or other allowable expenses of the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation as well as allowable markups on paid contractor subcon- tractor and vendor invoices and shall be considered incurred for the purpose of reimbursement provided: The person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation does not have a financial interest in the site pursuant to Rule 17-773.200(7), Florida Administrative Code, or a familial or other beneficial relationship with the site owner or operator; The activities performed were integral to the program task claimed pursuant to Rule 17-773.500, Florida Administrative Code; and Detailed invoices are provided by the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation that include all subcon- tractor and vendor invoices . . . [which] must identify the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation and clearly distinguish their costs from those for paid subcontractors or vendors. There are no other provisions in the applicable rules which pertain to markups. A contractor must pay all invoices generated by a subcontractor at 100 percent of their face value prior to submission of an application in order to qualify those invoices for reimbursement. When a contractor pays a subcontractor's invoices, the contractor paying those invoices normally may take one of the allowable levels of markup. Prior to submitting a reimbursement application, a funder or PRFCSR involved in the reimbursement chain must pay the contractor for its invoices and markup. Then, the funder may apply the second allowable markup and submit the reimbursement application for review by DEP and payment from the IPTF. DEP does not contest the second level of markup in these applications. DEP rules restrict reimbursement when parties within the usual "chain" of reimbursement (PRFCSR or funder, contractor and subcontractor) have financial, beneficial or familial relationships with each other or the site owner. The application form requires disclosure of such relationships through the Program Task and Site Identification Form. Rule 17-773.200(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: "Beneficial relationship (interest)" means a connection or association, excluding an arm's length contractual relationship, which benefits a person or company by yielding a profit, advantage or benefit, or entitlement thereto, exceeding five percent of the person's or company's annual gross income. Rule 17-773.200(6), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part: "Familial relationship (interest)" means a connection or association by family or relatives, in which a family member or a relative has a material interest. . . . Rule 17-773.200(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: "Financial relationship (interest)" means a connection or association through a material interest or sources of income which exceed five percent of annual gross income from a business entity. Banks, lending institutions, and other lenders that provide loans for site rehabilitation activities are not considered to have a financial interest in the site on that basis alone. However, as of the effective date of this rule, guarantors of loans to or co-makers of loans with persons signing as responsible party are considered to have a financial interest if the amount of the loan exceeds five percent of the net worth of either company. As used in this definition, sources of income shall not include any income derived through arm's- length contractual transactions. Rule 17-773.200(13), Florida Administrative Code, states as follows: "Material interest" means a direct or indirect interest or ownership of more than five percent of the total assets or capital stock of any business entity. The rules and written guidelines of DEP do not address activities, including financing arrangements, occurring outside of the usual chain of reimbursement, so long as an applicant does not include charges for such activities in an application. Heretofore, DEP has not deducted finance costs that an applicant does not include as a line item in a reimbursement application. Pursuant to Section 376.3071(l2)(m), Florida Statutes, DEP must perform financial audits "as necessary to ensure compliance with this rule and to certify site rehabilitation costs." Rule 17-773.300(1), Florida Administrative Code. DEP performs this audit function: (a) to establish that the PRFCSR incurred the cost; (b) to determine that adequate documentation supports the claimed costs as incurred; and (c) and to review the reasonableness and allowance of the costs. The audit staff interprets the term "incurred" to mean that the applicant paid the costs included in the reimbursement application. Pursuant to Rule 17-773.350(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, "[i]nterest or carrying charges of any kind with the exception of those outlined in Rule 17-773.650(1), F.A.C." are not reimbursable. The exceptions to the payment of interest set forth in Rule 17-773.650(1), Florida Administrative Code, are not at issue here. An interest rate charge on short-term borrowed capital from an unrelated third-party source is a "cost of doing business." DEP's predominate rates are fully loaded. They include a variable for all direct and indirect business overhead costs such as rent, utilities and personnel costs. DEP includes the cost of short-term borrowed capital in the direct and indirect overhead components of DEP's fully-loaded personnel rates. Rule 17- 773.700(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. However, DEP never intended for its predominate rate schedule to create an entitlement to reimbursement of claims which are not otherwise actual and reasonable costs of site rehabilitation. Petitioners PRFCSRs are entitled to make application for reimbursement of allowable markups and costs of site rehabilitation that they incur. In these consolidated cases, the site owners or operators designated either Petitioner ET or Petitioner SEI as PRFCSR. The PRFCSR is typically referred to as the "funder" in the reimbursement chain. Petitioner ET is a trust formed in 1993 and domiciled in Bermuda. It acts as a conduit for funds that finance activities associated with Florida's petroleum contamination site cleanup program. The named beneficiaries of the trust are those contractors and subcontractors entitled to payment of costs for activities integral to site rehabilitation and for allowable markups of such costs. The sole trustee of ET is Western Investors Fiduciary, Ltd. (WIFL). WIFL is also the owner and a beneficiary of ET. Any profit that ET derives from funding cleanup projects flows through WIFL to investors who provide funds to finance site rehabilitation. American Environmental Enterprises, Inc. (AEE discussed below) provided the investment funds for the reimbursement applications at issue here. WIFL is a limited liability corporation created and domiciled in Bermuda. The officers of WIFL are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Peter Bougner, Secretary. The directors of WIFL are: William R. Robins, John G. Engler, Paul H. DeCoster, Alec R. Anderson and Nicholas Johnson. WIFL's directors are also its shareholders. Petitioner SEI is a corporation incorporated and operating under Florida law. Organized in 1994, SEI acts as a conduit for funds to finance activities associated with Florida's petroleum contamination site cleanup program. The officers and directors of SEI are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Executive Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. William R. Robins is the sole shareholder of SEI. SEI was specifically created to meet the needs of American Factors Group, Inc.'s (AFG discussed below) Florida investors. Respondent DEP is the agency charged with the duty to administer the IPTF and Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. Financing Entities American Factors Group, Inc. (AFG) is a privately held corporation incorporated and operating under New Jersey law. AFG is not a party to this proceeding. AFG, acts as the servicing agent for contracts associated with factoring activities and other types of financing operations. AFG, through one of its divisions, Environmental Factors (EF), entered into financing contracts with entities in the reimbursement process: (a) Petitioners ET and SEI, funders; (b) Gator Environmental, Inc. (Gator), general contractor; and (c) Tower Environmental, Inc. (Tower), prime subcontractor. Through these agreements, EF or its assignee bought the rights of ET, SEI, Gator, and Tower to future reimbursement payments at a percentage of the face value of the relevant invoices. The officers of AFG are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Bleak House, Inc. (Texas) owns the stock of AFG. American Environmental Enterprises, Inc. (AEE) is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. AEE is not a party to this proceeding. AEE, as the assignee under the EF contracts, is a third-party provider of capital to various entities in the reimbursement process, including Petitioners. The officers of AEE are: William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Bleak House, Inc., (Nevada) owns the stock of AEE. Bleak House, Inc., (Nevada) is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. Bleak House, Inc. (Texas) is incorporated and operating under Texas law. Officers of both corporations are William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Magazine Funding, Inc. owns the stock of both Bleak House corporations. Magazine Funding, Inc. is incorporated and operating under Nevada law. Officers of Magazine Funding, Inc. are William R. Robins, President; John G. Engler, Vice-President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Family Food Garden, Inc. owns the stock of Magazine Funding, Inc. Family Food Garden, Inc. is incorporated and operating under Massachusetts law. Officers of Family Food Garden, Inc., are William R. Robins, President; and Paul H. DeCoster, Secretary. Six shareholders own the stock of Family Food Garden, Inc. None of these shareholders are related by familial ties to the officers or directors of the aforementioned companies or any relative thereof. Each of these companies -- ET, SEI, WIFL, AEE and AFG (including EF) share common officers and directors. Each of the companies maintain their own books and business records, file their own tax returns, and maintain records in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which they were established. They operate pursuant to their respective bylaws or trust agreement. ET, WIFL, and SEI do not have common assets with AEE or AFG (including EF). ET, WIFL and SEI do not have a beneficial, financial, or familial relationship with AEE or AFG (including EF) as Rule 17-773.200, Florida Administrative Code, defines those terms. Despite the facial organizational and structural integrity of ET, WIFL, SEI, AEE and AFG, the officers and directors of AFG and/or AEE created Petitioners, in large part, for the benefit of AFG and/or AEE as a means to invest funds in Florida's petroleum contamination site cleanup program. The primary purpose of each funder is to maximize the profits of AFG and its investors. AFG has other investment vehicles (funders) which it uses at times depending on the needs of its investors. AFG waits until the last instance before deciding which entity it will designate as funder in any particular factoring scenario. AFG usually does not make that decision until the day AFG's designated funder issues a funder's authorization to the general contractor. At the hearing, Mr. Stephen Parrish, a vice president of AFG, testified as the party representative for ET and SEI. WIFL and SEI have no employees. EF or AFG responded to DEP's request for Petitioners to provide additional information about the financing scheme utilized here using stationary bearing EF's or AFG's letterhead. Nineteen of the letters written on ET's behalf refer to ET as an affiliate of AEE. At least five of the letters written on SEI's behalf refer to ET as the funder and AEE as ET's affiliate. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that AFG and/or AEE negotiated less than arms-length contractual agreements with ET, WIFL, and SEI. Petitioners admit that they are "affiliates" of AEE and AFG through contractual agreements. However, there are no written factoring contracts between Petitioners and AFG such as the ones that exist between AFG, Gator and Tower. The only documented evidence of agreements between Petitioners and AFG are transactional based bills of sale representing the sale to AEE of Petitioners' right to receive reimbursement from the IPTF. AFG created these bills of sale for bookkeeping purposes. AFG did not even go to the trouble of tailoring the form for the bills of sale for their stated purpose. For all practical purposes, Petitioners are under the management and control of AEE and AFG. Petitioners and AFG disclosed their affiliation in meetings with DEP staff and through correspondence and other documentation, including but not limited to: (a) letter to DEP dated July 13, 1994 from AFG's counsel; (b) Addendum to Certification Affidavit signed by a Certified Public Accountant in each application; (c) Funder's Authorization; (d) letters sent to DEP between August 14, 1995 and November 19, 1996. Factoring and the Factoring Transactions Factoring is the purchase and sale of an asset, such as an account receivable, at a discount. An account receivable reflects the costs that a business charges after rendering a service but before the entity responsible for payment pays for that service. When a contractor completes a rehabilitation task, the contractor's invoice is an account receivable until it receives payment. In these consolidated cases, AEE provided short-term operating capital to Gator and Tower at an interest rate equal to the discount percentage of the relevant invoice (account receivable). Gator and Tower did not sell their account receivables to AEE. Instead, AEE, as the assignee of EF, purchased a contractual right to receive Gator's and Tower's reimbursement payments. In exchange, AEE advanced Gator and Tower a discounted amount of their invoices. The discounted amount of an invoice represents a loan from AEE to Gator and Tower. The difference between the face amount of the invoice and the discounted amount of the invoice represents interest. A discount percentage and an interest rate are equivalent. The amount of the discount represents interest on the loan or advance provided by AEE. It is an interest expense to the contractor or subcontractor. The Factoring Agreements On or about April 25, 1994, EF and Tower entered into a Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement. On or about July 8, 1994, EF and Tower executed an addendum to the Prime Subcontractor Factoring Agreement. The addendum required Tower to sell to EF Tower's right to receive payments from Gator. In return, EF agreed to advance Tower a discounted amount equal to 97 percent of the face amount of Tower's invoices. Tower agreed to repay EF 100 percent of the face amount of the invoices upon receipt of payments from Gator. The discounted amount of each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Tower. A bill of sale evidenced the sale of Tower's right to receive payment on each application. On or about July 8, 1994, EF and Gator entered into a General Contractor Factoring Contract. On or about July 13, 1994, EF and Gator entered into an Addendum to General Contractor Factoring Agreement. This addendum required Gator to sell EF Gator's right to receive payments from ET or SEI. In return, EF agreed to advance Gator a discounted amount equal to 88 percent of the face amount of Gator's invoices. Gator agreed to repay EF 100 percent of the face amount of the invoices upon receipt of payments from the funder. The discounted amount of each invoice represents a loan from AEE to Gator. A bill of sale evidenced the sale of Gator's right to receive payment on each application. The financing of the pending reimbursement applications involved the following interrelated transactions though not necessarily in this order: AEE as the assignee of EF purchased the right of ET, SEI, Gator and Tower to receive reimbursement for their services at a discount. ET, SEI, Gator and Tower agreed to repay AEE in full. Tower prepared and submitted to Gator an invoice for services provided by Tower and its subcontractors. Tower also prepared and submitted to Gator a reimbursement application for the program task. AEE advanced Tower the agreed upon discount amount. Tower used these funds to pay its subcontractors and vendors. AEE advanced Gator the agreed upon discount amount. Gator used these funds to pay Tower. Tower repaid AEE in full. Gator prepared an invoice for services provided by Gator, Tower and Tower's subcon- tractors including a 15 percent markup and submitted it with the reimbursement application either to ET or SEI. AEE advanced ET or SEI the discounted amounts as agreed. ET or SEI paid Gator in the full amount of Gator's invoice plus markup. Gator repaid AEE in full. ET or SEI prepared an invoice for its services plus the services of Gator, Tower, and Tower's subcontractors and a 15 percent markup. ET or SEI submitted the reimbursement application to DEP. When ET or SEI receives reimbursement from the IPTF, they will remit the total payment to AEE. The on-site work on each project was complete or substantially complete prior to Gator's involvement. In regards to some applications, the relevant dates on the subcontract/purchase order, Gator invoice, and Tower invoice are the same. The amount of time between AEE's payment of the advances and Gator's and Tower's subsequent remittance of 100 percent of the face amount of their invoices to AEE varied from a few days to a few weeks. The Agency Statement--Factoring Petitioners submitted the subject applications to DEP between July 18, 1994 and February 17, 1995. The financing scheme utilized in these applications was unique. Prior to the receipt of these applications, DEP never had reviewed reimbursement applications using the type of factoring scheme at issue here. In fact, the instant cases present a scenario never contemplated by DEP when it promulgated its rules and written policies. In the instant applications, the "chain of reimbursement" included: ET and SEI as funders or PRFCSRs, Gator as the named general contractor, Tower as prime subcontractor, and numerous subcontractors and vendors. As stated above, DEP was also aware that AFG and AEE (including EF) were "affiliated" with ET and SEI and would ultimately receive all reimbursement payments from the IPTF. 56 When Petitioners submitted the subject applications, no rule or written policy disallowed reimbursement for the face amount of contractors' and subcontractors' invoices when they sold their right to payments, i.e. the receivables, at a discount. When Petitioners submitted the subject applications, DEP had rules that restricted the ability of an entity to apply markups on invoices when a familial, financial or beneficial affiliation existed between a contractor, subcontractor, PRFCSR and the site or site owner, or when such relationships existed amongst those entities in the chain of reimbursement. However, there were no rules or written guidelines restricting reimbursement, based upon financial transactions occurring outside of the chain of reimbursement, if the applicant did not pass the costs of such transactions to DEP in an reimbursement application. In that regard, DEP usually dealt only with what was apparent in an application. If an application had a line-item claim for interest, DEP would not pay that claim under the rule limiting the payment of interest. Otherwise, DEP generally did not deal with costs, including interest, for which the applicant did not seek reimbursement. The applications in the subject cases did not contain line-item claims for interest. However, the difference between the face value of the invoices and the amount for which Gator and Tower sold their right to receive reimbursement for those invoices clearly represents interest. Tower's invoices appear to represent work that was integral to site remediation which was broken down into appropriate Eunits and rates. There is no evidence that the prime subcontractor, subcontractors and vendors intentionally inflated their invoices to cover the cost of financing. However, they did agree to accept a lesser amount then the face amount of their invoices for their services prior to the filing of the applications. In September and October of 1993, Paul DeCoster wrote letters to DEP describing a proposed financing scheme in which AFG would purchase the account receivables of contractors engaged in site rehabilitation. Mr. DeCoster wrote a follow-up letter dated October 4, 1993. In this letter, Mr. DeCoster proposed that AFG would charge the contractor a finder's fee which would be in addition to the 15 percent financing "markup" taken by the investor providing the financing. This proposal referenced a funder, FEC, whose parent was AFG. The transactions between the entities in the instant applications did not involve a finder's fee or a funder identified as FEC. In October of 1993, Will Robins met with DEP staff to discuss the manner in which the reimbursement program would apply to a proposed financing scheme. In this proposal, AFG would charge contractors an application/initiation fee and/or a commitment fee. The transactions between the entities in the instant applications did not involve an application/initiation fee and/or a commitment fee. After that meeting, counsel for AFG sent DEP a letter dated November 4, 1993. The letter acknowledges that the existing rules did not "specifically address the types of situations that arise when providing capital for cleanup activities through funding groups such as AFG." The letter identifies ET as the proposed funder through which AFG would finance cleanups. AFG would receive the ultimate reimbursement payment from the IPTF. At that time DEP was concerned that the proposed application/initiation fee was a "kickback" which DEP should deducted from the funder's markup. In January of 1994, counsel for AFG wrote a letter to DEP describing a financing scheme which differs in some respects from the financing scheme at issue here. This letter states that AFG intended to purchase receivables of the funder and the general contractor at a discount. Under this plan, the general contractor and the funder would claim the two markups. The subcontractors would pay AFG a finder's fee. The letter reveals that AFG, its affiliates, and investors would recover the cash equivalent of both levels of markups plus a fee from subcontractors for funding the high costs or risky projects. The transactions between the entities in the instant applications did not involve a finder's fee. On July 13, 1994, counsel for AFG wrote DEP to explain some modifications in the details to the proposed plan for the purchase and sale of receivables at a discount. This letter informed DEP that AFG would have a financial affiliation with the funder (ET) which would exist outside the chain of reimbursement and which would have no effect on either the markups or the overall reimbursement amount reflected in any application. All contracts within the chain of reimbursement (between ET, SEI, Gator, Tower, and its subcontractors) would be negotiated in arms-length transactions. The letter states: In this plan the subcontractors will perform their work on the site and will prepare their invoices in a manner consistent with any publicly or privately financed cleanup. Those invoices will be complied and forwarded to the general contractor for its review and the general contractor will add on the markup allowed by rule to the subcontractor's bills. The reimbursement application will then be forwarded to the funder who will ensure that all bills have been paid and who will be identified as the "person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation" on the reimbursement application. The funder will take the second markup allowed by rule, and will submit the reimbursement application to the Department of Environmental Protection for processing. Reimbursement will ultimately be paid by the Department to the funder in accordance with the reimbursement application. At no step in this process will the Department relinquish any authority to review and approve either the scope and nature of the clean-up or the rates charged by the contractors and subcontractors. Commencing on August 31, 1994, DEP began to develop a policy regarding the use of factoring as a financing mechanism in the reimbursement program. DEP personnel exchanged numerous documents regarding the subject of factoring. In one of those memoranda dated September 2, 1994, Charles Williams, DEP's Reimbursement Administrator, indicated that "we absolutely need to have a Big Meeting to decide what to do once and for all." In November 1994, DEP provided AFG's counsel with an informal opinion of how DEP would handle a factored application as described by Will Robins of AFG in an earlier meeting with DEP staff. The statement was that the difference between the amount that a contractor accepted in payment for his services, which was a discounted amount after factoring, . . . and the face value of the invoice which was claimed and marked up in the application was determined to be a carrying charge or interest, which is specifically disallowed for reimbursement in the reimbursement rule. American Factors Group. Inc. and the Environmental Trust v. Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 95-0343RU, Final Order issued July 24, 1995. DEP advised AFG's counsel that it would deal with factored applications involving other entities on a case by case basis. On December 20, 1994, John Ruddell, DEP's Director of the Division of Waste Management, sought permission from DEP's Policy Coordinating Committee to promulgate a rule amendment to Chapter 62-773, Florida Administrative Code (formally Chapter 17-773). A draft rule accompanied the request. Mr. Ruddell developed the draft rule in compliance with Chapter 94-311, Section 6, Laws of Florida, which required DEP to revise its reimbursement rule. The draft rule provided that nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to authorize reimbursement for the face amount of any bill or invoice representing incurred costs when the receivable has been sold at a discount. In all such cases, reimbursement shall be limited to the actual discounted amount accepted by the provider of the goods or services. . . . The draft rule had the effect of prohibiting factoring as a mechanism for financing site rehabilitation work. The draft rule did not single out any other financing mechanism. DEP did not promulgate that draft rule. DEP requested that Petitioners furnish additional information regarding the instant applications. Between March 1, 1995 and November 17, 1995, Petitioners responded to DEP's requests with letters bearing AFG's or EF's letterhead. The letters state that prior to filling the applications, ET (and in some cases SEI) paid Gator for the face amount of the invoices plus Gator's markup. Gator then paid the subcontractors for the face amount of their invoices. Prior to these payments, AEE, an affiliate of ET, purchased the right to receive the amount due to Gator from ET or SEI and the right to receive the amount due to subcontractors from Gator. In each case, AEE bought the right to receive at a discount. According to the financing scheme, ET or SEI received sufficient funds from AEE to make the payments to Gator. ET, in turn, was obligated to pay AEE following its receipt of the funds claimed in the reimbursement application. On or about April 21, 1995, Bruce French, Environmental Manager in DEP's Bureau of Waste Cleanup, developed a memorandum discussing the proper handling of factored and/or discounted reimbursement applications. Mr. French initially sent the memorandum to Charles Williams, DEP's Reimbursement Administrator in DEP's Bureau of Waste Cleanup. The memorandum states that: invoices from subcontractors, vendors, suppliers and/or the general contractor which were paid a factored (e.g., discounted) amount by a third party capital participant (e.g., funder) represents the actual amount incurred by that entity and subsequently by the general contractor. DEP subsequently disseminated the memorandum to all application reviewers to acquaint them with DEP's policy on invoices or applications involving factoring as the financing mechanism. DEP did not direct the policy on factoring towards any individual company. DEP intended it to apply to "any combination of a general contractor, management company, funder and responsible party" in any situation in which a third party capital provider paid those program participants or suppliers a factored (discounted) amount of their invoices. The policy memorandum directed DEP reviewers to deduct costs from an application in an amount equal to the difference in the face value of an invoice and the amount paid for the right to receive payment under that invoice. The language of the policy set forth in the April 21, 1995 memorandum was broad and did not condition DEP's position on factoring on any affiliation between any parties. Between August 14, 1995 and February 2, 1996, DEP took action on the 45 applications at issue here. As reflected in those notices, DEP denied reimbursement of costs claimed in those applications because of the factoring of the supporting invoices and because "the difference between the face amount of the supporting invoices and the amount factored represents interests or carrying charges which are specifically excluded from reimbursement pursuant to Rule 62- 773.350(4), F.A.C." DEP deducted from the cost of each application an amount equal to the amount of the discount on each relevant invoice. When DEP issued the denial letters, it had not adopted the policy against factoring by the rulemaking procedure required in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The notices reflected a basis of denial of costs that was consistent with DEP's policy as reflected in the December 20, 1994 Draft Rule and the April 21, 1995 memorandum. This non-rule policy, which generally applied to all factoring schemes was not apparent from the rules in effect at that time. The Agency Statement--Markup/Value Added Policy Funders and contractors are entitled to take a markup of paid contractor and subcontractor invoices for allowable costs at reasonable rates. The invoices must represent actual and reasonable costs which are integral to site remediation. Contractors usually are entitled to a first-tier 15 percent markup for supervising and/or coordinating on-site remediation, for investing capital while awaiting reimbursement by paying subcontractors' invoices, and for assuming liability for the performance of the subcontractors. Funders normally are entitled to a second-tier 15 percent markup as an incentive to provide funds to finance the work. Markups are expressly subject to limitations set forth in Section 17- 773.350(9), (10) and (11), Florida Administrative Code. There are no other specific or implied limitations on markups in the rules or written guidelines. Requiring each entity that receives a markup in the reimbursement chain to pay contractor, subcontractor, and vendor invoices helps ensure that each level in the reimbursement chain pays the entity at the next lowest level in full. In these cases, each level in the reimbursement application chain "technically" paid the entity at the next lowest level. DEP policy in effect at the time Petitioners submitted the instant applications for reimbursement was to allow markups of paid invoices at two levels. However, DEP was not aware of situations where general contractors claimed markups for work that was complete before they ever became involved in the projects. With regard to all of the pending reimbursement applications, Gator applied a 15 percent markup to all of Tower's invoices including the invoices of Tower's subcontractors and vendors. With regard to a minimum of 30 of the 45 sites, Gator clearly did not supervise, manage or direct any of the on-site remediation activities. In fact, Gator did not become involved until after Tower had undertaken and completed these tasks. In at least 30 of the instant cases, Tower was acting as the general contractor when all of the on-site remediation took place. However, Tower could not apply a 15 percent markup to the invoices for its own services. Gator made it possible for Petitioners to claim the markup on Tower's invoices. As to the 15 sites at which Gator allegedly had some type of involvement with on-site remediation activities, the record contains no evidence regarding the specific activities or the level of Gator's involvement on any particular project. Gator performed some type of minimal due diligence review of Tower's site work. Gator allegedly reviewed Tower's technical and administrative files, cross-referenced technical and administrative files with the applications which Tower prepared, made visits to some job sites, and prepared a deficiency letter to determine the appropriateness of the scope of Tower's work. However, all of these functions were repetitious of the work performed by Tower and the certified public accountant attesting to the Certification Affidavit. Tower was a qualified engineering consulting firm that employed its own engineers and geologists. Gator's employee that reviewed the technical information in Tower's files was not a Florida professional engineer. He was not qualified as a certified public accountant to determine whether a charge was within DEP's reasonable rates. The Gator employee was a Florida professional geologist but he did not sign and seal the deficiency letter as such. There is no reference in DEP's rules or written policies to a deficiency letter. AFG required Gator to prepare the deficiency letter within two days of the date on which EF provided Gator with the opportunity to review a completed task. This two-day turn around time allegedly afforded efficiency of payment. The deficiency letters were limited to the question of whether the scope of Tower's services were reimbursable. Gator did not begin its review of an reimbursement application until after Gator received an invoice from Tower. The relevant subcontract/purchase order issued by Gator to Tower, the Tower invoice and the Gator invoice often were prepared on the same day. Gator "technically" paid the invoices at the next lowest level with money that AEE advanced. When Gator received payments from ET or SEI, it immediately repaid AEE before ET or SEI submitted the applications to DEP or soon thereafter. Pursuant to the addenda to the factoring contracts, Tower, not Gator, contributed to a reserve trust account which AEE will use to cover any reimbursement shortfalls. Gator allegedly indemnified the funder and guaranteed its own work but did not assume a risk of loss on Tower's work. On most if not all of the applications, Gator performed no meaningful management or supervisory functions. Gator's primary purpose in these consolidated cases was not to afford AFG a level of comfort as to the appropriate scope of the individual program tasks but to ensure that third-party investors maximized their profits. On September 1, 1994, Restoration Assistance, Inc., an entity under contract with DEP to review reimbursement applications, issued a memorandum to its reviewers directing them to complete their review and do a "total denial" on "Gator Environmental packages." The memorandum advised the reviewers that "Bruce" was drafting canned language to use in DEP's denial statement. On or about April 21, 1995, DEP presented its reviewers with a memorandum setting forth an initial overview of a "value added" policy for markups taken by a "management company" involved in site remediation activities. The memorandum indicated that DEP would allow reimbursement of claims for actual project management work and value-added services. The memorandum further provided that DEP would allow markups to a management company which only provided cash-flow services for a majority of the program task period even if the management company performed no other service. However, DEP would deny a markup if the management company provided such services during a "one month time period." DEP intended for the April 21, 1995 memorandum to acquaint DEP reviewers with the emerging DEP policy on markups. DEP's rules and written guidelines do not address the distinction made in the April 21, 1995 memorandum regarding the timing during which a management company could provide cash flow services and still be entitled to a markup. On October 20, 1995, Charles Williams issued a DEP policy memorandum for reviewers to use in reviewing reimbursement applications. Through that memorandum, DEP finalized and implemented the "value added" policy. The memorandum states that if the "GC" [general contractor] was involved with the management of the project during the course of the actual work by subcontractors, [DEP] rules do not preclude them from applying a markup. However, if the "GC" came along after the work was completed by other contractors and their involvement was more of a due diligence exercise to faciltiate (sic) a funding arrangement by a third party, then the "GC" markup would not be justified, though a markup by the actual funder listed as the PRFCSR could be allowed." Prior to the establishment of the "value added" policy on October 20, 1995, DEP made no inquiry as to whether a contractor provided value added services which were not reflected in an application in order to be entitled to a markup. DEP applied the "value added" policy to all pending applications (including the ones at issue here) resulting in a deduction of Gator's markup in all of the subject cases. The Department of Banking and Finance reviewed and issued a report (Comptroller's Report) on the Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Reimbursement Program on November 29, 1994. This report addressed the issue of markups in the reimbursement program. The Comptroller's Report recognized that DEP found the multiple markup structure to be beneficial in that it "attracts the involvement of companies whose role in cleanup projects is limited to providing funds to finance the work [and] attracts investors who provide funds which might not otherwise be available--thus facilitating cleanup of contaminated sites." The report acknowledges that a prime contractor "might have only limited direct involvement in the cleanup, having engaged subcontractors for most or all of the actual work." The Comptroller's Report did not address whether a contractor would be entitled to a markup if it became involved after all site work was complete. The Petroleum Efficiency Task Force's (PETF) final report concerning financing for reimbursement contractors issued on August 17, 1994. This report discussed DEP's policy of allowing two markups on paid invoices. The report recognized that "funders must be able to rely on the skills and knowledge of contractors to minimize reimbursement shortfalls." The PETF recommended for future consideration that "the Department should provide in rulemaking that contractors who take the first-tier 15 percent markup on subcontracted work must adequately supervise the work." When the PETF issued this final report, there was no existing rule that established any level of on site supervision or any other specific criteria for applying one of the two allowable levels of markup, other than paying invoices for integral site rehabilitation work. DEP's rules and written guidelines did not substantively change with regard to the "value added" policy from the April 22, 1993 revision of Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code, to the October 20, 1995 memorandum which established a non-rule limitation on the ability of an entity to apply a markup to paid invoices. The "value added" policy is not reflected in any rule or written guideline, and would not be made available to a participant in the reimbursement program who requested program information. The "value added" agency statement is a non-rule policy which has the effect of a rule. DEP intends to apply the policy in all cases where a contractor's service adds no value to a project. DEP did not anticipate the need for such a rule when it promulgated the current rules. The Agency Statement Standard During the 1994 Legislative Session, the Florida Legislature directed that "no later than January 1, 1995, DEP shall review and revise rules related to the pollutant storage tanks programs . . . ." Chapter 94-311, Section 6, Laws of Florida. DEP understood that legislative instruction to include rule revisions related to the reimbursement program. On April 7, 1994, the Office of Statewide Prosecution issued a Statewide Grand Jury Report. The final report concerning financing of reimbursement contractors was prepared for the Florida Petroleum Efficiency Task Force on August 17, 1994. The Office of Controller issued its report on the Petroleum Contamination Site Cleanup Reimbursement Program on November 29, 1994. All of these reports offered suggestions for changes to the reimbursement rule. DEP first learned about factoring from presentations by Paul DeCoster and Will Robins in 1993. After these meetings, Petitioner proposed several factoring plans as proposed schemes to finance petroleum contamination site cleanup projects. Petitioners did not finalize the exact financing scheme they intended to use until July of 1994. Petitioners filed the first applications on July 18, 1994. By that time, DEP was aware that the factoring company was affiliated with the funders. DEP was also aware that the factoring company would receive the difference between the face amount of an invoice and the discount amount of that invoice. However, DEP was not aware of the exact nature of the relationships between AFG, AEE, EF, ET, WIFL, SEI, Gator and Tower. DEP was unable to evaluate all aspects of Petitioners' factoring plan without supplemental information about the details of the purchase and sale of receivables as they related to each application. DEP requested additional information from the applicants to determine if the costs were actually incurred. As a result of the information that DEP received, it reviewed all transactions to determine whether the costs claimed in the applications were actual and reasonable. On December 20, 1994, John Ruddell, Director of DEP's Division of Waste Management, sought permission from DEP's Policy Coordinating Committee to promulgate a rule amendment to Chapter 62-773, Florida Administrative Code (formerly Chapter 17-773, Florida Administrative Code). A draft rule accompanied the request. DEP intended the draft rule to comply with the legislative mandate contained in Chapter 94-311, Section 6, Laws of Florida. By that time, Petitioners had filed 41 of the subject applications. The 1994 draft rule provided that if a program participant sold a receivable at a discount, reimbursement would be limited to the actual discounted amount accepted by the provider of the goods or services rendered. The draft rule eliminated markups of contractor and subcontractor invoices. The December 20, 1994 memorandum to DEP's Policy Coordinating Committee did not indicate any deficiency in the existing delegated legislative authority that would prevent DEP from implementing the changes to the draft rule. DEP policy coordinating committee declined to approve the initiation of rulemaking procedures. Instead, it directed DEP staff to draft a bill for the 1995 legislative session. DEP based this decision on a determination that it would take too long to correct the numerous problems through the rulemaking process. The 1995 Legislative Session made several changes to the reimbursement program, particularly as it related to the direction of future site remediation activities. Chapter 95-2, Laws of Florida, passed the 1995 Legislative Session and changed the program from reimbursement of completed work to requiring pre-approval of work before it commenced. The 1995 Legislative Session did not make any relevant amendment to the reimbursement payment procedures in Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes. During the period between adjournment of the 1995 Legislative Session and February 2, 1996, DEP took action on each of the 45 applications that are the subject of this proceeding. Meanwhile, DEP focused its attention on making the necessary changes to switch from a reimbursement program to the new pre- approval program. It is not unreasonable to believe that such a significant change in a large program would take an agency some time to educate itself and the program's participants, prepare documentation and forms, and take steps to begin implementation. On March 22, 1996, approximately six and one-half months (198 days) after the petition for administrative hearing in Case No. 95-4606, and almost 21 months after the effective date of Chapter 94-311, Laws of Florida, DEP published its notice of rule development in the Florida Administrative Weekly. DEP filed the notice of rule development specifically "in response to litigation pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings" in the 45 cases that are the subject of this proceeding. In these consolidated cases, DEP did not have sufficient time prior to March 22, 1996 to acquire the knowledge and experience reasonably necessary to address, through the rulemaking process, the policy statements relative to factoring and markups based on value added services. Certainly, related matters were not sufficiently resolved to enable DEP to initiate rulemaking to address the policies set forth in the March 21, 1995 and October 20, 1995 memoranda until the spring of 1996. DEP is currently using the rulemaking procedure expeditiously and in good faith to adopt rules which address these non-rule policies. Additionally, the record indicates that it was not possible for the agency to initiate rulemaking in time to give Petitioners advance notice of the new policies. Petitioners filed the last applications in February of 1995 before DEP had time to fully evaluate the factoring plan. The time it took DEP to develop the detail or precision in the establishment of the policies set forth in the March 21, 1995 and October 20, 1995 memoranda was reasonable under the circumstances.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services seeks to impose an administrative fine in the amount of $350.00 on the basis of allegations that the Respondent, failed to report visible and accessible evidence of dry wood termite fecal pellets.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, James M. Dodds has been licensed to conduct residential termite inspections. On June 12, 1990, he conducted a termite inspection at the residence of a Mrs. Mitchell, located at 7420 W. 15 Court, Hialeah, Florida. During the course of that inspection, Dodds did not inspect the attic of the residence. The reason he did not inspect the attic was because the access to the attic (which was through a crawlspace in the ceiling of a small bedroom closet) was blocked by a large number of boxes stacked in the closet. During the course of the inspection Dodds told the owner of the house that unless she arranged to move all the boxes out of the way, he would have to indicate on his report that the attic was not inspected. The owner did not arrange to get the boxes moved and Dodds did not inspect the attic. At the conclusion of his inspection of the property described above, Dodds filled out an inspection report form and left a copy of the inspection report with the property owner. Dodds placed some check marks in some preprinted boxes on the back of the inspection report form. Those check marks included one that indicated "attic not available for inspection." Shortly thereafter, the house was sold to a new owner who, shortly after moving in, discovered what appeared to him to be evidence of possible termite infestation. Subsequent inspections of the premises by another pest control company and by an inspector of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services revealed the presence of fecal pellets left behind by dry wood termites. The termite fecal pellets were discovered in the attic near the crawl space opening. There was no other evidence of the presence of termites. No live termites were seen on either of the follow-up inspections.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a final order in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent, James M. Dodds. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 11th day of March, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha F. Barrera, Esquire, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Mr. James M. Dodds Creative Construction Services, Inc. P. O. Box 38-1996, Miami, Florida 33138 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether DNR should establish an exceptional drilling unit or units in order to prevent waste and to avoid the . . . risks . . . from . . . an excessive number of wells, Section 377.25(2), Florida Statutes (1983)? The respondents expressly declined to raise any question as to the petitioners' standing or party status.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner W. J. Jordan and apparently all the other petitioners are owners of mineral rights under the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 29 West, Santa Rosa County, Florida. T. R. Miller owns the mineral rights under the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 13 and has leased them to Smackco. Near the center of the southeast quarter of Section 13 (the existing unit) respondent Smackco drilled the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well. NOT COMMERCIALLY PRODUCTIVE Smackco drilled the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well down to the Norphlet formation and went 49 feet further, into the Norphlet sands, before giving up its efforts to extract oil from the well. Although Smackco did find a mixture containing 28 to 30 percent hydrocarbons, the hydrostatic head precluded commercial production. If the well had come in, royalties would have inured to the benefit of petitioners, T. R. Miller, and the owners of the mineral rights under the southern half of the existing unit. Although the evidence showed that extracting oil from the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well was not commercially feasible now, it did not establish that the price of oil will never rise to the point that production would make economic sense. ADDITIONAL DATA At least three other oil wells have been drilled at the Mount Carmel Prospect in Township 5 North, Range 29 West, Santa Rosa County, Florida. In keeping with applicable statutes and rules, these wells are also located at or near the center of their respective quarter sections. Except where no governmental sections are laid out (offshore or in Spanish land grants), or where all rights affected by a change are in one ownership, DNR has adhered to the concededly arbitrary use of quarter sections as drilling units. Information gained from the wells drilled at the Mt. Carmel Prospect, and from seismic tests performed there formed the basis for uncontroverted expert opinion that a sandy mass, known to geologists as the Norphlet structure, lies almost three miles below the earth's surface; and that a pool of oil floats on salt water within the Norphlet structure, as shown in the Appendix to this order. The L. W. Roberts 13-4 is on the northern edge of the pool that the geologists hypothesize. The geophysicist's testimony that the Jay fault running northwest southeast and the smaller almost perpendicular fault running off to the northeast lie approximately as depicted in the Appendix was also uncontroverted. These faults may act as walls keeping oil on one side. The faults themselves do not hold oil. THE NEXT WELL If a new well were drilled in the center of the northwest quarter of Section 16, at a point one half mile due south of the L. W. Roberts 13-4, see Appendix, it would be near the western edge of the pool of oil, if the geologists are right. (If the geologists are wrong, drilling there might mean hitting the fault zone, as happened with the Franks Pittman well.) Drilling a quarter mile north, at the center of the first proposed drilling unit, would reduce the risk of hitting the fault, and might make commercial production of a substantial amount of oil possible. DRAINAGE LIKELY Smackco's geophysicist conceded that hydrocarbons at the L. W. Roberts 13-4 and hydrocarbons under the northwest quarter of the existing unit "very possibly" will migrate to a well in the center of the proposed drilling unit, if hydrocarbons are extracted in large quantities there. A well of the kind and to the depth contemplated can be expected to drain 160 acres more or less. The geologists cannot know precisely what the situation is three miles down on the basis of the information they have at hand. They may be mistaken now about the location of oil just as they were when they recommended earlier well sites in the Mt. Carmel Prospect.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DNR deny Smackco's petition for exceptional drilling units. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: James Reddick, Esquire and Dan Stewart, Esquire Suite 5 808 Caroline Street, Southeast Milton, Florida 32570 J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esquire and Spencer Mitchem, Esquire Beggs & Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576-2950 Charles J. Hardee, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Department of Natural Resources Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303 * NOTE: Original Recommended Order has an appendix map which is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office.
