Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing statement, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is a Florida corporation in good standing, authorized to do business in this state. The Petitioner owns and controls the site which is the subject matter of these proceedings. Such site is located in Brevard County, Florida. The Department has identified the subject site as DER facility no. 05- 8500985 (the facility). At all times material to this case, the facility consisted of: three underground storage tanks (UST), one 3000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, one 1000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, and one 1000 gallon UST used for storing gasoline; five monitoring wells; and pipes and pumps related to the foregoing system. The facility constituted a storage tank system as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-761.200(38), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner holds, and is named insured for, third party pollution liability insurance applicable to the facility. Such insurance was issued pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. The policy for the foregoing insurance, policy no. FPL7622040, was in force from March 22, 1991 through March 22, 1992. The Department issued a notice of eligibility for restoration insurance to Petitioner for the above-described facility. Based upon the foregoing, the Petitioner is a participating owner or operator as defined in Chapter 17-769, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Section 376.3073, Florida Statutes, Brevard County operates a local program that has been approved by the Department. Such local program is managed by the Brevard County Office of Natural Resources Management (County). In July, 1990, a discharge of diesel fuel occurred at the Petitioner's facility. Petitioner's employees estimated that approximately twenty gallons of diesel fuel filled the pump box overflowed from the pump box across the seawall into the adjacent waters. Upon discovering the discharge, Petitioner shut down diesel fuel dispensing until repairs could be made to the apparent cause of the leak. Additionally, the diesel fuel remaining in the pump box and on top of the tank area was removed. Contaminated soil in the pump box was also removed. The apparent cause of the discharge described above was attributed to cracked pipe fittings which were repaired by Glover Oil Co. within a few days of the discharge. No detailed inspection was made to the system to determine if additional sources of discharge existed. Petitioner did not complete a discharge reporting form (DRF) for the above-described incident until April 18, 1991. The April DRF was completed after Petitioner was directed to do so by Ms. DiStasio, an inspector employed by the County. From August, 1990 until May, 1991, at least one monitoring well at the Petitioner's facility showed free product accumulating in the well pipe. The exact amounts of the free product found are unknown, but reports estimated the level at 100 centimeters. From August, 1990 until September, 1991, the Petitioner did not undertake any measure to explore the origin of the free product found in the monitoring well. Further, the Petitioner did not report the monitoring well testing results as a suspected or confirmed discharge. In April, 1991, an inspection of the Petitioner's facility was performed by Ms. DiStasio. That inspection resulted in a letter to the Petitioner that outlined several violations at the facility. Among those violations listed was the Petitioner's failure to report a suspected or confirmed discharge. At the time of the April, 1991 inspection, Petitioner had reported neither the July, 1990 discharge (a known discharge) nor the monitoring well test results (at the minimum a suspected discharge). In connection with the July, 1990 discharge, following the repairs made by Glover Oil, Petitioner did not have the system pressure tested. Only the area visible from the pump box was checked for leakage. In July, 1991, when Ms. DiStasio performed a re-inspection of the facility, she found Petitioner had not (in the interim period, April through July, 1991) taken any steps to test the system or to remove the fuels from the suspect tanks. Since the free product continued to appear in the monitoring well, a pressure test of the system would have definitively answered the discharge question. Alternatively, the removal of the fuels would have prevented further seepage until the system could be pressure tested. On August 6, 1991, the Petitioner issued a letter that advised the County that it had stopped dispensing fuel at the facility. The tanks were not drained, however, until on or about September 11, 1991. Further, the August, 1991, letter acknowledged that the Petitioner "had proposals for initial remedial cleanup related to diesel contamination in the tank field area." Obviously, the Petitioner must have contemplated a need for such cleanup. On September 11, 1991, at the Petitioner's request, Petroleum Equipment Contractors, Inc. attempted to pressure test the 3000 gallon diesel tank. The purpose of the pressure test was to determine if the diesel system had a leak. The company could not even run the test on the tank because of the defective system. A similar test on the Petitioner's gasoline tank passed without incident. Once the Petitioner learned the results of the test, it initiated Initial Remedial Action (IRA) as described on the IRA report filed by Universal Engineering Sciences. The IRA consisted of the removal of the excessively contaminated soil, approximately 74 cubic yards, and the removal of the USTs. The foregoing work was completed on or about September 15, 1991. On October 4, 1991, the Petitioner filed a discharge reporting form dated October 2, 1991, that identified September 11, 1991, as the date of discovery for the discharge. This discharge discovery was allegedly made incidental to the diesel tank pressure testing failure. No reference was made to the months of monitoring well reports showing a free product. On October 8, 1991, Ms. DiStasio prepared a Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program Compliance Checklist that reported the Petitioner was not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. When Petitioner applied for restoration coverage under the statute on January 31, 1992, such request was denied by the Department on March 6, 1992. The basis for the denial was as follows: Failure to notify the Department of a positive response to sampling within three working days of testing, pursuant to the rule in effect at the time of the initial response (17-61.050(1), Florida Administrative Code). An inspection by Brevard County on April 17, 1991, revealed that free product had been detected in one monitoring well since July 1990. The discharge reporting form was not submitted until October 2, 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying Petitioner's claim for restoration coverage under the Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-2121 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are accepted. Except as found above, paragraph 3 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. It is accepted that Brevard County acted as the local agent in this case. Paragraph 4 is rejected as not supported by the record. With regard to paragraph 5, substituting "A" for "The" and "confirmed" for "discovered" the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. Similarly, with the substitution of the word "confirmation" for "discovery" in Paragraph 6, the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. No suitable explanation was offered by the Petitioner for why, if a discharge were not reasonably suspected, it retained the company to immediately remove the USTs upon the failed pressure testing. Clearly, the Club had a notion the tanks were a discharge problem. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While there was some confusion as to the exact volume of free product in the monitoring well, there was clear evidence that such was reported for many months prior to the confirmation in September, 1991. Further, the main confusion regarding the product found in the well was not as to its existence, but as to the individual's knowledge of the metric measurement of it. One hundred centimeters of product in a two or three inch pipe would not be a minute amount. Except as addressed in the foregoing findings, paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner did not undertake all repairs necessary to abate a discharge problem. Paragraph 10 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Clearly, as early as August, 1990, Petitioner knew or should have known of a discharge problem based upon the monitoring well report; that all of the discharge did not necessarily flow from the fittings that had been repaired is irrelevant. Further, Petitioner did no testing to verify that the replaced fittings had solved the discharge problem (especially in light of the well reports). Paragraph 11 is rejected as an inaccurate restatement of the exhibit. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Incidentally, the hearing in this case was in the year 1992. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as a misstatement of the exhibit cited. Paragraphs 13 through 27 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Brigette A. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Scott E. Wilt MAGUIRE, VOORHIS & WELLS, P.A. 2 South Orange Plaza P.O. Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact On February 27, 1980, Respondent converted one of its service station fuel tanks from gasoline to diesel. The tank was cleaned by Garrison Petroleum Equipment Company at Pinellas Park. Respondent paid $67.08 for this service. That same day, Respondent received 5,176 gallons of No. 2 diesel fuel from Jack Russell Oil Company, Inc., of Clearwater, a Union 76 dealer. On March 18, 1980, a standards inspector employed by Petitioner took samples from the Respondent's gasoline and diesel pumps. These samples were delivered to Petitioner's portable laboratory in Clearwater where they were analyzed. The gasoline was found to be satisfactory, but the diesel sample showed fuel contamination. The tests were conducted in accordance with the methods and standards established by Rule 5F-2.01(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the "flash point" of the diesel sample was 88 degrees F, but must be 125 degrees F or above to meet the established standard. Petitioner's inspector then returned to the Pronto Car Wash station where he issued a stop-sale order to Respondent. Subsequently, the inspector accepted Respondent's cash bond in lieu of fuel confiscation. This procedure, agreed to by both parties, allowed Respondent to pay $865.36 to the State of Florida and retain the contaminated fuel. Respondent originally paid $5,286.25 for 5,176 gallons of diesel fuel. He had sold 736 gallons of this amount at the time of the stop-sale order on March 18, 1980. Total sales of this diesel fuel amounted to $865.36, which was the amount of bond demanded by Petitioner. Respondent paid $200 to Patriot Oil, Inc., to remove the contaminated fuel, but received a $3,225 credit for this fuel. Respondent does not deny that the fuel was contaminated, but seeks to establish that he acted in good faith. Respondent had the tank cleaned prior to the diesel changeover and dealt with established tank cleaning and fuel wholesaling companies. In addition, he kept the tank locked at all times after delivery of the fuel. Respondent does not contest forfeiture of his bond, but seeks refunds of state and federal taxes paid on the unsold fuel. However, Respondent was correctly informed that refund of tax payments will require him to communicate with agencies which are not parties to this proceeding.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter its order declaring forfeiture of Respondent's $865.36 bond posted in lieu of confiscation of contaminated diesel fuel. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephenson Anderson Pronto Car Wash 220 34th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Whitton, Chief Gasoline and Oil Section Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-8584
The Issue The issue is whether the application of Petroleum Products Corporation for reimbursement of the cost of assessment and clean-up of soil and groundwater contamination at its site in Broward County, Florida, under the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response Act of 1986 should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Legislature provided a system for the clean-up of sites contaminated as the result of the storage of petroleum or petroleum products in the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response Act of 1986 (Super Act), Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, codified primarily as Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. The Super Act contains a reimbursement program funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund. Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, permits reimbursement of allowable costs for the rehabilitation of sites contaminated from discharges related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products. Petroleum Products Corporation owns a parcel of land located at 3130 Southwest 17th Street, Pembroke Park, Florida. From 1959 to 1970 Petroleum Products Corporation operated a facility on that land which collected used oil from service stations and automobile dealerships, processed it, and sold it either as fuel oil or lubricating oil. About 90% of 150,000 gallons of used oil processed monthly at the facility was sold as fuel; the remaining oil was sold as lubricating oil, but even when sold as lubricating oil, it was sometimes burned as fuel because re-refined oil makes good fuel. The storage tanks were located on the southeastern portion of the property, near Carolina Road. The facility used a two-phase distillation process. Used oil was distilled to remove water, after which it could be sold as fuel oil. If processed in the second phase, for sale as lubricating oil, it was distilled further, and treated with sulfuric acid and clay to remove additives and residue, and change color. This phase produced a waste consisting of acid/clay sludge. This sludge is generally very black, and has a pH of approximately 3. It is very viscous, and has the consistency of roofing cement; laymen would describe it as tar. It does not flow easily, but is liquid enough to be pumped. This processing also occurred in the southeast part of the property. While the recycling facility produced lubricating oil using the acid/clay treatment from 1959 to 1970, the acid sludge was hauled to a municipal dump, or placed in pits dug into the ground on the north and east of the plant site. When the pits were dug, they were dug below the water level, and there was water in the pits before the sludge was dumped in them. The disposal of sludge in pits on the recycling site was a prevailing industry practice, and violated no regulatory requirements at the time. Operators considered on-site disposal of sludge preferable to hauling sludge to a landfill. During periods of heavy rain, some of the sludge may have overflown the pits and spread to nearby land, where it would become mixed with the surface soil. Petroleum Products Corporation ceased making lubricating oil in 1970, but continued to process used oil into fuel oil. The local Broward County Pollution Control Agency asked Petroleum Products Corporation to remove the acid/clay sludge from its property, and to refill the pits with other fill material. Petroleum Products Corporation acceeded to this request, and a great volume of sludge, perhaps hundreds of thousands of gallons, was removed from the pits, which were then refilled under the supervision of the Broward County Pollution Authority. Receipts Petroleum Products Corporation produced at the hearing, or thereafter from the custody of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, show that more than 150 truck loads of sludge were removed and hauled to landfills operated by Metropolitan Dade County or by the City of Surfside. Some pockets of the sludge remain at the site of the pits because they were not completely emptied. The backfill was clean fill, and the area was then bulldozed so that warehouses could be constructed in the area. This filling and bulldozing changed the contour of the land from what it had been in the past. The Department contends that much of the sludge was spread out over an extended area of the site, and not removed to landfills. The evidence is persuasive that almost all of the sludge from the pits was removed to landfills. The testimony of Mr. Blair denying that the sludge was spread was credible. In addition, on-site spreading of the sludge would have been impracticable. As a tar-like substance, if spread out, it would have been tracked everywhere. It would stick to the tracks or wheels of any vehicles operating on the surface, and was so acidic it would burn or irritate the skin of anyone who came in contact with it. It would be extremely difficult to perform maintenance on equipment used to spread the sludge because of the need to clean the sludge off, so that the mechanic would not be burned. In addition, there are a large number of receipts evidencing the systematic hauling of the sludge to landfills. The logic of Mr. McDonnell's testimony is persuasive: If you have the alternate, which they obviously did, of hauling it away and simply dumping it, no one would go out and deliberately choose to do a very difficult job [spreading the sludge over the property] where there is an easy alternative available to them. (Tr. 285) Although the facility ceased its re-refining of lubricating oil in 1970, it continued to collect, process, and sell used oil as a fuel until 1984. About 150,000 gallons per month of used oil were processed and sold as fuel. The oil was typically crank case engine oil which contained the substances normally found in used oil of that type. There is no persuasive evidence that Petroleum Product Corporation ever received any hazardous waste, or mixed used oil with any hazardous waste. Used oil is not listed as a hazardous waste by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or by the Department. The used oil collected and recycled at Petroleum Product's facility was pumped into and stored in above-ground storage tanks. There were, over time, from 10 to 25 tanks, which ranged in size from 12,000 to 20,000 gallons. Normally, the facility stored between 400,000 and 500,000 gallons of used oil. Occasionally, the facility also received virgin oil, but it was processed quickly or sold because of its higher value. At the peak of its operation, the facility had 25 to 35 storage tanks. Recycling operations had slim profit margins and were small operations. Storage tanks, pumps, and other equipment were bought used, often from other businesses dealing in virgin petroleum products. That used equipment was often rusty or deteriorating. Tank bottoms could have holes in them as the result of rust from standing water; tanks were sometimes riveted, and would have side or bottom leaks. The tanks had virtually no overfill protection. When oil was pumped in, it would overflow from the top and run down the sides. Operators were typically not careful with the oil, because it had a very low value, about 2 to 5 cents a gallon. A spill of a few thousand gallons was regarded as an inconsequential matter. The pumps used in storing oil often had leaks in packing seals, or had screw joints which would leak. Tank valves, also usually bought as used equipment, were often installed without new stem packing, and also would leak during operation. Almost no preventive maintenance was done, because it was not cost-effective to do so. Equipment was repaired only if its current state of repair interfered with operations, which usually meant that leaks were not repaired until they created a fire hazard. Leaks and spills from used oil storage tanks, including their pumps, valves, and piping, were common. A great volume of used oil leaked or spilled from Petroleum Products Corporation's tanks, pumps, and piping over its 25 year operation. There were also large oil spills resulting from four or five major fires at the facility in the 1960s. The fire in 1963, which may have been the result of vandalism, caused 40,000 to 60,000 gallons of use oil to spill from storage tanks; 8 or 10 tanks were destroyed. There were no dikes, so that the oil flowed freely. When firemen used water on the fire, the oil was absorbed into the soil. Another major fire occurred in October, 1966 in which three oil storage tanks collapsed spilling about 50,000 gallons of oil. Another 25 foot high oil tank collapsed on a firetruck. There is no way to know, with certainty, the volume of used oil, virgin oil, and lubricating oil which spilled or leaked into the ground on the site. It is reasonable to believe that 9 to 12 gallons of oil would have leaked or spilled each day at the facility, which would have resulted in spill of over 100,000 gallons of oil. This estimate, made by Mr. McDonnell, is credible and is conservative, given the volume of oil also spilled during the fires. Petroleum Products Corporation does not contend that the leaks and spills from process tanks, rather than from storage tanks, are eligible for reimbursement of site assessment and cleanup costs. Oil leaked from both, however, and once in the ground, the oils are indistinguishable. Due to the capacity of the tanks and the years they were in use, however, it is reasonable to assume that 15% or less of the leaks and spills were attributable to process tanks. After processing, most of the oil was burned as fuel. Some was used as a lubricant. The only difference between used oil sold as fuel or lubricant was that the lubricating oil had the additives removed and the color changed. Both burn well. There is an insufficient basis in this record to justify the Department's interpretation excluding this site from eligibility for cleanup because oil processing ocurred at the site to produce lubricating oil. Section 376.3071 does not disqualify all or part of a site from eligibility for cleanup reimbursement because a portion of the used oil stored there was ultimately used as lubricants. In 1984 a Department investigator asked Petroleum Products Corporation to install exploratory wells to determine whether there was contamination at the site. Petroleum Products engaged the firm of Dames & Moore to undertake a preliminary investigation, which revealed that there was groundwater contamination in the form of floating hydrocarbons. On April 1, 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Petroleum Products Corporation entered into a consent order agreement which required the removal of 17 above-ground tanks leaking used oil into the ground, which constituted a continuing source of contamination. Petroleum Products Corporation contracted with Conversion Technology Corporation to recover and recycle the oil and wastes, with Waldron's tank cleaning services to clean the empty tanks and drum the sludge, with Cuyahoga Wrecking Service to make the tanks inoperable, and with Seven & Seven Transporters to remove the waste to a disposal facility. The employee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who was in charge of the site commended Petroleum Products Corporation for its cleanup effort, and wrote as the OSC [on- scene coordinator] for this EPA-monitored cleanup I may say that [Petroleum Products Corporation] exemplified industrial cooperation and responsibility in combating the vexing problem of hazardous waste management. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) Petroleum Products Corporation cooperated with the Environmental Protection Agency and with the Department in determining how to deal with the contamination. It has already spent approximately $150,000 to perform remedial action. Contamination at the site is of three types: oil floating in the groundwater, soil contamination, and groundwater contamination. It is not possible to clean any individual phase of the contamination without affecting the other phases. Attempts at remediation must be monitored to prevent an influx of organic contaminants into the aquifer. Similarly, the cost related to the cleanup of an individual phase of contamination cannot be isolated because of the inter-related nature of the cleanup phases. The creation of a cone of groundwater depression is necessary for any recovery of the free or floating oil. The cost of recovery of the free product cannot be separated from groundwater cleanup because it is necessary to treat large quantities of groundwater involved in creating a cone of depression. To the extent that a proportion of the cost might be estimated, the cost associated with the recovery of free product would be a minor portion of the overall cleanup. There is currently a free product recovery effort in place at the site, which is intended to prevent further migration of the product off-site. This ongoing action is not considered an element of the site cleanup. The most feasible method of cleanup for the free product will involve the excavation of the soils to create a trench. The free product and ground water will be recovered as they flow into the trench. During October and November of 1984, Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., a consulting firm working under contract with the Department, assessed the extent of free floating oil in the groundwater under the Petroleum Product Corporation's site. Those consultants found a free floating layer of oil from 5" to 30" thick under approximately one-half of the one acre site Petitioner still owns. The free product generally mirrors the location of the former recycling facility and its storage tanks. The viscosity of the free product is comparable to about 40-weight engine oil. Environmental Science and Engineering estimates that the floating layer of oil contains 20,000 to 60,000 gallons of recoverable petroleum product. The direction of ground water flow and the migration of contaminants off-site is to the east or southeast. The soil above the oil layer has been saturated with oil because of the fluctuations of the layer with movement of the water table as the area experiences heavy rains or dry spells. Wells drilled in the location of the former sludge lagoons to the north and east of the plant site reveal a heavy slightly liquid type of sludge. The oil in the lagoon sites is immobile, and no free product collects in the wells after 24 hours. One sample collected in the mason jar shows a slight degree of oil separation after 24 hours. This anecdotal evidence of separation is not very informative, and is not persuasive that oil separates from the remaining sludge on-site. See, Finding 32, below. A second assessment of soil and groundwater contamination was done by another consulting firm under contract with the Department, Ecology and Environment, Inc. That study showed free floating product at the site. The only calculation of the amount of free floating oil was that done by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., see, Finding 29, estimating that there would be 20,000 to 60,000 gallons of recoverable oil. That calculation understates the amount of oil in the ground. The estimate given by George McDonnell of 103,000 gallons is more persuasive. It is consistent that the large amounts of oil which leaked or spilled at the site over a 25 year period. It is unlikely that any appreciable portion of the approximately 103,000 gallons of floating oil has its genesis in the separation of oil from the acid/clay sludge which had been disposed in the two lagoons for the following reasons: Oil associated with acid/sludge would be quite acidic, and have a pH between 2 and 4. The pH scale is not a linear scale, so differences in pH are quite dramatic as the pH values change. Samples of free product shows a uniform pH of approximately 6 or 7. In almost all 31 monitoring or observation wells the pH is consistent with the characteristics of used oil, (a pH of 6 or 7), not the pH of sludge (a pH of 2 to 4). The only sample which disclosed a low pH was that taken in monitoring well number 3 which was located in the former sludge lagoon site. The groundwater flows to the east or southeast. This does not explain the presence of free product to the west and southwest of the sludge pits nor the absence of free product to the east of the pits. The viscosity of the oil is similar to that of 40-weight engine oil and not highly viscous, as the tar-like sludge would be. The oil in the sludge pits is basically immobile and no free product surfaced in the monitoring well after waiting 24 hours. The pH of the free product is nearly neutral. The Department believes that the sludge was mixed with lime rock or fill and spread over the site to increase the pH of the oil. This is unpersuasive. Mixing with lime rock would increase the pH of the sludge (tend to bring it towards neutral) but it would not cause the dramatic lowering of acidity which would bring the sludge to a pH of 6 or 7. In addition, the viscosity of the sludge would not be so changed by mixing the sludge with fill that its viscosity would become similar to that of 40-weight engine oil. To believe that the free product results from sludge disposal rather than leaks ignores the normal operating practice of used oil recovery facilities in the late 50s and 60s where spills from storage tanks, pumps, and piping were very common. Little of the free product has been recovered through the current remediation efforts. If not recovered, over time the approximately 103,000 gallons of floating oil will spread to adjacent property. To recover this oil by conventional trench or well recovery operations will probably cost $250,000 or more. The capital cost of the groundwater recovery/discharge system, with monitoring wells, will be about $85,000; cost of operating and maintenance are approximately $180,000. The firm of Ecology & Environment, Inc., collected soil samples at 56 locations in two phases in its remedial investigation. Forty-six of the samples were taken at shallow depths (27 at 8 inches, 19 at approximately 10 inches); 10 more samples were taken in the old disposal pit sites at depths between 0 and 35 feet). The two primary classes of contaminants found in the soil were lead and organics (hydrocarbons associated with petroleum products). Both contaminants are found in used oil. The lead and organic contaminants were found in the shallow soils over the southern half of the site. Very little contamination was found beyond the main area of site activity. The soil contamination was concentrated in the plant and former disposal pit areas. Samples with high lead concentrations were found in the former disposal pit sites. Contamination extended to a depth of 25 feet in one soil sample from a former pit, where oily plastic sludge was found with fine sand or clay. The two former pit sites are the only places with documented contamination below a 10 foot depth. Although the organic contamination extended laterally further than the lead contamination, Environment & Ecology concluded that the wider distribution did not reflect contamination from Petroleum Product Corporation's activities. The general area has long been the site of commercial and industrial activities, and there are many other possible sources for contamination including a firing range, which would have been disposing of lead bullets fired at the range, a generator plant, and a former spray-painting facility. Solvents and other chemicals used in these activities would contribute to soil and groundwater contamination. The consultants had been told by area businesses that small scale dumping of industrial chemicals in the vicinity has been common. Soil samples revealed a "great deal of heterogeneity." There was no uniform distribution of soils in the shallow zone. This probably occurs because after the reprocessing operations ended in 1970, the land was cleared and filled, so that many of the warehouses now in the area could be constructed. Most of the upper 8 to 10 feet is fill material. The ground water was monitored by installing 38 wells on the site, most of which were screened at depths of 10 to 12 feet. Five intermediate wells with depths of 50 feet and two deep wells of 100 to 200 feet were also installed. Every sample exhibited a pH of between 6.4 and 7.4. The primary contaminants were lead, organics, and chromium. The evidence does not indicate the source of the chromium. It is unrelated to Petroleum Product Corporation's activities. The groundwater contamination, both metal and organic, was only in the shallow zone. It extends laterally roughly to the same extent of the shallow contamination found in the soil. This suggests that the contaminants in the soil migrated due to seepage from rainfall or fluctuation in the water table into the groundwater. The water table is about five feet below the land surface. The Department has argued that the contaminants in the soil and groundwater were caused by mixing and spreading of the sludge material during the early 1970s over the surface of the area. This hypothesis has already been rejected for the reason stated in Findings 7 and 8, above. It is more likely that the soil contamination resulted from frequent spills and leaks of oil from storage tanks years ago. The soil contaminants are those found in used oil. The area generally is flat. There was no impediment to oil spills flowing over a large surface area, following the contour of the land at that time. Depending on the method used to clean up the site, the cost of rehabilitating the area will range between two and forty-six million dollars. It will cost over one million dollars to recover and treat contaminated groundwater. Approximately 110,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil must be removed and treated, the majority of that coming from the area outside the former sludge pits. The presence of contamination at the site is to be expected, given the site's former use. All of the 8 turnpike facilities and 8 maintenance yards operated by the Florida Department of Transportation report petroleum contamination from tanks, and the Department of Transportation has estimated cleanup cost will range from $20 to $30 million, although DER believes the cost may be $5 million. The cleanup will be funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund, as would the reimbursement in this case. The cost of rehabilitation is in the range of estimates that the Department has received for other petroleum contamination sites. In summary, the Petitioner's site is contaminated primarily from leak and spills of used and virgin oils processed or unprocessed and from storage tanks, pumps and integral piping. Small spills were continuous and some associated with fires were massive. The only portion of the site not contaminated due to leaks and spills is the residual soil and groundwater contamination from the sludge disposal pits, which is a small part of the overall contamination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Petroleum Products Corporation fo eligibility to participate in the cleanup program funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Rulings on Findings of Fact proposed the Petitioner: As will be obvious, the proposed order submitted by Petroleum Products Corporation comported closely with the Hearing Officer's view of the evidence, and with some modification was essentially adopted as proposed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10, to the extent necessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33 Rejected as repetitious of Finding of Fact 6. Rejected, see Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. The spreading theory is rejected in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. See also the stipulation of the parties entered as Exhibit 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Findings of Fact proposed by the Department. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted as modified in Finding of Fact 2. Discussed in the Conclusions of Law, see page 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Implicit in Findings of Fact 3 and 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unsupported by the transcript references given. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 Rejected as unnecessary. Generally rejected; see Finding of Fact 6 concerning the filling of the disposal pits. While some pockets of sludge remain at the site of the pits, the volume is difficult to determine. In an absolute sense, those pockets may contain a substantial amount of sludge, but on a comparative basis, by far the greatest part of the sludge was removed. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1), but see the final sentence of (1). Generally adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 28, and 34. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28, since the recycling facility and storage tanks were on the southern part of the property. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Implicit in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected because the process tanks necessarily store the product being processed, serving as a vessel to contain the product. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 3 with respect to the turnover in the volume of used oil processed at the facility. Only about 10 percent of the oil was reprocessed as lubricating oil. This is more significant than the volume of the tanks. See also Tr. 24 with respect to the storage capacity, and Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the surficial drainage has probably been changed by the filling and regrading of the property in preparation for building the warehouses. See Finding of Fact 6. The current surficial flow says little about the flow when the facility operated in the late 1950's and throughout the 1960's. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 through 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Generally rejected, the evidence is persuasive that about 50,000 gallons of oil were lost in the 1966 fire. (See Tr. 36-37.) Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected, the free product covers approximately one-half acre. Rejected, the more persuasive evidence is the 103,000 gallons estimated by Mr. McDonnell. See Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. See Findings of Fact 28 and 34. Rejected because it is unlikely that sludges are separating in the former sludge lagoon. See Finding of Fact 30. The source of the oil is more likely the substantial loss of oil which occurred from the fires and from leaks over the years which is now floating above the ground water. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected as unpersuasive. Rejected, the source of the free product is not leaching from the disposal pit, but the oil from over flows and leaks during operation as well as large inundations during fires. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 30. Rejected because oil does not separate from the sludge. Rejected for the reason given for rejecting Finding of Fact 63. Rejected, the seepage is not the result of separation in the disposal pits, but from the plume of free product in the ground above the ground water. Rejected as unnecessary, but the similarity of the oil seeping from the sludge pit area to waste oil is consistent with its source as leaks and spills inicident to fires. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate, see Finding of Fact 30. Rejected as unnecessary; obviously as there is no more storage, so there is no more source for leaks or spills. 71-73. Discussed in Finding of Fact 30. Rejected because liquid product will not accumulate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(5). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Rejected for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Rejected for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Rejected as unnecessary and for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1), which is consistent with the source of the free product being used oil rather than separation from sludge remaining onsite. 83-84. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. McDonnell has been accepted. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as redundant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Implicit in the finding that lead is a contaminant found in used oil. See Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary; see also, Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, although there were disposal pits in the north and eastern parts of the property. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34 with respect to location, but the testimony with respect to spreading of the sludge is rejected. See Finding of Fact 7. It is unlikely that sludge was spread over the site. The more likely explanation for the appearance of sludge in the lithologic logs for the southern end of the site is that the disposal lagoons periodically overflowed after heavy rains and provided a mechanism for the active transport of sludge out of the disposal pits into some areas on the southern end of the site. Apparently the northern area now occupied by the warehouses was higher, because no sludge was found in observation wells 4, 5 and 19. Rejected, page 41 of DER's Exhibit 3 shows no sludge at observation well 5, which the proposed finding implies. 107-112. Generally rejected because the testimony with respect to the surface flow from the tank area being to the south is rejected because the grading of the property as the warehouses were built likely changed the contour of the land. Mr. Levin's testimony was not particularly strong; for example, at page 25 of his prefiled direct testimony he states, "And for the shallow soil contamination I would still have to lean towards the fact that the materials were mixed and spread." 113-114. The sludge contamination is not the predominant or source of contamination. Rather, it is the oils which floated across the land and were carried into the soil and resulted from the leaks and spills. 115-120. Generally accepted in Finding of Fact 36, although subordinate to that finding. 121. Generally accepted, although the soil contamination by lead is attributable to leaks and spills from the used oil. 122-124. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 38. 127-128. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 36, especially the last sentence, and 38. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 39. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 39, especially the last sentence. Rejected as unnecessary. 132-134. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. 135. Rejected because the soil contamination is the result of leaks and spills of oil. 136-137. Rejected, it is more likely that the neutral pH of the ground water is the result of the essentially neutral contaminant, the used oil. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, although consistent with Finding of Fact 39 that the lateral extent of ground water contamination mirrors the soil contamination which has resulted from leaks and spills. 140-141. The predominant source of contamination is leaks and spills. 142. Rejected, the area affected by the leaks and spills is large, due especially to the fires and consequent loss of large amounts of oil from tanks. See Finding of Fact 41. 143-144. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 145. Although true, not relevant. 146-148. Rejected, whether the Environmental Protection Agency is correct or not in its assessment is not at issue here. This site was contaminated by used oil. 149-150. Although true, not relevant. Implicitly accepted in that no finding with respect to "bias" has been made. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected because the predominate source of contamination is an eligible source. Rejected, but the source here falls within the statutory directive. Rejected. The site here is predominantly contaminated by used oil, which is eligible. The eligible portion is not a minor part of the entire of the contamination. COPIES FURNISHED: R. L. Caleen, Jr., Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On March 22, 1977 during a routine inspection of various service stations in Vero Beach, a sample of No. 2 diesel fuel was taken from the pump at English Brothers Truck Stop. Upon analysis at the mobile laboratory the sample was found to be below the minimum flash point for No. 2 diesel fuel and the inspector returned to the station the same day and issued a stop sale notice. (Exhibit 3). Three additional samples were taken, and when analyzed they too were found to be below minimum flash point for this type fuel. Upon receipt of the stop sale notice the station manager notified Respondent. After the fuel had been analyzed at the state laboratory Respondent was notified that since the retail value of the contaminated fuel exceeded $1,000 it could pay $1,000 in lieu of having the fuel confiscated. Respondent owns the fuel at English Brothers Truck Stop until such time as the fuel is removed through the pump for sale. Upon receipt of the notice of the contaminated fuel, which was in one 4,000 gallon tank, Respondent immediately sent three employees to remove the contaminated fuel and clean the tank. Thereafter Respondent attempted to locate the source of the contamination but without success. Since the flash point was lower than allowed for diesel fuel the most likely source of contamination was gasoline which is a higher priced fuel than diesel. Standards used by the Petitioner in determining the required characteristics of fuels are those prescribed by the ASTM. Respondent distributes some 750,000 gallons of diesel fuel per month and this is the first report of contamination of its fuel in the eight and one half years Respondent has been in business.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of the site known as Union 76 #702 or as Taylor's 76, Inc., located at 9700 East Indigo Street, Perrine, Dade County, Florida. The prior owner of that site was Lawrence Oil Company. There appears to be a commonality of principals between Petitioner TYU, Inc., and its predecessor in title, Lawrence Oil Company. In 1986 the Legislature created the Early Detection Incentive Program (hereinafter "EDI") to encourage early detection, reporting, and cleanup of contamination from leaking petroleum storage systems. Essentially, the Legislature created a 30-month grace period ending on December 31, 1988, for owners of sites with contamination from petroleum storage systems to apply for reimbursement for cleanup expenses due to the contamination, without retribution from the State. The statute also provided several bases for which an applicant would be deemed ineligible. Prior to the December 31, 1988, deadline Petitioner checked the various sites owned by it, including the site which is the subject of this proceeding, to determine whether contamination was present. The subject site had been a service station, selling gasoline for 30 to 35 years. From 1986 forward, however, gasoline was no longer being dispensed at the site although the underground gasoline tanks were still present. It is unknown whether the tanks were emptied at the time that they were taken out of service. Automobile repairs were still performed at the site. By 1989, the site was also occupied by a lawn maintenance company and a pool company. In 1988 and 1989 a 55-gallon drum of used oil was located on the site. The lawn company employees used that oil to lubricate their chain saws. The remainder of the used oil and the solvents from the small parts washer were picked up from that site for recycling. In November or December of 1988, Harry Barkett, president of Lawrence Oil Company, personally visited the site. He sampled the monitoring wells. Because he smelled gasoline in the monitoring wells, he retained Seyfried & Associates, Inc., an environmental consultant, to prepare a report to be submitted to the Department. That report is dated December 15, 1988. Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program, together with the report of Seyfried & Associates, Inc., was submitted to the Department prior to the December 31, 1988, deadline. At the time, Metropolitan Dade County's Department of Environmental Resources Management (hereinafter "DERM") was performing EDI inspections for the Department pursuant to a contract. On March 22, 1989, a DERM employee who performed only industrial waste inspections went to the subject site. He specifically was not there to inspect the petroleum storage systems, and he did not do so. That employee went into the service bays where the routine auto repair and maintenance services were performed. He noticed the floor drains going from the service bays to the oil/water separator. He then inspected the oil/water separator. He noted that a hole had been cut at the top of the effluent pipe, which breached the system and which might allow oil to flow into either a drain field or a septic tank system. He did not check further to ascertain which. He took three samples from inside the oil/water separator, one for oil and grease, one for phenols, and one for metals, specifically cadmium, chromium, and lead. Not surprisingly, the laboratory analysis of those samples indicated the presence of phenols, oil, and grease. The only sampling done by that employee was of the contents of the oil/water separator. No investigation was made of, and no samples were taken from, the soil or groundwater anywhere on the site. Such sampling was not part of that employee's authority or responsibility. On October 11, 1989, Dade County DERM sent a different employee to perform the EDI inspection at the subject site. To determine the presence of contamination from petroleum or petroleum products, that employee dipped an acrylic bailer into each of the monitoring wells and then "sniffed the bailer" to ascertain if the odor of gasoline could be detected. He did not dip the bailer lower than the top foot of water since he did not wish to bring the bailer up through a column of water before sniffing. Dade County DERM employees no longer "sniff the bailer" due to the health risk involved in such a procedure. In 1989, however, it was the common practice for DERM employees to "sniff the bailer," albeit cautiously. That employee failed to detect the odor of gasoline and did not see any petroleum contamination in the monitoring wells. He issued a report to that effect. He took no samples from the soil or groundwater to determine if there were contamination from petroleum or petroleum products at the site. Based upon the second report indicating the absence of gasoline odor and based upon the first report indicating the presence of oil, grease, and phenols inside the oil/water separator, Dade County DERM recommended to the Department that Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program be denied. Based upon that recommendation, the Department sent Petitioner a letter dated May 23, 1990, denying Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program. That letter stated as the two reasons for denial the following: Contamination is not the result of a discharge from a petroleum storage facility as defined in Section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes. Waste oil contamination found on the ground and groundwater was the result of poor maintenance practices by site owner/ operator. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is restricted to contamination from such storage facilities pursuant to 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. Contamination is a mixture of waste oil, grease and phenolic compounds. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is limited to petroleum or petroleum products as defined in Section 37.301 [sic] (9) and (10), Florida Statutes. That letter further advised Petitioner of its right to request a hearing regarding that determination and advised Petitioner that its failure to timely request an administrative hearing would render that correspondence to be a final Order of Determination of Ineligibility. When Petitioner received that correspondence, one of its employees interpreted the letter to mean that the Department had determined that the site did not have contamination from petroleum or a petroleum product. Viewing that as good news, that employee merely put the letter in a file. No request for an administrative hearing was made by Petitioner, and the correspondence became a final Order of Determination of Ineligibility by its own terms. In 1990 the Legislature determined that all sites which had been declared ineligible by the Department would be re-determined for eligibility. The Legislature established March 31, 1991, as the new deadline by which owners or operators could request the Department to reevaluate eligibility for sites for which a timely EDI application had been filed but which had been deemed ineligible by the Department. The new legislation set forth several circumstances under which the Department would not redetermine the eligibility of a previously denied site. One of those exceptions related to the reason for which a site had initially been denied. Petitioner had remained convinced that the subject site was contaminated by petroleum or petroleum products prior to the original deadline for filing EDI applications. Petitioner was aware of the new legislation and new deadline by which sites determined ineligible could have their eligibility redetermined. Petitioner therefore retained Kiefer-Block Environmental Services, Inc., to do a site analysis to verify Petitioner's belief that the site had a petroleum contamination. That company issued a report indicating that was the case. Petitioner timely filed its application for redetermination before the March 31, 1991, deadline and submitted to the Department the information obtained from Kiefer-Block, the second environmental consultant to verify the presence of petroleum contamination. In reviewing applications for redetermination, the Department established a procedure whereby it simply looked at its original letter denying eligibility to ascertain the reason for denial. If that reason matched one of the exclusions under the new legislation, the Department advised the applicant that it was not eligible to have its site redetermined. The Department did not review the Department's files relating to a site and did no additional inspection. In 1991 the Legislature again amended the statute, this time carving out an exception to those sites excluded from redetermination of eligibility by directing that sites excluded due to an absence of contamination be redetermined for eligibility if contamination had in fact existed. That amendment went into effect July 1, 1991. Accordingly, that amendment was part of the law in effect when the Department made its decision as to whether it would redetermine Petitioner's eligibility. By letter dated September 3, 1991, the Department advised Petitioner that it was not eligible to participate in the redetermination process. That letter specifically provided as follows: This Order is to inform you that this site is not eligible to participate in the eligibility redetermination process pursuant to Section 376.3071(9)(b), F.S., because the original reasons for ineligibility were: Contamination is not the result of a discharge from a petroleum storage facility as defined in Section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes [definition in Section 376.301(15), F.S., current revision]. Waste oil contamination found on the ground and groundwater was the result of poor maintenance practices by site owner/ operator. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is restricted to contamination from such storage facilities pursuant to 376.3071(9), F.S. Contamination is a mixture of waste oil, grease and phenolic compounds. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is limited to petroleum or petroleum products as defined in Section 376.301(9) and (10), Florida Statutes [definitions in Section 376.301(13) and (14), F.S., current revision]. Section 376.3071(9)(b)3.c., F.S., states that redetermination of eligibility is not available to facilities that were denied eligibility due to contamination from substances that were not petroleum or a petroleum product, or contamination that was not from a petroleum storage system. Petitioner timely filed its request for an administrative hearing regarding that letter, contesting the Department's refusal to redetermine Petitioner's eligibility to participate in the EDI program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: (1) granting Petitioner's application for redetermination of eligibility and (2) finding Petitioner ineligible to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-0678 Petitioner's three unnumbered paragraphs contained in its post-hearing submittal have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5-18, and 20 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Vittorino Special Projects Manager TYU, Inc. 1601 McCloskey Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33605-6710 Brigette A. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Petitioner's service station site known as Siesta Key Exxon Village, at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, is eligible for state administered cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Weeks Oil Company, Inc., owns and operates a service station, Siesta Key Exxon, located at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. On December 21, 1988, Petitioner applied, pursuant to the Early Detection Incentive Program (EDI), for state assistance due to a suspected discharge of gasoline at the facility. The application indicated that a manual test of a monitoring well, conducted on December 16, 1988, detected contamination. After free product was discovered in the monitoring wells in December, 1988, subsequent monitoring well reports for the months of January - May, 1989, indicated the presence of free petroleum product. The January, 1989, monitoring report indicates six inches of free product; the February, 1989, monitoring report indicates twelve inches of free product; the March, 1989, report failed to indicate the presence of free product; and both the April and May, 1989, monitoring reports indicate the presence of sixteen inches of free product. Purity Well Company, the monitoring well contractor retained by Weeks Oil, bailed free product out of the monitoring wells once a month during the period January through May, 1989. On May 23, 1989, Richard Steele of the Sarasota County Pollution Control Division conducted an Early Detection Incentive Program Inspection at Siesta Key Exxon, 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, DER Facility #588521170. During the inspection, Mr. Steele examined the monitoring well reports for Siesta Key Exxon for the months of January through May, 1989. Evidence of contamination was indicated by each month's monitoring well report, and the amount of free product indicated by the monitoring well reports increased over time. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele observed a minimum of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three. As part of the Early Detection Incentive Program inspection, Mr. Steele requested inventory records for Siesta Key Exxon, which records were provided on June 7, 1989. Inventory records for January, February, March and April, 1989, indicated a total shortage of 441 gallons of gasoline. Mr. Steele's inspection report of May 22, 1989, indicates that no initial remedial action other than the bailing of monitoring wells occurred subsequent to the December, 1988, EDI application. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele was neither provided with any evidence of repairs to the petroleum storage system made for the purpose of acting upon monitoring well reports, nor did he visually observe any evidence of repair. By letter dated May 24, 1989, from Richard Steele to Weeks Oil Company, Mr. Weeks was informed of the presence of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three and specifically requested a tank tightness test. The May 24, 1987, letter requested Mr. Weeks to send the results of the tank tightness test to the Sarasota County Pollution Control Office or the Department of Environmental Regulation district office. Mr. Weeks discussed with Steele the fact that the contaminants appeared to come from tanks no longer in service, which tanks were scheduled for relining. Mr. Weeks did not consider it practicable to test tanks scheduled for relining and thought Steele agreed that he could delay the testing until the tanks were refitted. Mr. Steele never made such a commitment, and the tank test was never conducted. On October 20, 1989, the tanks at Siesta Key Exxon were excavated and fiberglass coated. The August 22, 1989 ineligibility determination cites as the reason for denial, the failure of Weeks Oil to conduct a tank tightness test as requested by Sarasota County or otherwise immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, The ineligibility letter concludes that failure to immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, shall be construed as gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system, which precludes participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program. A tank tightness test should be performed by the owner or operator of a petroleum storage system where there are any discrepancies in inventory records or monthly monitoring system checks. Rule 17-61.050(4)(c) 3., Florida Administrative Code, requires upon discovery of an inventory discrepancy that investigation of the system "shall not stop until the source of the discrepancy has been found, the tank has been tested, repaired, or replaced, or the entire procedure has been completed." Pursuant to Rule 17-61.050(6), Florida Administrative Code, the owner or operator of a storage system shall test the entire storage system whenever the Department has ordered that such a test is necessary to protect the lands, ground waters, or surface waters of the state. Specifically, the Department may order a tank test where a discharge detection device or monitoring well indicates that pollutant has been or is being discharged. Given the inventory record discrepancy and the amount of free product continually observed in the monitoring wells at Siesta Key Exxon, it was appropriate for Mr. Steele to request a tank tightness test. The bailing of a contaminated monitoring well is not an appropriate method of determining the source of petroleum contamination. The failure of Weeks Oil Company, Inc., to timely conduct a tank test as requested by Sarasota County, acting on behalf of the Department, creates a risk of or the potential for greater damage to the environment because a continual unchecked discharge leads to the release of more petroleum product into the environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet D. Bowman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2400 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 James B. Weeks, Jr. Weeks Oil Company Post Office Box 100 Sarasota, FL 34230 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Handy Food Stores, Inc. (HFS), is a small, family owned corporation that owns and operates a chain of thirty-four convenience stores in Florida, thirty two of which sell gasoline. At issue in this proceeding is Store No. 82 (Store 82 or the store) located on State Road 378 in LaBelle, Florida. The facility has also been identified by respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), as DER facility number 268520172. This controversy concerns an application by HFS for reimbursement of costs and expenses related to cleanup activities at Store 82 incurred after that store site became contaminated with petroleum and petroleum products. The application was preliminarily denied by DER on the ground HFS was "grossly negligent" in the maintenance of the petroleum storage system at Store 82. Because the average clean-up cost per site is $330,000, and HFS denied that it was grossly negligent in its operation and management of the system, HFS requested a formal hearing to contest the agency's proposed decision. The facts in this case are not complicated, and with certain exceptions, are relatively free of dispute. Until February 1988 HFS's director of operations was Ray Collier. On February 2, 1988 Collier ordered the installation of four monitoring wells at Store 82 to determine if any leaks were occurring in two underground storage tanks located on the site. Such wells were required to be installed by DER for monitoring purposes no later than December 31, 1988. The parties have stipulated that the wells were properly installed in accordance with agency rules. When the wells were installed on February 2, the contractor's report reflected no contamination was present. Collier also contracted with Purity Well Testing, Inc. (PWT) to conduct monthly monitor system checks at the store. Such checks are required by DER to determine if any discharges of product are occurring in the storage system. On February 10, 1988 Collier resigned as director of operations to accept a position in Saudi Arabia. Prior to his resignation Collier was replaced by David A. Laughner, who still remains in that position. According to Laughner, he and Collier spent only two weeks together prior to Collier's departure, and Collier did not advise him of the details concerning the monitoring program. Thus, he had no immediate knowledge of the existence of the monitoring wells or the tests being conducted by PWT. HFS's corporate offices are located in an office building at 9330 Adams Drive, Tampa, Florida. Besides three corporate officers and the director of operations, the corporation had only three office employees who worked at the corporate headquarters. The building is owned by B & B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc. (B & B), which operates a chain of grocery stores in southwest Florida. HFS's offices are on the second floor while B & B's corporate offices are located on the first floor. Although the two corporations are legally separate entities, they have certain common directors and shareholders, and the two corporations once utilized a centralized bookkeeping and billing department which was controlled and staffed by B & B. Under that arrangement, bills sent to HFS were actually processed by B & B's accounting department which paid the invoice on behalf of HFS. In addition, the two corporations once shared the same post office box. Under that arrangement, which existed in February 1988 and continued until at least August 1988, all mail sent to HFS at the post office box was initially processed by B & B's mail room rather than being sent directly upstairs to HFS. On April 24, 1988 PWT conducted its first monthly monitor well inspection at the store. That report indicated that three inches of free product was present in monitoring well three. A second monthly monitoring well inspection was conducted on May 10, 1988 reflecting the presence of two inches of free product in well number three and twelve inches in well number four. Free product was defined by a DER witness as "material (such as a petroleum product) that will be left on the water table." The presence of a free product, including a refined petroleum product, in a monitoring well is an indication that a discharge or release of the product from a storage tank has and may be continuing to occur. If free product is observed, it is the responsibility of the tank owner to determine the cause of the discharge, and if it is determined that the discharge is coming from the tank, he must empty the tank so that the system can be repaired or replaced. Also, the owner is obliged to notify DER within three working days of discovery of the discharge. The purpose behind these reporting and investigating requirements is to try to decrease the size of the petroleum plume and the area of contamination. The results of the two tests, and the invoices for the charges, were sent by PWT to HFS's post office box. Consistent with existing procedure, B & B's mail room received the reports and invoices and forwarded both to B & B's billing department for processing and payment of the invoices. Rather than forwarding the test reports upstairs to HFS, B & B filed the reports with the invoices in B & B's billing department. The parties have stipulated that no one in the billing department knew or had reason to know of the potential significance of the monitor well inspection reports. Because the bills had been paid, PWT did not contact HFS to determine whether the reports had been received. Consequently, neither Laughner nor any other HFS corporate employee had knowledge that monitor well inspections had been conducted at Store 82 or that inspection reports had been forwarded by PWT. However, it is found that copies of such reports were either forwarded to Store 82 by someone in Tampa or by PWT because they were available for inspection by DER representatives at a store inspection that took place in late June 1988. As the result of an unconfirmed telephonic report received in early February 1988 concerning possible contamination at Store 82, on June 17, 1988 a DER inspector, Jeffrey Gould, sent a letter to Laughner at HFS's corporate post office box advising that Gould would be conducting a stationary tanks compliance inspection at Store 82 during the week of June 27, 1988. The letter also requested that all records associated with the storage tank system be available at the facility for inspection. This inspection is commonly referred to as a "17-61 compliance inspection", meaning that the storage tanks would be checked to see if they met the requirements of Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code (1987). Although the letter was addressed to Laughner, it was forwarded by an undisclosed person to a Store 82 employee, Betty Smith, whose title is area supervisor, and Laughner denies having seen the letter until several months later. 1/ Gould and another DER employee, Alicia Andersen, met with Betty Smith at the store on June 29, 1989. It may be inferred that Smith had copies of the PWT monitoring reports for she produced copies of the same for Gould, who then hand-copied and reviewed the two reports. Gould also made a physical inspection of the four monitoring wells on the site. He noted the presence of free product in two of the four monitoring wells. One had 7/8 of an inch of free product (gasoline) while a second well had fourteen inches of free product. Gould also detected a strong odor and observed sheen in the northeast monitoring well and a strong odor in the southeast monitoring well. These findings are memorialized in a written compliance inspection report received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 2. After the inspection was completed, Gould discussed generally the results with Smith, had her sign the report and gave her a copy. Since Smith was not present at final hearing, Gould's version of their conversation is the only competent evidence of record on the subject. According to Gould, he told Smith that he "had found product and that it is a problem." Gould acknowledged that he did not go into too much detail with Smith concerning the report since she was only an employee, but he specifically recalled advising her "there was a definite problem at this facility" and that he "spent a long time" with her. Finally, after giving Smith a copy of the report, Gould told Smith to "return it to her office." However, Smith did not do so. Gould's version of the events was not credibly contradicted and it is hereby accepted. On July 11, 1988 Gould, over the district manager's signature, sent Laughner by certified mail a "warning" letter and copy of the June 29 inspection report. The documents were sent to the post office box in Tampa. The return receipt was signed on July 15 by one Patty Jackson, whose relationship, if any, to HFS was not disclosed. The letter provided in pertinent part as follows: Free gasoline product was found in two of the compliance monitoring wells. Product thickness in one well exceeded the bailer limitation of fourteen inches. The presence of free product was also noted on monitor well records by Purity Well Testing Company for April 24, 1988 and May 10, 1988. A maximum thickness of twelve inches was measured. Such discharges are in violation of Chapter 376, Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-3. It is required that the discharges be stopped and the integrity of the storage system verified. Records available onsite indicate the 4000 gallon tank failed a tightness test with a leak rate of -0.1057 gallons per hour (gph) on September 26, 1986. The tank however passed the test on October 7, 1986 at +0.027 gph. Please describe all repairs, if any, to the storage system after the initial failure. The Department requests a meeting to discuss entry into a Consent Order to resolve the violations. Please contact Jeff Gould at 813/332-2667 or write the letterhead address within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter to schedule a meeting. Your cooperation is appreciated. (Emphasis added) As noted in the previous finding, the letter and report were received on July 15, 1988 but were not forwarded upstairs to Laughner or any other corporate employee. When Gould received no oral or written response - to his letter, Gould eventually telephoned Laughner on August 26, 1988. During the course of the telephone call, for the first time Laughner became aware of the existence of the contamination problem at Store 82 and the nature of the tests that had been performed that spring by PWT. It is also noted that during the telephone call, Laughner acknowledged that Gould's letter of July 11 had just been routed to his desk. The two agreed to meet at DER's Fort Myers district office on September 1, 1988 to discuss the violations. On August 29, 1988, or three days after Laughner spoke with Gould, HFS filed its incentive program application for Store 82. The application, which noted that the date of discovery of a petroleum discharge at Store 82 was on June 29, 1988, was received by DER on September 6, 1988. On September 1, 1988, Laughner met with DER representatives to discuss Store 82. Laughner was told that certain specific measures should be taken to insure the integrity of the storage tank system. That same day, in a letter to DER, HFS informed DER that a tank integrity test had been scheduled for Store 82 and that HFS was implementing initial remedial action (IRA) to remove any petroleum product and excessively contaminated soils and that an enviromental consultant had been contracted to conduct IRA, site contamination assessment and any necessary remedial action. Until that time, and dating back to June 29, 1988, HFS had only conducted a stick test at Store 82 to monitor the presence of petroleum product. Also, HFS personnel had not reviewed any repair records, monitoring well records, or inventory records during this same period of time. On September 7, 1988, HFS conducted a tank integrity test at Store 82. The integrity test passed under the criteria set by the National Fire Protection Association, which is the acceptable standard under Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. However, DER did not consider the testing to be a timely response since it considered no more than a week to be a reasonable period of time for testing once a discharge is discovered. On October 7, 1988, DER, through its inspector Gould, conducted an incentive program compliance inspection at Store 82. Although Gould observed two and one-eighth inches of free product in one well and a sheen in another well, the compliance inspection checklist noted that Store 82 was in compliance with Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. Question 3 on the verification checklist asked if there was "evidence of gross negligence." Gould checked "yes" and made the following notations: See penalty worksheets (draft CO to OGC for review). Major violations failed tank test (enclosed) showed leaks Sept. 1986! - D.E.R. not notified, free product in well treated as a discharge and D.E.R. not notified of product in wells to take action. Gould responded in the above fashion because he concluded that nothing had been done for long periods of time to insure the integrity of the petroleum storage system at Store 82. It should be noted, however, that nothing in the checklist indicated that damages of any kind were caused by HFS's failure to take remedial action until September 1988, and DER representatives admitted they had no proof of such damages. On September 14, 1989, or approximately one year later, DER issued its proposed agency action denying Store 82's eligibility for reimbursement under the incentive program. As later amended on March 16, 1990, the agency's letter recited the following reason for denying the application: Monitor well reports dated April 24, 1988 and May 10, 1988 listed free product in monitoring wells. No report of discharge discovery was made to the Department by Handy Foods as required by Chapter 17-61, F.A.C. On June 29, 1988, an inspector from the Department discovered free product in Petitioner's monitoring wells. Petitioners were sent a warning letter by the Department on July 11, 1988, requesting that Petitioner stop any discharges and verify the integrity of its storage system. Petitioner conducted such tank tightness tests on September 7, 1988, or approximately five months after the monitoring well reports indicated the discovery of free product. Failure to report, investigate and abate where there is evidence of a discharge shall be construed to be gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. In other words, DER contended that HFS was "grossly negligent" within the meaning of the law by failing to "report, investigate and abate" the discharge until almost five months after the leaks were first detected by PWT. DER admits that it has no information to support a contention that, as to Store 82, HFS failed to maintain or falsified inventory or reconciliation records, intentionally damaged the petroleum storage system, failed to make monthly monitoring system checks, or failed to meet monitoring and retrofitting requirements in accordance with chapter 17-61 procedures. Although the incentive and reimbursement programs under section 376.3071 were enacted by the legislature in 1986, the agency has not promulgated formal rules that define or identify "gross negligence" or the criteria for determining eligibility under the incentive reimbursement program. Through the introduction of various agency records received in evidence as petitioner's composite exhibit 6, HFS sought to establish the fact that DER, in at least four prior cases, reached a result inconsistent with that reached in its proposed agency action regarding HFS. However, DER has processed thousands of applications of this nature, and the presence of four contrary results does not establish any binding precedent. Moreover, DER's administrator acknowledged that the agency had either erred in the cited cases or the facts were distinguishable from those presented herein. The parties disagree on the meaning of the words "gross negigence" as it is used in Subsection 376.3071(12(b), Florida Statutes (1987). Both parties presented expert testimony concerning what they perceived to be a proper interpretation of the statute. According to HFS's expert, Howard Ledbetter, he construed the term to mean a willful and reckless disregard for agency regulations that were known and understood by the alleged offender. Ledbetter established that in the spring of 1988 there was no firm understanding by the industry of what was required by DER's underground storage tank rules. Finally, he recalled receiving several different interpretations of the rules from DER personnel. In contrast, a DER expert, John Svek, opined that gross negligence occurs whenever an owner/operator commits a major violation of chapter 17-61. However, Svek conceded that chapter 17-61 does not distinguish or define major or minor violations, and nothing in chapter 17-61 equates a failure to immediately investigate a discharge to gross negligence. Further, he admitted that a lack of knowledge of a discharge is a factor to consider in determining whether gross negligence is present. A second DER expert, Patricia Dugan, acknowledged that not only is there no written document setting forth guidelines for determining when gross negligence occurs but that the term "gross negligence" does not appear in chapter 17-61. However, Dugan maintained that if notices are received by a corporation but are misfiled, as was alleged to have been done here, that conduct equates to gross negligence on the part of HFS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Handy Food Stores, Inc. for participation in the petroleum contamination clean-up program be approved. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Frank Gish operates Gish's Exxon service station, which is located at 400 Ridgewood Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida. Gish's Exxon service station purchases all of its gasoline from the Respondent, Widmaier Oil Company. On or about February 17, 1982, one of the Department's employees performed a routine inspection at Gish's Exxon service station. Samples were taken from each of the station's gasoline pumps and forwarded to a mobile laboratory. One of the samples taken was from the pump labeled "Exxon Unleaded." An examination of this sample was performed on the same date. The lead content of the sample was found to be .09 grams per gallon. After this analysis was performed, the remainder of the sample was forwarded to the Department's laboratory in Tallahassee for more detailed examination. Personnel at the Department's laboratory in Tallahassee performed a precise X-ray examination of the sample. American Society for Testing Materials standards were applied in conducting the examination. The lead content of the sample was found to be .098 grams per gallon. The Department's rules require that gasoline sold as unleaded gasoline may not contain more than .05 grams of lead per gallon Rule 5F-2.01(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code. The Department's testing techniques have a "reproducibility factor" or error factor of up to .034 grams per gallon. Thus, the Department does not take action based upon tests that it runs unless the tests reveal a lead content of more than .084 grams per gallon. The samples taken from Gish's Exxon service station exceeded this amount, and a "Stop Sale" order was issued. Widmaier Oil Company posted a bond in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000) with the Department, so that the gasoline could be sold as "leaded gasoline." Widmaier Oil Company has agreed to accept responsibility for the selling of any illegal product as might be determined in this proceeding. No evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be determined how the unleaded gasoline being sold at Gish's Exxon service station came to have an excessive lead content. Respondent contended that the gasoline may have been contaminated by the Petitioner's agents wrongly placing samples of gasoline that had been taken from a leaded pump into the unleaded tank. This contention is not supported by any evidence, and it appears that the samples taken by the Respondent's agents were not sufficient in volume to have raised the lead content in the unleaded tank to a level that would have violated the Department's standards.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SuperAmerica of Florida, Inc. (SuperAmerica) is affiliated with SuperAmerica Group, Inc., a corporation with headquarters in Lexington, Kentucky. SuperAmerica markets petroleum products from convenience store facilities in an eleven-state area concentrated in the Ohio Valley and upper Midwest. In 1985, SuperAmerica began constructing convenience store facilities in Florida, and opened its first stores in 1986. It installed state-of-the-art petroleum storage tanks, lines, dispensers and leak detection equipment at each new site. Casey McKenzie became SuperAmerica's administrative manager for its Florida facilities in October 1990. At that time there were approximately thirty-seven SuperAmerica convenience store facilities in Florida. Mr. McKenzie's duties included monthly reporting to corporate headquarters, environmental compliance, and emergency petroleum discharge response at the Florida sites. Mr. McKenzie left Florida in June 1993, after SuperAmerica completed its sale to Shell Oil Company of what was then over fifty sites. Virtually all of SuperAmerica's Florida sites had three separate tanks for different grades of gasoline, plus one tank for diesel fuel. The tanks were either 12,000 or 8,000 gallons in volume. Each site had between twelve and sixteen dispensers, and each dispenser had up to six nozzles for dispensing different grades of gasoline and diesel fuel. The Florida sites, including the sites at issue, experienced high volume sales as they were open twenty-four hours a day and were located in areas of heavy private and commercial traffic. The volume of sales required frequent storage tank refilling, sometimes daily or every other day. The volume of sales and frequent refillings made petroleum discharges in the form of spills, splashes and drips caused by human error a common occurrence. Customer overfill incidents involving small quantities of fuel were the most common occurrence. Other spills resulted when the underground storage tanks were being filled. SuperAmerica had procedures to minimize the risk of spills and to detect the spills or discharges. The tanks were all fitted with Gilbarco automatic tank gauging devices which computed volume of fuel and water in the tanks, the inches of fuel and water and the temperatures inside the tanks. Operators or staff also used long sticks to manually measure volume of fuel and water in the tanks. And a third method of measure was a daily sales inventory. Mr. McKenzie received the reports of these inventories on a periodic basis and store operators were instructed to watch for, and report unexplained discrepancies. To his knowledge, during his tenure as administrative manager, there were no unexplained discrepancies nor discrepancies in those inventories resulting from leaking tanks. At each site, including the sites at issue, there were six groundwater monitoring wells. The wells were generally installed during installation of the underground storage tanks in the same excavation pit. The monitoring wells were accessible through manhole covers on the surface of the concrete pad. Locked caps below the manhole covers were intended to maintain the environmental integrity of the wells. Water entered the wells through slots in the pipes which lined the well, from about a foot below the pad surface and extending below the water table. Prior to June 1991, the SuperAmerica area managers took water samples from the wells each month, performed sight and smell tests and recorded the results on an inspection report. Beginning in June 1991, SuperAmerica hired National Environmental Services and Testing (NEST) to perform the monthly groundwater sampling from the monitoring wells. NEST used a vapor monitoring device (organic vapor analyzer - OVA) in the monitoring wells to detect the pressure of organic vapors in addition to performing groundwater sampling. The monitoring wells at the seven sites at issue contained groundwater. At various times, as more specifically addressed below, NEST's monitoring reports for the sites at issue noted elevated organic vapor readings, odor present, and product in the form of skim, light skim, or sheen. Mr. McKenzie had procedures in place and carried out those procedures to respond to large volume spills or accidents above ground, as well as catastrophic leaks of underground tanks. These were his primary concerns. He did not expect a catastrophic leak in the relatively new equipment, and none occurred. Mr. McKenzie did not attribute any of the reports of elevated vapor readings, odor or presence of petroleum or diesel product in the form of skim or sheen, as evidence of tank or line failure. There are other rational explanations for the readings. Specifically, rainfall could easily dissolve and wash spilled fuel, antifreeze, oil or road grease into cracks in the pad, into manhole covers and onto the ground where it could easily seep into the monitoring wells. As conceded by counsel for SuperAmerica, there was a discharge at each of the seven sites, for purposes of the FPLRIP program. Printed text on the top of the Discharge Reporting Forms advises facilities of their obligation to report discharges or suspected releases within one day of discovery. For each site at issue, monitoring well records contained evidence of odor, product or elevated vapor readings more than one day prior to SuperAmerica's filing Discharge Reporting Forms. After filing Discharge Reporting Forms with DEP, Mr. McKenzie contacted Tanknology Corporation to schedule testing of the tanks and lines. The company was busy and was not able to complete the tests until some time (more than three days) after Mr. McKenzie filed the Discharge Reporting Forms. SuperAmerica did not intentionally cause a discharge at any of the sites, nor intentionally disable leak detection devices. When the Discharge Reporting Forms were filed, Mr. McKenzie was not aware of any spill or other discharge in excess of 25 gallons for which he had failed to file a reporting form within twenty-four hours. As of the date of the hearing there was no conclusive evidence of what caused the odor, product and elevated OVA readings in the monitoring wells. SuperAmerica's expert conjectures that they were caused by surface water runoff, sloppy transport deliveries, customer overfills and other routine problems of the high-volume facilities. In determining whether SuperAmerica was eligible under FPLRIP with regard to the sites at issue, DEP's program administrator, William Truman, considered only whether SuperAmerica properly reported suspected releases and whether it timely tested the storage systems. Those were appropriate considerations. The basis for denial as to each site is more specifically described below. On January 19, 1993, counsel for the parties executed a joint stipulation relating to an eighth facility site. In that stipulation, the agency recited its agreement that failure to report suspected releases within one working day of discovery could no longer, standing alone, serve as a basis for denial of restoration coverage eligibility under 1992 amendments to Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, governing FPLRIP. The stipulation also recited: Nothing in this Joint Stipulation shall be construed to mean that violation of the discharge response requirements contained in section 376.3072(2)(d), F.S. (1992) , and implemented in rules 17-769, 17-769.600(15) and (16), Florida Administrative Code is no longer a valid basis for denial of eligibility for restoration coverage on an incident by incident basis under FPLRIP. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. G) Hudson-DEP Facility No. 51-8837646 DOAH Case 92-6871 (Site 8023) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system located at 9508 SR 52, Hudson, Pasco County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks (USTs): two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTS; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about March 1988. On August 21, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well five was 3800 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2800 ppm. On September 16, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1000 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2000 ppm. On October 15, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 2400, five was 2900 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2200 ppm. On November 20, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 3600, five was 3000 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 6900 ppm. On December 4, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 3100, five was 2800 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 5100 ppm. On January 4, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1100, five was 2400 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2900 ppm. On March 6, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was product in monitor wells four, five and six. The report also indicates there was an odor in monitor wells five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well six exceeded 10,000 ppm. Elevated readings and odor persisted in well six in April and June. On July 14, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1400 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2600 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The form was signed by Casey McKenzie. The form indicates the date of discovery was July 14, 1992 (the most recent date on which NEST sampled the monitor wells). The method of initial discovery was a Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Company. The Type of pollutant discharged was Unleaded gasoline. The Cause of leak and Estimated number of gallons lost were both Unknown. On or about August 26, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. The test report commented that one dispenser had leaks at the nozzle when pumping and the tester had the store put an Out of Order sign on the nozzle. On or about September 1, 1992, the Department issued an order declaring SuperAmerica site no. 8023 eligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. On October 6, 1992, and again on October 21, 1993, the Department issued its amended orders of ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the discharge reported. Melbourne-DEP Facility No. 05-8840685 DOAH Case 93-4402 (Site 8024) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8024) located at 700 West New Haven Avenue, Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1988. On December 13, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 4200 ppm to 8500 ppm. On January 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 1200 ppm to 8000 ppm. On February 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in wells one, two, five and six. There was an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 2100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On March 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an order in monitor wells one and five. The OVA readings for wells one and five both exceeded 10,000 ppm. Odor and elevated readings persisted in April. On June 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well six exceeded 10,000 ppm. There was odor in wells one, five and six. The report contains the notation Charlie will check early July. If readings have not declined, he will file DNF. On July 9, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 220 ppm to 7100 ppm. There was odor in wells three, four, five and six. On July 17, 1992, Brevard County conducted an inspection of the facility. The Natural Resources Management Division of Brevard County is DEP's designated local program for purposes of the FPLRIP. The report noted the excess OVA readings since December. It required a tightness test and investigation into the source of the discharge, and it required a contamination assessment. It also noted that administrative action will be taken on this facility for major violation of 17-761, Florida Administrative Code . . . (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1) On or about July 21, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF indicates the date of discovery was July 9, 1992 - the date on which NEST sampled the monitor wells. The method of initial discovery was Vapor Readings. The Type of pollutant discharged was Unleaded gasoline. The Cause of leak and the "Estimated number of gallons lost were both Unknown. On or about July 28, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On or about July 1, 1993, the Department issued its Order of Ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Cocoa-DEP Facility No. 05-8841566 DOAH Case 93-4402 and 93-4403 (Site 8034) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8034) located at 1600 Clear Lake Road, Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida. The facility consisted of three underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; and one 8,000 gallon UST. The USTs were installed in or about January 1989. On December 13, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well number five. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for wells one, two, three, four and six all exceeded 10,000 ppm. On January 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells one through four and well six. With the exception of well three, the OVA readings for all of the wells exceeded 10,000 ppm. On February 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 2100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On March 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 4100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On or about March 31, 1992, Brevard County conducted an inspection at site no. 8034. The Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form cover sheet prepared by the Brevard County Inspector noted in part: From 12/31/91, OVA readings in all wells have exceeded reportable quantity (>500 ppm); in some instances, 5 wells >10,000 ppm. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2) The Inspection form also noted the facility failed to report Suspected releases within one working day of discovery. The above-referenced Underground Storage Tank Compliance Inspection Form also noted the facility failed to report Confirmed releases (positive response of a release detection device) within one working day of discovery (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2). The form requires a DRF within one day and a tightness test ASAP. On or about March 31, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF was signed by Mr. Casey McKenzie. The DNF indicated the date of test or discovery was March 30, 1992. The method of initial discovery was a DER Compliance Audit. The DNF does not contain information concerning the estimated number of gallons lost. The Cause of leak and the Type of pollutant discharged were both Unknown. On or about April 5, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a tightness certificate. The test report noted no product visible in the monitoring wells, but odor was present. On July 1, 1993 and again on October 21, 1993, the Department issued its order and amended order of ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Sarasota-DEP Facility No. 58-8840985 DOAH Case 93-5734 (Site 8035) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8035) located at 4405 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1988. On September 17, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well six. There was an odor in all six wells. The OVA reading for wells one, two, three and five all exceeded 1500 ppm. On October 18, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Both product and an odor were present in all six wells. The OVA readings for wells one through five exceeded 700 ppm. On November 22, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Both product and an odor were present in all six wells. The OVA readings for wells one, two and five were 2200 ppm, 1200 ppm and 4000 ppm. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Product and odor were present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well five was 3100 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well five was 3200 ppm. On February 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well two was 900 ppm. On March 11, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product in all six wells and odor present in wells one, two and five. The OVA reading for well two was 900 ppm. On April 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in wells one, two and three. On or about April 16, 1992, Sarasota County conducted a routine inspection at the above-referenced facility. The Sarasota County Pollution Control Division is DEP's designated local program agency for purposes of FPLRIP. On the Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form the Sarasota County Inspector noted: Monitor wells 1, 2, 3 and 5 had OVA readings exceeding 5000 ppm. - High readings and product in wells has been recorded in monthly report by the facility since October, 1991. (Respondent's Exhibit 4) The inspector also noted the facility Has recorded high OVA readings in several MW's but not filed DRF. The County Inspector also noted the facility failed to report Any spill, overfill, or other discharge within one working day of discovery and that the facility failed to report Suspected releases within one working day of discovery. The County Inspector made the following notations on the back of the report: Monitoring well log indicates excessive contamination free product in all wells high OVA readings as [far] back as October '91 no records of any tightness testing in regards to the increase of contamination levels found in wells. DRF on file? (Respondent's Exhibit 4) A letter from Sarasota County dated April 22, 1992, required laboratory analysis of monitor well water within 45 days. The analysis was done by NEST and was provided to Sarasota County on June 29, 1992. On July 7, 1992, Sarasota County received the report and requested that SuperAmerica file a Discharge Reporting Form due to the appearance of excessive contamination. On or about July 15, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a DNF with the Department. The DNF indicates July 14, 1992 as the Date of receipt of test results or discovery. On or about August 29, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On or about September 17, 1993, the Department issued its order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Clearwater DEP Facility No. 52-8944446 DOAH Case No. 93-4406 (Site 8036) At all times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8036) located at 4450 Easy Bay Drive, Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. The above- referenced facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1989. On September 16, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 8000 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 3000 ppm. On October 17, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor present in well five. The OVA reading for well five was 8500 ppm. On January 1, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for wells four and five was 1100 ppm. On February 6, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well five. The OVA reading for well five was 400 ppm. On March 11, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 2800 ppm. On April 7, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 650 ppm. On July 13, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 1100 ppm. Casey McKenzie prepared a Discharge Notification Form but did not file it because he believed the local agency had instructed him to hold it pending further investigation. On or about August 28, 1992, Tanknology Corporation performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a Certificate of Tightness. On October 12, 1992, Pinellas County conducted a routine inspection at the above-referenced facility. The HRS Pinellas County Health Unit is the agency's designated local agency for FPLRIP. The County Inspector made the following notation on the Inspection Report Form Cover Page: What actions were taken in response to positive responses in one or more monitor wells for the following months - 10/91; 9/91; 11/91; 1/92; 2/92; 3/92; 4/92; 7/92 - provide copy of monitor these monitor reports - take appropriate actions at this time. (Respondent's Exhibit 5) On or about October 27, 1992, SuperAmerica filed the July 13, 1992 DNF with the Department. The DNF reflected a discovery date of July 13, 1992. The DNF indicated the method of initial discovery was a vapor reading from monitor well testing company. On or about July 1, 1993, the Department issued its order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Englewood-DEP Facility No. 08-8945143 DOAH Case 93-2710 (Site 8038) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8038) located at 2710 South McCall Road, Englewood, Charlotte County, Florida. The facility consisted of four USTs: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about September 1989. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 6200 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 9800 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 2000 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 1100 ppm. On February 13, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 1500 ppm. On April 10, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 1100 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 5900 ppm. An Interoffice Memo dated April 24, 1992, from Mr. McKenzie to the manager of store no. 8038 provided in part: The monthly test of your store's monitor wells revealed the following results which need to be addressed: Monitor well number 5 showed vapor readings exceeding 5900 PPM. This is a reportable quantity to the DER. No previous results have show [sic] levels this high. (Petitioner's Exhibit 38C) This latter assertion is obviously in error given the fact that in December, 1991, the OVA reading for well four was 6200 ppm while the OVA reading for well five was 9800 ppm. On May 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 2100 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 3000 ppm. On June 15, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 2500 ppm. On July 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 1100 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with DEP. The DNF was signed by Casey McKenzie. The DNF indicated the Date of Test or discovery was July 20, 1992. The method of initial discovery was Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Reports. The estimated number of gallons lost and the cause of leak were both unknown. On or about September 1, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On September 4, 1992, Casey McKenzie wrote to DEP's South District Office with regard to the DNFs filed for Englewood Facility and the Punta Gorda Facility. With regard to SuperAmerica's failure to timely report the releases, the letter provided in part: In your letter, you refer to the elevated OVA readings recorded several months ago but not reported. This was simply an error on my part. SuperAmerica began utilizing an outside contractor to perform monitor well sampling at these locations in December. Prior to that, we performed the monthly sampling ourselves using the sight and smell method appropriate for ground water well monitoring... I was not aware of the thresholds for reporting of vapor levels. I was aware we had no sheen or odor present. When our contractor and I finally discussed the importance of the vapor readings and the ramifications involved, we immediately filed Discharge Notification Forms for suspected releases. . . Any errors made in reporting were due to lack of knowledge on my part, ... (Respondent's Exhibit 3) Mr. McKenzie's assertion of ignorance cannot be reconciled with the statements set forth in his Interoffice Memo dated April 24, 1992. See paragraph 85, above. On or about April 23, 1993, and again on October 20, 1993, DEP issued its order and amended order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Punta Gorda-DEP Facility No. 08-9045849 DOAH Case 93-2711 (Site 8039) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of its petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8039) located at 3035 Tamiami Trail, Punta Gorda, Charlotte County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about January 1990. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product in well four. There was an odor in all of the wells. The OVA readings for wells one, three, four, five and six all exceeded 10,000 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well two was 600 ppm; well three was 4500 ppm; well four was 900 ppm; and well five was 2500 ppm. On February 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two, three and five. The OVA reading for well one was 6000 ppm; wells two and three were in excess of 10,000 ppm; well four was 4100 ppm; and well five was 3800 ppm. On March 9, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two, three and five. The OVA reading for well two was in excess of 10,000 ppm; well three was 2000 ppm; and well four was 3000 ppm. 26 On April 10, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well two was 1500 ppm while the OVA reading for well three was 550 ppm. On May 14, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well two was 2200 ppm while the OVA reading for well three was 1100 ppm. On June 15, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in well two. The OVA reading for well two was 7300 ppm; well three was 1500 ppm; and well four was 1100 ppm. On July 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well one was in excess of 10,000 ppm; well three was 2000 ppm; and well four was 3100 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF was signed by Casey McKenzie. The DNF was dated July 24, 1992. However, the DNF did not include the information as to the date of test or discovery of the discharge. The cause of the leak and the estimated number of gallons lost were both unknown. The DNF indicated the method of discovery was a Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Company. On or about August 27, 1992, the agency conducted an inspection at Site 8039. During the inspection, no obvious odors were detected in the monitoring wells, indicating that there may have been errors in the original OVA readings. The agency directed SuperAmerica to have groundwater samples analyzed. The analysis was provided to the agency on October 27, 1992. On or about August 27 and September 4, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the sight and issued certificates of tightness. On or about April 23, 1993, and again on October 20, 1993, DEP issued its order and amended order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. North Ft. Myers-DEP Facility No. 36-8631544 DOAH Case 93-4405 (Site 8006) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8006) located at 4600 Bayline Drive, North Ft. Myers, Lee County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The tanks were installed on or about April 1987. In or about November 1992, SuperAmerica hired Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) to perform an environmental audit in conjunction with SuperAmerica's planned sale of the property. On January 7, 1993, ESE was performing soil borings in the tank farm and pump island areas. Soil samples were being analyzed for the presence of excessive contamination, if any. Those borings were made with a four-inch diameter hand auger. At boring SB-2, near the easternmost fuel island, the ESE employee cracked the fiberglass midgrade unleaded product line with the hand auger causing an underground discharge. SuperAmerica discovered the discharge on January 16, 1992 and filed a Discharge Reporting Form on that same date. On July 1, 1993, DEP issued its Order denying SuperAmerica eligibility for restoration coverage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter its final order denying eligibility to SuperAmerica in cases nos. 92-6871, 93-2710, 93- 2711, 93-4402, 93-4403/93-4404, 93-4406 and 93-5734; granting eligibility in case no. 93-4405; and dismissing case no. 93-2712 (voluntary dismissal). DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The findings of fact proposed by both parties, or stipulated by the parties, have been adopted in whole or in substance, except for the following: SuperAmerica's Proposed Findings of Fact. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial: 11-17, 20-23, 26-29, 39-40, 48-52, 59-66, 72-75, 79-87, 90- 92, 94-96, 98, 101, 104, 106-107, 109-147, 166, 173, 181,183, 203, 211-212, and 220. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence or unsupported by credible evidence: 97, 108, 149-155. DEP's Proposed Findings of Fact. These findings have all been adopted in substance. Additional findings have been made however, to explain the background and include facts common to all of the sites. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, Suite 654 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kenneth Plante General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Gary M. Pappas, Esquire POPHAM, HAIK, SCNOBRICH and KAUFMAN, LTD. 4000 International Place 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, Florida 33138 James M. Ellerbe, Esquire SuperAmerica Group Law Department 3499 Dabney Drive Lexington, Kentucky 40509
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint? Respondent's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and petitioner's proposed recommended order have been considered in preparation of the following findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact have been adopted for the most part, in substance, but they have been rejected when not supported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times respondent Son-Mar Propane, Inc. operated as a liquefied petroleum gas dealer under license No. 0156030178 issued by petitioner. Liquefied petroleum gas is stored under pressure. A gallon of the liquid expands to 270 gallons of vapor, at normal temperatures and pressures. Because it is so much denser, the liquid occupies the bottom of any space in which both liquid and vapor are confined. If a storage tank stands upright, and the valve is open or there is a leak at or near the valve (by far the most common place for leaks), vapor will escape. But, if the cylinder is on its side, the top-mounted valve is low enough that liquid can escape, immediately to expand as vapor to 270 times its volume as liquid. More fuel increases the risk of fire. The agent of ignition is unknown in the present case. SAINT PATRICK'S DAY 1983 Raymond Towse is not a well man; fourteen surgical operations have taken their toll; and Loretta Towse was arthritic. On March 17, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Towse discovered that there was no propane to cook breakfast with, so they put the empty tank into their customized, 1975 Dodge Tradesman 200 van. The tank, big enough to hold 239 pounds of water, stands 49 1/4 inches tall. Curtis Howard Jones, Jr., the next door neighbor who owned the tank and had made a loan of it to the Towses, regularly helped the Towses lift the tank, which weighed 71 pounds empty, into the van. After getting something to eat at K-Mart, Mr. and Mrs. Towse drove to respondent's place of business. On their way inside, Mr. Towse asked John Dahlem to fill the cylinder tank with propane. Mr. Dahlem, who can handle these tanks single-handedly, even when they are full, retrieved the tank from the van, filled it with liquefied petroleum gas, and replaced the filled tank in the van. Only he and Mrs. Towse witnessed this replacement and she is no longer alive. Mrs. Towse went inside to look at a stereo cassette recorder they were considering purchasing, then returned to the van without it. She climbed into the front seat on the passenger's side. Later she left the front seat of the van and moved, inside the vehicle, toward the cylinder tank. She may have heard gas escaping or seen liquid leaking. She may actually have reached the tank and turned the valve perhaps, inadvertently, the wrong way. When the explosion occurred, the tank lay horizontally across the bottom of the van, leaving only the carpet underneath to tell the color of the whole before the conflagration. A moan then a sigh, as Mrs. Towse breathed her last, followed the whoosh of the exploding fire, gasping for oxygen. The windshield and the skylight popped out. The frame buckled. The Pasco County Fire Service arrived at two o'clock and put the fire out. The tank was red hot. The valve lacked a half turn being closed. Forty- nine and a half pounds of liquefied petroleum gas had escaped to be consumed by the fire. Full, the tank had weighed 171 pounds. NO RECERTIFICATION The propane cylinder tank involved was manufactured in January of 1959. Mr. Dahlem filled this tank, No. 23860, with propane at least four times in the last three and a half years. It had never been recertified, even though "NFPA requires recertification 12 years after date of manufacture" (T. 41) and periodically thereafter. Recertification contemplates at least a visual inspection for rust, dents and gouges in the cylinder, and soaping the welds and valve to determine whether there are any leaks. If the cylinder passes the test, "they mark it `E' for external, then the month and the year that they do the inspection. It's stamped right in the top of the cylinder." (T. 41) NOT SECURED VERTICALLY The Towses' neighbor, Mr. Jones, who used to help lay the tank on its side in the van, also saw it lying on its side, ready for unloading, after having been filled and driven back, on at least three occasions. The tank was too tall to be made to stand upright in the van, Mr. Jones believed. Whether the tank is too tall in fact was unclear from the evidence. Measurements of the van after the fire suggest there would not have been room enough, but the fire caused buckling of the van's roof and maybe other changes. Measurement of another Dodge van with different customizing suggest that there may have been room enough to stand the tank vertically, after all, perhaps with as much as an inch clearance. The burn patterns leave no doubt that the cylinder lay on its side during the fire. The bottom of the tank, which has a diameter of 16 to 18 inches, was almost flush with the side of the van; the likelihood that the cylinder simply fell over is very small. Mr. Dahlem testified that, although the empty tank arrived lying down, he stood the tank upright in the van, after he filled it, but his testimony that he left the tank in a vertical position has not been credited. There is no dispute that he did not say anything to the Towses about securing it on March 17, 1983. DAHLEM ACTED FOR CORPORATION John Dahlem is the brother-in-law of one of the principals of Son-Mar, Inc. He has worked there for three and a half years. He cuts the grass, pumps gas and works on trucks in addition to filling propane tanks. Before he filled propane tanks himself, Mr. Dahlem watched it being done many times over a period of a year and a half. This was evidently the extent of his training. (T. 143-144) Mr. Dahlem testified that he had been instructed to check for certification but had failed to do so on the four occasions he refilled the tank the Towses used. At one time, but not on the day of Mrs. Towse's death, he did use soapy water to check for a leak, and discussed replacing part of the tank with the Towses: I had checked that tank previous when I . . . on the shroud because he had an option then. He could either have a standard valve put in, which would have been cheaper, because he would have bought just the cap; he wouldn't have needed the shroud. (T. 138-139). Mr. Berdeaux and Mr. Johnson, respondent's principals, told Mr. Dahlem he need not secure propane tanks he filled and placed in people's conveyances. "They had to tie the tank off themselves. . . I didn't have to tie it off. No, sir." (T. 143) STANDARDS The National Fire Protection Association publishes safety standards which include the following: 6115. Containers and their appurtenances shall be determined to be leak-free before being loaded into vehicles. Containers shall be loaded into vehicles with sub stantially flat floors or equipped with suitable racks for holding containers. Containers shall be securely fastened in position to minimize the possibility of movement, tipping over or physical damage. 6116. Containers having an individual water capacity exceeding 200 pounds shall be transported with the relief valves of containers in direct communication with the vapor space. * * * B-212. All containers, including those apparently undamaged, must be periodically requalified for continued service. The first requalification for a new cylinder is required within 12 years after the date of manufacture. Subsequent requalifications are required within the periods specified under the requalification method used. B-213. DOT regulations permit three alternative methods of requalification for most commonly used LP-Gas specification containers (see DOT regulations for permissible requalification methods for specific cylinder specifications). Two use hydrostatic testing, and the third uses a carefully made and duly recorded visual examination by a competent person. In the case of the two hydrostatic test methods, only test results are recorded but a careful visual examination of each container is also required. DOT regulations cite in detail the data to be recorded for the hydrostatic test methods, the observations to be made during the recorded visual examination method, and the marking of containers to indicate the requalification date and the method used. The three methods are outlined as follows: The water jacket type hydrostatic test may be used to requalify containers for 12 years before the next requalification is due. A pressure of twice the marked service pressure is applied, using a water jacket (or the equivalent) so that the total expansion of the container during the application of the test pressure can be observed and recorded for comparison with the permanent expansion of the container after depressurization. The following disposition is made of containers tested in this manner: Containers which pass the retest, and the visual examination required with it (see B-213), are marked with the date and year of the test (Example: "6-70", indicating requalification by the water jacket test method in June 1970) and may be placed back in service. Containers which leak, or for which the permanent expansion exceeds 10 percent of the total expansion (12 percent for Specification 4-E aluminum cylinders) shall be rejected. If rejected for leakage, containers may be repaired in accordance with B-220. The simple hydrostatic test may be used to requalify containers for 7 years before the next requalification is due. A pressure of twice the marked service pressure is applied but no provision is made for measuring total and permanent expansion during the test outlined in B-213(a) above. The container is carefully observed while under the test pressure for leaks; undue swelling or bulging indicating weaknesses. The following disposition is made of containers tested in this manner: Containers which pass the test, and the visual examination required with it (see B-213) are marked with the date and year of the retest followed by an "S" (Example: "8-715", indicating requalification by the simple hydrostatic test method in August 1971), and may be placed back in service. Containers developing leaks or showing undue swelling or bulging shall be rejected. If rejected for leaks, containers may be repaired in accordance with B-220. The recorded visual examination may be used to requalify containers for 5 years before the next requalification is due provided the container has been used exclusively for LP-Gas commercially free from corroding components. Inspection is to be made by a competent person, using as a guide Compressed Gas Association "Standards for the Visual Inspection of Compressed Gas Cylinders" (CGA Pamphlet C06, 1975), and recording the inspection results as required by DOT regulations. (Note: Reference to NLPGA Safety Bulletin Recommended Procedures for Visual Inspection and Requalification of ICC Cylinders in LP-Gas Service is also recommended). The following disposition is to be made of containers inspected in this manner: Containers which pass the visual examination are marked with the date and year of the examination followed by an "E" (Example: "7-70E," indicating requalification by the recorded visual examination method in July 1970), and may be placed back in service. Containers which leak, show serious denting or gouging, or excessive corrosion shall either be scrapped or repaired in accordance with B-220. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, NFPA No. 58 (1979 ed.). These provisions are adopted by reference in Rule 4B-1.01, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's license No. 0156030178. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 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 29th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Silverman, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Leslie King O'Neal, Esquire Markel, McDonough & O'Neal Post Office Drawer 1991 Orlando, Florida 32802 William Gunter, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
