The Issue The issue in this case is whether, under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, Respondent is liable for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Petitioner in an earlier proceeding. The purpose of the earlier proceeding was to determine the eligibility of Petitioner's site for state-administered cleanup of discharge from a petroleum storage system under the Early Detection Incentive program described in Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner informed Respondent of a pollutant discharge at Petitioner's gasoline station by filing a Discharge Notification Form on March 9, 1987. The form states that the discovery was made on March 5, 1987, as a result of a manual test of one or more monitoring wells. The form is marked "unknown" in response to questions concerning the estimated gallons lost, the part of storage system leaking, the type of tank, the cause of leak, and the type of pollutant discharged, although next to the last response are the typewritten words: "appears to be motor oil." A cover letter from Petitioner dated March 5, 1987, accompanied the Discharge Notification Form. The letter restates that the source of pollution is unknown, but adds that "there is a possibility that [the pollution] is the result of a septic tank, drain field discharge." The letter discloses that Blackhawk Environmental Services, Inc. ("Blackhawk") and NEPCCO/IT are investigating "to determine the extent of the contamination as well as the source." The letter provides the name and telephone number of the Blackhawk employee for further information. A separate cover letter from the Blackhawk employee to Respondent states that the notification was being submitted for consideration for Site Rehabilitation Reimbursement Costs. The letter also states that the site has been the subject of groundwater contamination from an "unknown source." Following the notification, Orlando Laboratories, Inc. submitted to Blackhawk a written analysis of the groundwater at the site. The report, which is dated March 19, 1987, contains quantitative data without any interpretation and was submitted without interpretation to Respondent on March 20, 1987. Petitioner applied to participate in the Early Detection Incentive ("EDI") Program by filing an EDI Program Notification Application dated March 23, 1987, together with a cover letter of the same date. The application supplied no more information than did the notification form. In response to the question as to the type of product discharged, Petitioner circled the choice, "used oil," but added the word, "possibility." Although the application may not have been immediately filed, Respondent received it prior to July, 1987. As part of a site inspection, an employee of Respondent prepared an Early Detection Incentive Program Compliance Verification Checklist, which was dated April 28, 1987. The checklist notes that Blackhawk "is looking into problem [and] will forward results from lab when available." The checklist also states: Odor found in E[ast] & W[est] M[onitoring] W[ells]. No other contamination found on site. Site has old waste oil tank on site that could possibly be contaminating drainfield next to tank. Also old abandoned tank (since 1967) on site. Asked owner to investigate tank's conditions. If not needed, he will remove & adjust registration accordingly. Floordrain in shop area dumps into on-site septic tank which could also contribute. The repeated mention of motor oil is due to at least two factors. First, a Blackhawk employee had mentioned to Belvin Marr, who owns and operates Petitioner, that the contaminant "looked like" motor oil. Second, Mr. Marr knew that he had, for many years, discarded used motor oil down a floordrain leading into a septic tank with an onsite drainfield. By letter dated July 22, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioner that its site was ineligible for state-administered cleanup under for the EDI program described in Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. The letter states that the decision was "based upon information given in this [Notification Application] and a compliance verification evaluation of your reported site." The July 22 letter explains that the site is ineligible because, according to the application and district inspection: the source of contamination at Marr's Exxon has been attributed to used oil. Petroleum, as defined by Section 376.301(9), Florida Statutes (F.S.), included [sic] only crude oil and other hydrocarbons in the form in which they are originally produced at the well. Petroleum product, as defined by Section 376.301(10), F.S., means fuel in its refined state which is similar in nature to fuels such as diesel fuel, kerosene, or gasoline. Used oil cannot be considered "petroleum" or "petroleum products" because it has become unsuitable for its original purpose due to the presence of impurities or loss of original properties. Therefore, your site, which is contaminated by unrefined used oil, is not eligible for participation in Early Detection Incentive (EDI) Program. The July 22 letter advises Petitioner that he could obtain administrative and judicial review of the decision by filing a petition within 21 days of the date of receipt of the letter. The letter thus provided Petitioner with a clear point of entry. By letter dated July 30, 1987, Petitioner requested a 30-day extension to allow for retesting. Additional testing took place in early August, 1987. However, there is no indication that the resulting data, which again omit textual interpretation, were submitted to Respondent until the filing of the more definite statement described in the following paragraph. The next communication between Petitioner and Respondent took place when Petitioner requested a formal hearing by filing a Petition for Hearing dated August 26, 1987. By Order for More Definite Statement entered September 14, 1987, Respondent ordered Petitioner to file a more definite statement. By Response to Order for More Definite Statement dated September 28, 1987, Petitioner filed a more definite statement. The additional test data were attached to the more definite statement, although they are not in the DOAH case file. The Response offers the following chronology with all dates being approximate dates. March 5, 1987: Respondent notified of groundwater contamination from unknown source. March 20, 1987: analysis of contamination conducted by Orlando Laboratories, Inc. and forwarded to Respondent. March 23, 1987: Petitioner applied for participation in Early Detection Incentive ("EDI") program, and the application is attached to the More Definite Statement. April 27, 1987: Compliance Verification checklist issued. July 22, 1987: Respondent denied Petitioner's application. July 30, 1987: Petitioner requested 30-day extension to conduct further testing, the results of which are attached to the More Definite Statement. August 26, 1987: Petitioner requested formal administrative hearing. Following receipt of the more definite statement, Respondent forwarded the pleadings to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing. The pleadings were received on October 9, 1987, and the file was assigned DOAH Case No. 87-4448. In a Motion for Continuance filed on January 14, 1988, Respondent asserted that the case involves the issue whether "used oil," which was what had been discharged at Petitioner's facility, is a "petroleum product." The motion refers to a pending case, Puckett Oil v. Department of Environmental Regulation, and states that this case, which had been heard in September, 1987, involves the same question. By Motion for Continuance filed on May 13, 1988, Respondent requested a continuance on the same grounds as previously cited and represented that Petitioner had no objection. An internal memorandum of Respondent dated March 17, 1988, acknowledges that Petitioner requested a review of the available data based on an "inaccurate assessment by his contractor." Reviewing the data, some of which had been provided after July 22, 1987, the memorandum notes that the majority of the contamination is from gasoline, but the involvement of the drainfield as the source of contamination "is the reason eligibility was denied." After the issuance of the final order in Puckett Oil v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 5525 (September 1, 1988), Respondent, filing a Motion to Set Hearing Date, disclosed that "[Respondent's] review of the Final Order indicates that Petitioner's site remains ineligible for SUPER Act funding." However, on July 28, 1989, the parties filed a fully executed Joint Stipulation and Motion to Dismiss. An Order Closing File, which was entered the same date, returned the matter to Respondent for final disposition consistent with the stipulation. The Joint Stipulation and Motion to Dismiss states: On July, 22, 1987, [Respondent] denied eligibility for the [EDI] Program, Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes, to [Petitioner's) site . . .. The basis for the denial was that the site was contaminated with used oil. Subsequent to [Respondent's] denial, Petitioner conducted a series of ground water tests to more accurately determine the nature and extent of contamination at the site. The results of that testing indicate that the site was contaminated with significant amounts of gasoline constituents and minor amounts of used oil constituents emanating possibly from a septic tank drainfield and a used oil storage facility. The gasoline constituents exist at levels many times that of the other constituents. Based upon the overwhelming contribution to the overall contamination presented by the gasoline constituents, [Respondent] agrees that the presence of minor amounts of contaminants from something other than a tank should not preclude [Petitioner's] site from being eligible for the EDI Program. [Respondent reserves the right not to pay for the cost of cleanup of contamination not related to discharge from a tank.] WHEREFORE Petitioner . . . and Respondent request that the hearing officer adopt this stipulation . . . and retain jurisdiction for an award of attorney's fees and costs (Fla. Stat. Sect. 57.111 (1986 Supp.) and Fla. Admin. Code Rule 22I-6.035). . .. The parties stipulated that Petitioner was a small business party. The parties also stipulated to reasonable attorneys' fees of $6625 and costs of $4690. Following the final hearing, Petitioner filed supplemental affidavits showing, in connection with the prosecution of the subject case and not the earlier proceeding, additional attorneys' fees of $1875 and costs of $490.85.
The Issue Whether the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) proved by clear and convincing evidence that Southeastern Liquid Analyzers, Inc.'s (SELA) 1994 equipment approval for its Tank Chek Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR) method should be revoked?
Findings Of Fact The Parties SELA Southeastern Liquid Analyzers, Inc., is a vendor of Tank Chek, a computer program that conducts Statistical Inventory Reconciliation for petroleum storage tanks. The vice president of SELA is David L. Roberts. SIR is a method of release or leak detection for petroleum storage tank systems. In 1994, the Department approved SELA's Tank Chek SIR method (equipment) for use in the State of Florida. The Department The Department has the statutory authority to establish rules to implement the storage tank regulation program. See § 376.303(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Regulated storage tank systems are required to use a method or combination of release detection that meet the applicable performance standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640 (1998). Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.610 (1998). Storage tank system equipment that does not have approval from the Department can still be sold in Florida, but purchasers cannot use that equipment to comply with Department rules. Owners of non-regulated tanks do not have to use approved storage tank system equipment because they are not obligated to comply with Department rules. Only aboveground storage tank systems having individual storage tank capacities greater than 550 gallons, and underground storage tank systems having individual storage tank capacities greater than 110 gallons, are regulated by the Department. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.100(1) (1998). As a release detection methodology, the SIR computer program or method is a piece of release detection equipment that is subject to equipment approval pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998), as it was in 1994 when the Department approved SELA's Tank Chek SIR method. See Rule 17-761.860 (1992). Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 761.850(2)(b) (1998), "[e]quipment approval requests shall be submitted to the Department with a demonstration that the equipment will provide equivalent protection or meet the appropriate performance standards contained in this chapter." "A third-party demonstration by a Nationally Recognized Laboratory shall be submitted to the Department with the application. The third-party demonstration shall provide: 1. A technical evaluation of the equipment; 2. Test results that verify that the equipment will function as designed; and 3. A professional certification that the equipment meets the performance standards contained in Rule 62-761.500, F.A.C." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.850(2)(c)1.-3. (1998). The function of a third-party evaluation is to verify the accuracy of the performance of a particular piece of release detection equipment in light of the performance standards. The Department does not make exceptions to the requirement that all equipment used by owners and operators of regulated storage tanks in the State of Florida must be approved unless expressly excepted by rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 761.850(2) (1998). Compare Rule 17-761.860 (1992). The Department does not have the discretion, however, to deny a request for equipment approval if the applicant satisfies all of the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998). Once a vendor has met the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998), the equipment is approved and designated on a list maintained by the Department and updated quarterly. Marshall Mott-Smith testified that permits are not issued for equipment approvals, and the approvals are not viewed as a permit. Mr. Mott-Smith testified that the Department does not write any permits for storage tank systems, nor does the Department view an equipment approval as a license. The Department, however, can and does place conditions on equipment approvals. For example, the Department's 1994 SELA equipment approval Order required the installation of at least two monitoring wells at any facility using the SELA system for release detection. Equipment approvals can be and have been revoked. One of the reasons that equipment approvals have been revoked is because the equipment no longer meets the performance standards in the rule. SELA's PetroWorks Evaluation of SELA's Tank Chek SIR Method In 1993, SELA sought equipment approval from the Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems (BPSS) pursuant to Rule 17-761.860 (1992), for SELA's Tank Chek SIR method. As part of its request for equipment approval, SELA submitted a third-party evaluation, dated June 3, 1993, of its SIR method. SELA has not submitted to the Department any other third-party evaluation of its SIR method. The third-party evaluation was conducted by Wayne E. Hill of PetroWorks. In 1993, at the time of the third-party evaluation, PetroWorks was a Nationally Recognized Laboratory. The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation verified that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method met the performance standard of the existing rule (1992) and that it "works as it was designed by a third party."2 The 1992 and 1994 versions of the underground storage tank systems rules contained a general release detection performance standard applicable to storage tanks that required that release detection methods demonstrate that the method can detect a "0.2 gallon per hour leak rate or a release of 150 gallons within a month with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of 0.05." Rule 17-761.610(5) (1992); Rule 62-761.610(5) (1994). See also Rule 17-761.620(7) (1992); Rule 62-761.620(7) (1994). The 1998 version remained substantially the same, although the term "leak rate" is omitted. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.640(1)(a) (1998)("(1) General. Method of release detection shall: (a) Be capable of detecting a release of 0.2 gallons per hour or 150 gallons within 30 days with a probability of detection of 0.95, and a probability of false alarm of 0.05.").3 The general leak detection performance standard of "0.2 gallon per hour leak rate or a release of 150 gallons within a month with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of 0.05" was applicable to all release detection methods under Chapter 17-761 (1992). SELA's 1993 PetroWorks evaluation concluded that the Tank Chek SIR method met the general release detection performance standard ("of 0.2 gallons per hour leak rate . . .") contained in Rule 17-761.610(5) (1992). The Department accepted this evaluation such that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method met the general leak detection performance standard as of the 1993 evaluation as evidenced by the Department's equipment approval Order dated January 21, 1994. The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation submitted to the Department by SELA is on a form entitled "Results of U.S. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] Standard Evaluation Statistical Inventory Reconciliation Method" and states explicitly that "[t]he evaluation was conducted by the vendor of the SIR method or a consultant to the vendor according to the U.S. EPA's 'Standard Test Procedure for Evaluating Leak Detection Methods: Statistical Inventory Reconciliation Methods.'" The State of Florida has not adopted the EPA protocol because the Department does not perform third-party evaluations of SIR release detection software. However, the Department accepts third-party evaluations that are run based on the EPA protocol. The EPA Protocol was developed in response to the varied performance of leak detection methods.4 The EPA wanted to have leak detection methodologies that could be relied upon by tank owners to accurately detect leaks. The EPA published these "tests" (the protocols) that manufacturers of leak detection equipment must meet in order to sell their equipment, e.g., to a regulated owner or operator of an underground storage tank. The instructions in the EPA Protocol for SIR formed the basis for performing third-party evaluations. The three-page "SIR Method Results Form" indicates that PetroWorks evaluated SELA's "Statistically based proprietary method." This Form provides: This statistical inventory reconciliation method reports on the following basis (check one): [actual box displayed] quantitative results (leak rate reported) X [actual box displayed] qualitative results (pass, fail, inconclusive) Test results are reported and the Form further provides: "Based on these results, the method X [actual box displayed] does [actual box displayed] does not meet the federal performance standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of 0.10 and 0.20 gallon per hour at P(D) of 95% and P(FA) of 5%." (Emphasis in original.) A three-page "Description Statistical Inventory Reconciliation Method" document is included as part of the PetroWorks evaluation. On page two under the heading "Identification of Causes for Discrepancies," the question is asked: "Which of the following effects does the method identify and quantify." Among other items, "leak rate" is a factor "identified and quantified by running a series of additional reports." On page three and under the heading "Reporting of Leak Status," the response "no" is given in response to the question, "Is the leak status reported in terms of a leak rate (e.g., gal/h or gal/day)?" The explanation for this response is: "Qualitative (Tight/Leaking/Inconclusive)." ("Tight/Leaking/Inconclusive" corresponds to "Pass/Fail/Inconclusive.") A "Reporting Form for Test Results" is included with the PetroWorks evaluation. There are 1 through 120 record numbers with a "Submitted" "Induced Leak Rate (gal/h)" heading for a vertical column. (The numbers listed vertically are either "0" or "0.1.") "The Results Reported by Vendor" are stated under two categories: (1) "If Quantitative," and below with two separate vertical columns identified as "Estimated Leak Rate (gal/h)" and "Est. Ind. Leak Rate (gal/h)" and (2) a separate category with one vertical column identified as "If Qualitative (Tank Tight? (Yes, No, or Inconclusive)." Only the "If Qualitative" vertical column is completed with "yes" or "no" responses. The data table for the two "If Quantitative" columns is blank. PetroWorks did not evaluate SELA's SIR method for leak rates. The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation described above certified that SELA's SIR method complied with the performance standard of Chapter 17-761 (1992), i.e., that the SELA Tank Chek SIR method is capable of reporting qualitative results such as "pass," "fail," and "inconclusive," and detecting a "0.2 gallon per hour leak rate." The Department's 1994 Approval of SELA's SIR Method The Department approved SELA's Tank Chek SIR Analysis System (method) on January 21, 1994, in an Order entitled "APPROVAL OF STORAGE TANK SYSTEM AND RELEASE DETECTION EQUIPMENT." The Department found, in part: "Based on the information provided by Warren [ ] Southeastern Liquid Analyzers, Inc., the Department finds that the applicant's Tank Chek Statistical Inventory Reconciliation Analysis System is comparable to an automatic tank gauging system and will provide environmental protection substantially equivalent to that provided by compliance with the requirements established in Florida Administrative Code Rule, [sic] 17-761.640(6)." See Findings of Fact 18 and 19 for a discussion of the slight differences in the wording of the "0.2 gallon per hour leak rate" performance standard. See also Endnote 3. The Department Re-examines Prior Release Detection Equipment Approvals In 1994 and 1996, the Department made minor revisions to the underground storage tank systems rules and Chapter 17-761 became Chapter 62-761. Effective July 13, 1998, the Department adopted revisions to Chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code ("Petroleum Storage Systems") which are detailed below. See also Findings of Fact 3-10 and 47-61. Beginning around December 30, 1999, Department personnel began a dialogue (by e-mail) relating to the requirements of the July 13, 1998, revisions. The participants included Jonathan Reeder and Farid Moghadam for the Department, and David L. Roberts for SELA. (Other persons at the Department including the Office of General Counsel, participated in the discussions.) Mr. Reeder requested guidance from Mr. Moghadam as follows: There seems to be a fundamental conflict between the 7/13/98 Rule requirements for SIR value and data reporting and the qualitative SIR method's ability to provide those values. Specifically, Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3., F.A.C., requires that the data set leak threshold, the minimum detectable leak rate, and the calculated leak rate be reported. However, the SIR qualitative method will only produce a Pass, Fail, or Inconclusive result. My question is as follows: Does the above situation effectively rescind the approval status of the SIR qualitative methods? This "anomaly" affects those vendors that have approved qualitative SIR methods. Specifically: Entropy Limited, EQ-018 Horner Products, SIR Pro 1, Versions 1.0 and 2.0, EQ-126 Syscorp, Inc., EQ-179 South Eastern Liquid Analyzers, Inc., EQ- 157 Ustman Industries, YES SIR 90, EQ-065 I do know that South Eastern Liquid Analyzers is quite active in Florida as I have seen their reports and have, in fact, discussed this problem with David Roberts, the owner. I guess the real question here is "Can we make a new Rule that specifically excludes previously approved equipment?" Maybe we would need to get OGC's comments? This e-mail was sent to Mr. Moghadam on December 30, 1999, after Mr. Reeder had a phone conversation with Mr. Roberts. It was also sent to Mr. Roberts. On May 12, 2000, Mr. Roberts sent an e-mail to Mr. Reeder with the following message: "I understand from Curt Johnson that I need to talk with you about SIR evaluation list. I have several issues to be resolved to be included [sic]. I would like to see if I can work with you to resolve them. What happened with the questions in FL? For SC, I have added the leak rates per John Kneece's instructions. I have providing [sic] in FL as well for your regulators." On May 12, 2000, Mr. Reeder sent an e-mail to Mr. Roberts and stated: To resolve the issues in Florida you will need to submit a third-party evaluation for a QUANTITATIVE method to Farid Moghadam at our Tallahassee office. His phone number is (850) 921-9007. Since this third-party QUANTITATIVE method would initially be routed through me via the NWGLDE it most likely would also address the past issues of the Work Group. I have not seen the file on your Method but Curt is sending it to me via post. If you have any questions you may call either myself or Farid. I will be in Daytona Beach the week of the 15th for our annual DEP Tanks meeting, returning on May 22, 2000. On May 15, 2000, Mr. Roberts responded: "I do not have a third party on the quantitative method. My third party is for qualitative. We discussed this in regard to Florida. You were talking to the legal department about my being an approved vendor and then the state changed to quantitative at a later date and how you are going to handle it. The work group is a separate issue. . . ." (Emphasis added.) On May 22, 2000, Mr. Reeder responded to Mr. Roberts: I discussed this situation with our Office of General Council (sic) and the Tallahassee Engineering Department during our Conference last week. It is a consensus opinion that the SIR Qualitative Method does not meet the requirements of Florida Rule 62-761-640, F.A.C., and therefore any Facility that uses it as a method of Release Detection is in violation of Rule 62-761.610(1)(a), F.A.C. A letter is being sent from our Tallahassee office to the five vendors that currently have Florida approved Qualitative SIR Methods. This letter will basically state the above position and require that either the vendor "upgrade" their SIR method to that of Quantitative or have their Florida equipment approval revoked. This new Rule has been in effect since July 13, 1998 which is ample time for all SIR vendors to make the necessary adjustments to their methods in order to comply with the new requirements. Additionally, any Facility that continues to use the Qualitative method will be cited for using a Release Detection Method that does not meet the Florida Rule requirements. If you choose to comply with the Florida requirements and have your method third-party evaluated as Quantitative then that would most likely address the past concerns of the Work Group - - mainly the data set problem. However, if you elect to cease doing business in Florida and still desire to have your Qualitative Method listed we can then discuss the items needed to reopen the review process. Please let me know what you wish to do and if you would like to discuss this with Farid in Tallahassee his number is (850) 921-9007. From 1993 until the effective date of the 1998 amendments to Chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code, SELA complied with the performance standard in the rules. See Findings of Fact 17 and 21. After Chapter 62-761 was amended in 1998, Department employee Farid Moghadam was told to evaluate all SIR methods being used in the State of Florida to determine whether they were in compliance with the new performance standards. (Some of the recorded dialogue among Department employees and Mr. Roberts is recited above which led to the Department's decision to revoke SELA's equipment approval.) Mr. Moghadam evaluated the already-approved SIR methods by reviewing the third-party evaluations that had been submitted as part of the original application for equipment approval for each SIR method. Mr. Moghadam discovered that at the time of the 1998 amendments to Chapter 62-761, there were 15 SIR methods approved in the State of Florida and each appeared on the Department's approved equipment list. (SELA's SIR method remains on this approved list.) Ten of the approved SIR methods were a quantitative SIR methodology, and five were a qualitative SIR methodology. All 15 of the SIR methods had previously submitted a third-party evaluation. Among the five SIR programs that were qualitative, three of the SIR vendors voluntarily reapplied for equipment approval. All three of these programs were re-approved. One of the SIR vendors requested that the Department rescind its prior order approving the SIR method, thereby requesting that the SIR method be removed from the approved equipment list. Only SELA continued to require a new third-party evaluation as determined by Mr. Moghadam. Mr. Moghadam determined that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method required a new third-party evaluation because the previously submitted PetroWorks evaluation did not indicate that SELA met the performance standards contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998). Chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code (1998), does not specify that previously-approved equipment required re- approval, re-certification, or re-evaluation. Because performance standards were added to Chapter 62-761 specific to SIR and because no previous versions of Chapter 62-761 contained any performance standards specific to SIR, the Department felt it was necessary to determine whether previously-approved equipment continued to satisfy the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998). The issue in this case is not whether SELA's Tank Chek SIR method can produce and report the leak rates required pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3.b. (1998), because the testimony and documentary evidence established that Tank Chek can produce leak rates in its reports. The issue in this case is whether SELA's Tank Chek SIR method must be re-evaluated by a third-party so that the Department can know that the leak rates that are produced and reported are accurate and reliable. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.850(2)(b) and (c). SELA declined to obtain a new third-party evaluation. As a result, the Department gave notice of its intent to revoke the SELA Tank Chek SIR method equipment approval because, as of 1998, the Department no longer had a third-party evaluation certifying that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method complied with the performance standards in Chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code. Other than the PetroWorks evaluation of SELA's SIR method performed in 1993, SELA has not provided the Department with another third-party evaluation. On April 18, 2001, the Department advised Mr. Roberts as follows: The Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems has reviewed the information submitted February 1, 16 and 20, 2001, regarding the Tankcheck Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR) equipment approval order, DEP File Number EQ-157 dated January 21, 1994. The Tankcheck SIR algorithm has not been evaluated by a Nationally Recognized Laboratory, has not been verified that it works as designed by a third party laboratory, and has not been certified that it meets the performance standards in Rule 62-761.640, Florida Administrative Code, (1998) (F.A.C.), as required by Rule 62-761.850(2), F.A.C. Therefore, the equipment approval for Tankcheck SIR, DEP File No. EQ-157 is revoked and is no longer in effect. As of the effective date of this order, you must remove all references to the State of Florida and/or Department of Environmental Protection approval from any and all marketing materials distributed in the State of Florida regarding the use of Tankcheck SIR for storage tank systems regulated by the State of Florida. SELA filed a timely challenge to this Department action. The Department Amends Chapter 62-761 in 1998 Neither Chapter 17-761 (1992) nor Chapter 62-761 (1994), specifically enumerated "performance standards" for SIR. The general leak detection standard of "0.2 gallon per hour" was the only release detection performance standard applicable to SIR under Chapter 17-761 (1992). See Finding of Fact 18. Department witnesses testified that, from an inspection standpoint, a SIR methodology that met only the "0.2 gallon per hour" general performance standard would not be in compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), but would have been in compliance with Rule 17-761.610(5) (1992). In 1998, the Department amended Chapter 62-761 (1994), formerly Chapter 17-761 (1992), substantially revising this Chapter, including for the first time, at Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), performance standards specific to SIR. The general release detection standard set forth in, e.g., Rule 62-761.610(5) (1994) (formerly Rule 17- 761.610(5) (1992)), see Finding of Fact 18, was subsumed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(1)(a) (1998). Under the 1998 revised rules, the general leak detection standard of "0.2 gallons per hour" was retained in the rule in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61-761.640(1)(a) (1998), and remained applicable to all release detection methods including SIR. The SIR-specific performance standards are intended to limit use of SIR to quantitative SIR methods only and to eliminate the use of qualitative SIR methods in Florida. Marshall Mott-Smith, the Department's Environmental Administrator, Storage Tank Regulation Section, Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems, was instrumental in drafting the 1998 amendments to Chapter 62-761, and also recommended to the Department that the acceptance of either type of SIR methodology for use in Florida be changed. Mr. Mott-Smith testified that there was a need for the Department to address the type of SIR methodology because the Department was concerned that the current use of SIR in the State of Florida was not providing adequate protection for the groundwaters and the surface waters of the state. Field experience and discussion with experts indicated that qualitative SIR methods were not really working and were problematic. There are two types of SIR methodology, qualitative and quantitative. The major distinction between a qualitative SIR and a quantitative SIR methodology is how the results produced by the SIR method are reported. The fact that a SIR method meets the general performance standard of "0.2 gallon per hour" does not indicate whether it is a qualitative or a quantitative method. Third-parties evaluate the SIR method as either a qualitative or quantitative method. A qualitative SIR methodology produces release detection results identified as "pass," "fail," or "inconclusive." A SIR methodology that produces only "pass," "fail," and "inconclusive" results is not a quantitative SIR method. A quantitative SIR methodology, in addition to "pass," "fail," or "inconclusive," will produce release detection results in terms of other values such as the leak threshold, the calculated leak rate, and the minimum detectable leak rate. The general performance standard ("0.2 gallon per hour") is a measurement that works in conjunction with other quantitative results, but it is not determinative of the type of SIR methodology. Prior versions of the rule, including for example Chapter 17-761 (1992) and Chapter 62-761 (1994), allowed either a "qualitative" or a "quantitative" SIR methodology. In contrast to the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), the previous versions of the rules did not specify that the SIR method had to produce any particular numeric results in order to be in compliance with the rule, only the "0.2 gallon per hour" general performance standard had to be satisfied. Neither Chapter 17-761 (1992) nor Chapter 62-761 (1994), specifically identified SIR as a release detection method. SIR was indirectly referenced as "other similar release detection method." See Rule 17-761.610(5) (1992) and Rule 62-761.610(5) (1994). The performance standards for SIR found at Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), do not specifically identify the SIR method as either a "qualitative" or "quantitative" SIR methodology. However, all of the Department witnesses persuasively testified that Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), requires a "quantitative" SIR methodology. For, example, Mr. Reeder testified that the 1998 rule specifies a specific type of SIR method "in the sense that it requires the production of a leak rate, minimum detectable leak rate and threshold, because those are values that are only produced by a quantitative method and not a qualitative method. So, by that fact, it specifies that a quantitative method be used."5 Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640 (1998), is entitled "Performance Standards for Release Detection Methods." Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998) provides, in part: "Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR). SIR shall be conducted according to" requirements a. through i. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3.b. (1998) requires that the results of each monthly analysis for the SIR method "include the calculated results from the data set for leak threshold, the minimum detectable leak rate, the calculated leak rate, and a determination of whether the result was 'Pass,' 'Fail,' or 'Inconclusive.' For the purposes of this section, the 'leak threshold' is defined as the specific leak threshold of the SIR method approved in accordance with Rule 62- 761.850(2), F.A.C., to meet the release detection level specified in Rule 62-761-640(1)(a), F.A.C." These required reported values are performance standards. A performance standard is something that determines the performance of the method; something that shows what the equipment is supposed to do. Prior versions of the rule, including specifically Chapter 17-761 (1992), did not require that if SIR was used as a leak detection methodology that the SIR method report these leak rates. The requirement that the SIR methodology produce and report these leak rates, see Finding of Fact 59, as well as "pass," "fail," and "inconclusive" results, are SIR-specific performance standards. The SIR performance standards contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), requiring that these results be produced defines the required SIR methodology as a quantitative methodology. Resolution of the Controversy Notwithstanding the 1993 PetroWorks evaluation, the evidence presented during the final hearing demonstrates that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method is capable of producing quantitative calculated results from a data set for leak threshold, the minimum detectable leak rate, and the calculated leak rate. Stated otherwise, SELA's SIR method can produce and report these values that are required. However, even though SELA's Tank Chek SIR method can produce and report quantitative results, and necessarily these values, a new third-party evaluation is required pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 761.850(2)(b) and (c) (1998), to demonstrate that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method complies with the performance standards of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998). Compare Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.640(3)(c)3.b. (1998) with Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.850(2)(b) and (c) (1998). The problem with the quantitative results (leak threshold, the minimum detectable leak rate, and the calculated leak rate) SELA's Tank Chek SIR method produces in reports is that it is not known whether those results are accurate or reliable. Determining whether the results produced by a particular SIR method are reliable is the purpose of a third- party evaluation. As noted above, SELA has never had a third-party evaluation that demonstrates that Tank Chek SIR can reliably produce and report a leak threshold, a calculated leak rate, or a minimum detectable leak rate. SELA only has a third-party evaluation that demonstrates that its Tank Chek SIR method can detect a release of "0.2 gallon per hour," the general performance standard, and report the results as "pass," "fail," or "inconclusive." Importantly, the 1992 rules which applied when PetroWorks performed SELA's evaluation in 1993 did not require the production or reporting of leak rates; the rules required compliance only with the general performance standard of "0.2 gallon per hour." Fla. Admin. Code R. 17-761.610(5) (1992). The problem with the leak rates reported on, for example, DEP Exhibit 4, the Seffner Food Stores SIR Historical Summary Report, is that the PetroWorks evaluation did not evaluate the SELA Tank Chek SIR method to accurately produce the numbers (leak rates) that are reported. The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation specifically noted that the SIR method results are on the basis of "qualitative results (pass, fail, inconclusive)" and not on "quantitative results (leak rate reported)." The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation specifically noted that the testing results are not reported in terms of a leak rate. See Findings of Fact 26-29. The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation of SELA's Tank Chek SIR method did not and cannot have certified that Tank Chek meets the requirements of the 1998 rule as required for an equipment approval because the 1998 performance standards for SIR found at Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), were not included in Chapter 17-761 in 1993. The 1993 Petroworks evaluation is no longer valid as it no longer satisfies the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998), which is a prerequisite to an equipment approval. SELA needs a new equipment approval to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking SELA's 1994 equipment approval, EQ- 157, without prejudice to SELA submitting a new equipment approval application in compliance with Department rules. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Friends of Lloyd, Inc. is a Florida non-profit corporation formed for the purpose of protecting Jefferson County from harmful development. The Council of Neighborhood Associations of Tallahassee/Leon County (CONA) is a non- profit Florida corporation whose members are the neighborhood associations in Leon county; members of those associations reside in 42 Leon County neighborhoods dispersed throughout Leon County. CONA's purposes and goals include protection of the quality of life and environment in Leon County. The Thomasville Road Association's members are principally residents of Leon County. The Association was formed to promote responsible growth management in northern Leon County. None of the Petitioners are owners or "developers" of a Development of Regional Impact within the terms or scope of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Rather, Petitioners are members of non-profit organizations interested in the environment and growth management of Leon County. The Department of Community Affairs (the "Department") is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to administer and enforce Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Sections 380.031(18), and 380.032(1), Florida Statutes (1987). Texaco is a business entity that proposes to develop a "tank farm" near the community of Lloyd in Jefferson County, Florida. The Texaco tank farm is a "petroleum storage facility" as that term is used in Rule 28-24.021, F.A.C. Colonial is a business entity that proposes to develop a petroleum pipeline that will connect to the Texaco tank farm. The pipeline is designed to carry and contain petroleum products For purposes of standing, the parties have stipulated that certain environmental hazards can reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the existence of the pipeline/tank farm. No competent evidence was submitted regarding those hazards. As a result of the stipulation, Petitioners have each established injury-in-fact so that they are "adversely affected" by the challenged rule to an extent sufficient to confer upon them standing to maintain this action under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. On September 7, 1989, one of the Petitioners sent Respondent a letter suggesting that the proposed tank farm development to be built in Jefferson County should be required to undergo review as a DRI. Enclosed with the letter was a proposed circuit court complaint pursuant to Section 403.412(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioner expressed its intention of filing this circuit court action, but first provided Respondent a copy of the proposed complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.412, Florida Statutes. In two letters dated September 8 and 25, 1989, Petitioner supplied additional information to Respondent concerning the tank farm project and contended that in making its determination as to whether the development must undergo DRI review, Respondent should consider the storage capacity of both the tank farm and the pipeline. On October 9, 1989, Respondent answered Petitioner's first letter, and stated that the proposed project was not required to undergo DRI review because the total storage capacity of the tanks was only seventy-eight percent (78%) of the threshold set out in Chapter 28-24, F.A.C. On October 13, 1989, Respondent answered Petitioner's second and third letters, stating that with respect to the pipeline, it has been long standing departmental policy to interpret "storage facilities" as meaning only the tanks, not the pipeline, when determining whether petroleum storage facilities meet the DRI thresholds set out in Chapter 28-24. The proposed tank farm would have nine tanks with a total capacity of 155,964 barrels, which is, as Respondent determined in its letters, approximately seventy-eight percent (78%) of the applicable DRI threshold for "petroleum storage facilities" set forth in Chapter 28-24, F.A.C. The proposed pipeline's capacity over its approximate forty-five mile length from Bainbridge, Georgia to the tank farm is approximately 34,000 barrels. The proposed pipeline's volume flow capacity from the Florida/Georgia state line to the site of the prosed tank farm is approximately 13,500 barrels over approximately 18 miles. If the pipeline's volume capacity from Bainbridge, Georgia is added to the tank farm's volume capacity, the resulting project would be approximately ninety-five percent (95%) of the applicable DRI threshold in Chapter 28-24. If the pipeline's volume capacity from the state line is added to the tank farm's volume capacity, the resulting project would be approximately eighty-five percent (85%) of the threshold. In either instance, the project would exceed the eighty percent (80%) threshold that may require it to undergo DRI review although the project would be Presumed not to be a DRI under the Statute. The Department does not require developments outside Chapter 28-24's enumeration to undergo DRI review. The Department has never treated petroleum Pipelines as "petroleum storage facilities," or as otherwise subject to DRI review. On Several occasions, the Department has applied the petroleum storage facility guideline and standard to petroleum tank farms without determining whether a pipeline was attached to the tank farm. On one prior occasion, the Department has explicitly stated that Petroleum Pipelines are not subject to DRI review. The Petitioners contend that Department's Position that pipelines are not "petroleum storage facilities" is an invalid policy because it has not been adopted as a rule. There is no dispute the Department's Position on this issue has not been promulgated as a rule. If a facility were represented to be a Petroleum pipeline, but was actually designed as and operating as a petroleum storage facility, the Department would apply the Petroleum storage facility DRI guideline and standard to that facility.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether CJC Properties, Ltd. (CJC), is eligible for state restoration funding assistance under the Petroleum Contamination Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program for one or more discharges of gasoline at DEP Facility No. 378943938 (“the facility”).
Findings Of Fact The Facility CJC is a Florida Limited Partnership. It is the current owner of property located at 5691 U.S. Highway 27 North, in Tallahassee. Prior to CJC’s acquisition of the property, the property was owned by Carolyn J. Chapman, John W. Chapman, Jane Chapman Latina, and Carolyn Chapman Landrum (“the Chapmans”). The property was leased to various entities and operated as a gas station. The tanks and dispensers remained in service until November, 1995. The last operator of the facility was Lake Jackson 76, Inc. There were five underground petroleum storage tanks at the facility. Before 1991, one of the tanks at the facility was used for regular, leaded, gasoline. When leaded gasoline was phased out, the tank was used for unleaded gasoline. Site Assessments and Sampling Data On November 30, 1995, the Chapmans employed Petroleum Contractors, Inc., to remove the five storage tanks. During the tank removal, Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists, Inc. (“EGS”) performed an assessment to determine whether the facility was contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. The Underground Storage Tank Removal Report prepared by EGS noted that all five tanks appeared to be intact. Soils in the tank pit wall and bottom were not discolored. No significant contamination was observed directly below the tanks. Soil from the tank pit was stockpiled on the site. EGS observed no significant signs of contamination of this soil. The soil stockpile was also screened with a Flame Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). No organic vapors were detected. An OVA detects any organic vapor, but is used as a screening tool to find petroleum vapors. Department rules require that an OVA reading be performed both unfiltered and filtered. The filtered reading screens out everything but methane and is “subtracted” from the unfiltered reading to determine the presence of petroleum vapors. Twenty-four soil samples were taken from various depths at nine locations in the tank pit. These samples were tested using an OVA. Nine of the soil samples, taken from four locations, had corrected OVA readings indicative of petroleum contamination. EGS concluded that “soil contamination detected in the tank pit is likely the result of a leak in the piping” between the dispensers and the tanks. Soil samples were also taken from three borings in the vicinity of the dispenser island and OVA-tested. In boring D-2, organic vapors were detected from the surface to a depth of approximately seven feet. The OVA readings from D-2 declined with depth. EGS reported that “some contamination was detected beneath a dispenser; however, it does not ‘appear’ to significantly extend below six (6) feet.” EGS did not report both filtered and unfiltered OVA readings for the soil samples taken from the dispenser area, as it had done for soil samples taken from the tank pit and the stockpile. For the dispenser area soil samples, EGS reported a single OVA reading for each sample, without indicating whether the reading was “corrected” after filtering. For this reason, the Department contends that these data are unreliable. CJC points out that EGS stated in the text of its report that the soil samples were filtered. CJC also argues that, because the filtered OVA readings for soil samples taken from the tank pit area were not different from their unfiltered readings, the OVA readings for the soil samples from the dispenser area would not have changed after filtering. The preponderance of the evidence is that the contamination in the dispenser area was petroleum. Based on EGS’ findings during the tank removal in November 1995, Petroleum Contractors, Inc., filed a Discharge Reporting Form on December 1, 1995, stating that there had been a discharge of unleaded gasoline at the facility. In January 1996, the Chapmans applied to participate in FPLRIP based on the discharge reported on December 1, 1995. By order dated January 26, 1996, the Department determined that the reported discharge was eligible for state-funded remediation assistance under FPLRIP. In 1997, another consultant, Levine Fricke Recon (LFR) conducted a site assessment at the facility and submitted its Interim Site Assessment Report to the Department. As part of its own soil sampling at the site, LFR collected a “direct push” soil boring in the dispenser island area, near the place where EGS had reported organic vapors. The boring data showed no petroleum vapors until the interval 16-to-20 feet below ground surface. LFR also collected and analyzed groundwater samples from the site. It reported that a sample taken from beneath the former diesel dispenser contained lead. Because lead occurs naturally in soils, its presence in a water sample does not confirm that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. In 1998, LFR conducted a second assessment of the facility site. It installed and sampled four shallow monitoring wells, designated MW-1S through MW-4S, and three deep monitoring wells, designated MW-2D through MW-4D. Groundwater samples from MW-3S and MW-3D were analyzed for lead, ethylene dibromide (EDB), and 1,2-Dichloroethane. All three substances are usually detected in a groundwater sample contaminated with leaded gasoline. On August 28, 1998, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment II to the Department, which shows lead and EDB were found in a sample taken from MW-3S, but not 1,2-Dichloroethane. LFR did not conclude or express a suspicion in either of its two assessment reports that leaded gasoline had been discharged at the facility. The deadline for submitting a Discharge Reporting Form or written report of contamination was December 31, 1998. A site assessment report received by the Department before January 1, 1999, which contained evidence of a petroleum discharge, was accepted by the Department as a “report of contamination.” The petroleum discharge information received by the Department before January 1, 1999, consisted of the Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, the FPLRIP claim, the Interim Site Assessment Report, and the Interim Site Assessment Report II. Post Deadline Site Assessment Data After the statutory deadline, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment III. This report includes January 1999 groundwater sampling data from four monitoring wells which show the presence of low levels of EDB. When EDB is found in a groundwater sample, it is a common practice to re-sample the well from which the sample was taken. Of the wells that showed the presence of EDB, only MW- 10D was re-sampled, after January 1, 1999. There was no EDB present in the groundwater when MS-10D was re-sampled. In June 2000, as part of the remediation of the contamination at the facility, an area of contaminated soil was removed to a depth of 14 feet. The area of soil removed included the former dispenser area. In January 2003, the Department notified CJC that the $300,000 FPLRIP funding cap would soon be reached. In March 2003, CJC signed a Funding Cap Transition Agreement, acknowledging that “At no time will the DEP be obligated to pay for cleanup of this discharge any amount that exceeds the funding cap.” CJC further acknowledged that it “is responsible for completing the remediation of the discharge in accordance with Chapter 62-770, F.A.C.” In 2005, CJC re-sampled one of the monitoring wells for lead and EDB. Neither substance was present. The site is not currently being actively remediated. Periodic groundwater sampling indicates that concentrations of contaminants are dropping. No further active remediation has been proposed. The cost to complete remediation is a matter of speculation. The record evidence is insufficient to make a finding about future remediation costs. Eligibility Determinations On September 2, 2003, CJC submitted a PCPP Affidavit to the Department, seeking state funding under PCPP. On October 30, 2003, the Department denied CJC eligibility for PCPP funding on the basis that the contamination was covered under FPLRIP and, therefore, was excluded from funding under PCPP. The Department has never granted PCPP eligibility for the cleanup of a discharge previously being funded under FPLRIP. Apparently, in 2005, CJC hired Glenn R. MacGraw, an expert in the assessment of petroleum-contaminated sites, to review the EGS and LFR assessments. In a letter to CJC’s attorney dated August 19, 2005, MacGraw expressed the opinion that “at least 2 discharges have occurred on this site, one in the former tank area, and one in the former dispenser area.” MacGraw’s opinion that there had been a discharge of leaded gasoline was based on the detection of EDB and lead in the groundwater. He also thought the presence of methyl tetra-butyl ether (MTBE) in groundwater samples taken from the tank pit area showed a tank leak of unleaded gasoline. CJC requested FPLRIP funding for the other alleged discharges at the facility. On March 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter formally stating its disagreement that there were other reported discharges and denying eligibility for FPLRIP funding. On March 30, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Ineligibility under PCPP. The amended order added a second ground for denial, that the reported discharge was not shown to have occurred before January 1, 1995. Whether There Was A Second Discharge Eligible for Funding CJC argues that the presence of lead and EDB in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3S shows that there was a discharge of leaded gasoline at the facility. However, LFR reported that the well screen for MW-3S had probably been damaged during installation, because a significant amount of filter sand was observed in the purge water. The Department contends, therefore, that the source of the lead detected in the groundwater sample from MW-3S could have been (naturally) in the soil that entered the well. The Department also discounts the detection of EDB in the groundwater sample because EDB is an ingredient of some pesticides and can show up in groundwater when pesticide has been applied to the overlying land. Furthermore, EDB was not detected in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3D, a deeper well located near MW-3S. MacGraw does not think the EDB came from a pesticide application, because the EDB contamination at the site occurs in an elongated “plume,” in the former dispenser area, whereas one would expect to see EDB distributed evenly over the site if the source was a pesticide application. MacGraw mapped the plume of EDB by using data obtained after the discharge reporting deadline. Michael J. Bland, a Department employee and expert in geology and petroleum site assessment, believes the data from the facility are insufficient to confirm the presence of EDB or its distribution. LFR reported in its Interim Site Assessment that no significant soil contamination was found near the dispenser island. Groundwater samples from MW-3D, a deep monitoring well near MW-S3, showed no EDB, lead, or 1,2-dichlorothane. Bland opined that, if the detection of EDB in the shallow well was reliable, EDB would have been detected in the deep well, too, because EDB is a “sinker.” EDB is persistent in groundwater, so when it is not detected when a well is re-sampled, reasonable doubt arises about the detection in the first sample. Of all the wells sampled in 1999 that showed EDB, only MW-10D was re-sampled in 2003. When the well was re-sampled, there was no EDB. CJC contends that EDB was not found in the re-sampling of MW-10D because of the soil removal in 2000, but the Department contends that the soil removal would not have affected the presence of EDB in MW-10D, because the well is significantly down-gradient of the area of soil removal. It was undisputed that the presence of 1,2- dichoroethane in MW-S3 was not reliably determined. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the contamination reported in the dispenser area is the source of contamination which persists at the facility. The reported contamination only affected the top six feet of soil. The soil removal to a depth of 14 feet in that area in 2000 should have fully remediated the reported contamination. The data upon which CJC relies in claiming eligibility under FPLRIP or PCPP for a second discharge are, at best, incomplete and ambiguous. CJC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. CJC also failed to prove that the reported contamination in the dispenser is associated with a discharge that still exists to be remediated with state assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that CJC is ineligible to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program for the discharge reported to the Department on December 1, 1995, and that CJC has not demonstrated eligibility to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program for any other discharges. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2008.
The Issue This cause arose upon the Department of Environmental Regulation's proposed denial of eligibility for participation in the Early Detection Incentive (EDI) program to Petitioner, Flash Foods, Inc. The EDI Program was established in the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 and is codified in Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. The EDI Program provides for state sponsored cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of a discharge from a petroleum storage system.
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 was enacted as Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, and codified primarily in Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. It provides for the expeditious cleanup of property contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum product. The EDI Program, Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes, was created as part of the SUPER Act. The EDI Program provides for state cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of discharge from a petroleum storage system. The legislature provided that some contamination sites would not be eligible for the EDI Program. In Section 376.3071(9)(b)3., Florida Statutes, the Legislature provided that: Upon discovery by the Department that the owner or operator of a petroleum storage system has been grossly negligent in the maintenance of such petroleum storage system ...the site at which such system is located shall be ineligible for participation in the incentive program and the owner shall be liable for all costs due to discharges from petroleum storage systems at that site, any other provisions of Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, to the contrary notwithstanding. For the purposes of this paragraph, willful failure to maintain inventory and reconciliation records, willful failure to make monthly monitoring system checks where such systems are in place and failure to meet monitoring and retrofitting requirements within the Florida Administrative Code, or violation of similar rules adopted by the Department of Natural Resources under this Chapter, shall be construed to be gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. (emphasis applied) In late 1984 Flash Foods bought property located at 10143 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner operated its Flash Foods Store #112 at that location. Store #112 sold motor fuels to the general public. The fuel was stored in underground storage tanks. Specifically, the store site consisted of a building containing the fast food store and eight storage underground tanks located in two tank excavations. Six tanks are located to the west of the building in a single excavation. Two tanks are located to the east of the building in a single excavation. The six tanks to the west of the building were of unknown age. Tanks for which an installation date is unknown are treated as tanks installed before 1970, and were required to be retrofitted with monitoring wells by December 31, 1986. The two tanks to the east of the building were installed in 1974. The tanks installed in 1974 were required to be retrofitted with monitoring wells by December 31, 1987. At some time prior to December 31, 1986, inventory records revealed that two of the tanks in the site's western excavation were leaking. Those tanks were taken out of service at that time. The remaining six tanks were kept in service. At about the same time, Flash Foods decided to take all the remaining tanks out of service and replace them as soon as possible. The company felt that the six tanks which had been kept in service were likely to develop leaks. Additionally, Petitioner decided not to install monitoring wells and retrofit the six storage tanks. The decision was based on the fact that the tanks would be taken out of service as soon as possible and it made no fiscal sense to install very expensive wells and complete very expensive retrofitting. The four tanks in the western excavation and the two tanks in the eastern excavation which had been kept in service were removed in May, 1988. In 1987, Flash Foods installed two piezometers or test wells at the site. These piezometers are not monitoring wells as that term is used in Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. They are temporary in nature, and do not comply with what is recognized as a permanent monitoring well. One piezometer was placed near each excavation. In order to meet the monitoring and retrofitting requirements of Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, a series of four monitoring wells was required for each excavation. The monitoring wells were required to be placed either at the corners or the midpoint of the excavation. Clearly Petitioner did not meet the Department's requirements for the number of monitoring wells or the placement of those wells. After taking water samples the presence of contamination at the site was conf confirmed. The two test wells did not show any further ground contamination. The piezometers were then covered over with soil and no further test samples were taken from the wells. From December 31, 1986, the date retrofitting of the tanks in the western excavation was to have occurred, until 17 months later when the tanks were removed, Flash Foods continued to measure the tanks' inventory. From December 31 1987, the date retrofitting of the tanks in the eastern excavation was to have occurred, until 5 months later when the tanks were removed, Flash Foods continued to measure the tanks' inventory. The inventories did not reveal any further leakage from the remaining tanks. Inventory is measured by placing a stick into the tank and measuring the inches of product in the tank. In most cases, accuracy to a quarter of an inch is the best that can be achieved through stick measurement. A quarter of an inch translates to a differential of from 25 to 40 gallons. Inventory record keeping can detect catastrophic leaks from tanks, but is ineffective for small leaks. For that reason, inventory record keeping by itself is not an allowable method of leak detection pursuant to Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. Monitoring wells are also required so that small leaks can be detected. Inventory record keeping, therefore, does not excuse the failure of a site to install monitoring wells in accordance with Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. Monitoring wells are required at sites which have experienced discharge in order to detect subsequent discharges at the site. Rapid detection of discharges is necessary to allow contamination to be restricted to the site, to determine whether the contents of a tank need to be removed and to determine the cleanup measures which may be required at the site. If monitoring wells are sampled monthly and the results recorded so that thicknesses are provided, information regarding the existence of a subsequent discharge would be available. Due to the lack of a monitoring system for leak detection, it is not possible to know if subsequent discharges occurred at this site from the tanks at the site. Failure to detect a leaking tank will result in greater contamination concentrations, larger plume size and greater costs of cleanup. Under the Early Detection Incentive Program, greater costs of cleanup will be passed along to the state. The Department has consistently, as a matter of agency practice, denied eligibility to sites at which monitoring retrofit requirements have not been met.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Flash Foods, Inc. be determined to be ineligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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 7th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 5,B and 6 of Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 4, and 7 of Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1-27 of Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraph 28 are cumulative and subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Jones, III, Esquire Post Office Box 2149 Waycross, Georgia 31502 D. Gary Early, Esquire State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated at hearing to the factual findings set forth in paragraphs 1-5 below. Stipulated Facts The Petitioner has four underground tanks. Two tanks are located at Petitioner's facility in Port Everglades and two tanks are located at Petitioner's facility at Miami International Airport. All four tanks are registered as "stationary tanks" with Respondent. The Petitioner filed a request for reimbursement with the Respondent pursuant to section 376.3071(12)(b), Florida Statutes. The Respondent's denial with regard to the facility at each site was based on "...the fact that this facility is not a petroleum storage system as defined in section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes." Subsequent to the Respondent's denial of the Petitioner's application, the Respondent conducted an additional inspection of the Port Everglades site. The Petitioner timely filed a petition for a formal administrative hearing in response to Respondent's denial. Other Facts Petitioner, Everglades Pipeline Company, is a single, unified pipeline facility. The sole purpose of the system is to transport petroleum product along a route from a receiving pumping station at Port Everglades via a 35 mile pipeline to various terminals and ending at a terminal at the Miami International Airport. The pipeline facility transports 400 to 3000 barrels of petroleum product per hour. The petroleum product transported by Petitioner usually consists of jet A turbine fuel, JP-4 military fuel and railroad diesel fuel. Various pipe lines, not owned or operated by Petitioner, transport petroleum product from major petroleum companies to the Petitioner's receiving station at Port Everglades where the product enters the Petitioner's pipe line facility. The process of placing the petroleum product in the care of Petitioner is known as a "custody transfer." While the product is in Petitioner's custody for purpose of transport to its destination, ownership of the product does not change. At all times, the product remains the property of the company acquiring the Petitioner's transportation service. After transfer to the Petitioner's custody and during the transportation process, tests are constantly performed on the product for the purpose of maintaining quality control. During the testing process, an amount of the petroleum product is withdrawn from the pipeline through a one fourth inch pipe. Samples for testing purposes are then taken from the quantity of the product so removed. The excess of that quantity is channeled to two underground tanks at the Everglades station and temporarily held there for later injection back into the pipeline for delivery, with the same batch of product from which it was drawn, to the recipient at the other end of the pipeline journey. In the Miami station, the same process of withdrawal of a quantity of the product occurs, with two underground tanks there fulfilling the same holding function as that performed by the tanks at the Port Everglades facility. While each of the four tanks have been registered as required by section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes, such registration is not deemed dispositive of whether the tanks are petroleum storage systems since registrations are accepted at face value by the Respondent and no independent verification of registration is made. The two tanks at the Everglades facility have a 2100 gallon, or approximately 50 barrel, capacity. The two tanks at the Miami facility have a 1764 gallon capacity. These four tanks, known as "sump" tanks, perform other functions in addition to temporarily holding amounts of product from which samples are taken. Strainers in the pipeline sometimes become clogged from impurities in the product being transported. When this happens, the product is back washed within the pipeline through the strainers to unclog them. The product used in this back wash operation is then cleansed and placed in the tanks for subsequent re- injection in the pipeline with the batch of product from which it originated. The contaminants are placed in a strainer tank. The strainer tank is necessary for the effective operation of the pipeline. It was conceded in testimony of Petitioner's witness at hearing that this tank is not a petroleum storage system. Maintenance of the system sometimes requires the draining of product from the pipeline into the sump tanks. As soon as the maintenance is completed, the product is re-injected into the pipeline with the batch from which it was drawn. A safe pipeline system requires the existence of the sump tanks to hold maintenance drainage material. The tanks at the Port Everglades station are also used to hold product when pressure builds up in the pipeline system from thermal causes or other conditions which require that pressure in the system be relieved. The product drawn off at these times is re-injected in the pipeline into the batch of product from which it originated. Some form of pressure relief is necessary for safe and effective operation of the pipeline system. The process of reinserting the product back into the pipeline is a manual operation to the extent that personnel are required to open certain valves. The product is not automatically re-injected. However, the sump tanks exist solely to "take care of the individual stations or terminal." While possible to operate the pipeline without the tanks, there is no use or purpose for them except as part of the pipeline facility. An additional tank exists at the Port Everglades station as part of a scavenger system for recovery of product from the ground, but no evidence was presented to show the tank was stationary or registered. The tank is not a petroleum storage system pursuant to section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes. In addition to the two sump tanks, two barrel shaped tanks sit above the ground at the Miami International Airport terminal. These tanks have the capacity to hold 1000 barrels or 42,000 gallons of petroleum product. Neither of these tanks is registered with the Department, nor was evidence introduced that they were otherwise licensed or comply with petroleum storage system requirements of section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes. These barrel tanks were identified at hearing as a relief tank and a settling tank. The relief tank serves the same purpose of providing pressure relief for the system as do the sump tanks at the Port Everglades station. As with the sump tanks, the product is re-injected into the pipeline as soon as the upset condition causing overpressurization is past. The tank also serves to hold certain types of contaminated product until the owner can remove it from the system. The other barrel tank at the Miami station is used as a "settling" tank to filter contaminants from petroleum product. This tank is a treatment or process tank, as opposed to a petroleum storage system. The barrel tanks at the Miami Station, like the sump tanks there and at the Port Everglades station, serve only the product transportation function of the pipeline. They are necessary for safe and effective functioning of that transportation system. Each of the Petitioner's tanks is integrally related to the transportation of product from Port Everglades to Miami. Their sole purpose is the safe and effective functioning of the pipeline. As established by testimony of John Svec, Respondent's expert on petroleum storage facilities, the Petitioner's tanks function for the convenience of the transportation system. The process of taking the product out of the pipe line, holding it, and putting it back into the pipe line is a transportation function. While the Petitioner's tanks temporarily hold petroleum product, they do not store that product in order to provide a supply for future use within the context of that term's use in the field of petroleum marketing. The term "supply" means the buying or selling of product. The Petitioner does not engage in buying and selling. Custody of materials is assumed solely for transportation of that material by the Petitioner's facility. The holding function of the tanks is a part of the overall purpose of the entire pipeline facility to transport petroleum product. Petitioner's exhibit 11 establishes that the original Senate version (Senate Bill 206) of the SUPER Act of 1986 made no mention of pipeline facilities for purpose of inclusion under coverage of the Act. The committee substitute for Senate Bill 206 did include pipelines. This inclusion was carried over to the committee substitute for the committee substitute, only to be deleted from the final enrolled version of the Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for reimbursement eligibility. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-5374, 87-5305 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Included, finding 1 and 6. Included, finding 13. Rejected as unnecessary for result reached. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Included in finding 8. Summarily included in finding 11. Summarily included in finding 14. Summarily included in finding 16 with exception of the last two sentences. Testimony on this point indicated holding tanks do provide relief for system pressures. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Generally included throughout findings. Not necessary for result reached. Not necessary for result reached. As to manual valves, included in finding 17. Remainder rejected as unnecessary for result reached. Opinion as to tanks rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached concerning the system. Unnecessary to result reached. Unnecessary to result reached. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Unnecessary to result. Unnecessary to result. Unnecessary to result. Included in finding 6. Included in finding 6. Included in finding 6. Included in finding 7. Included in finding 12 and 13. Included in finding 8. Included in finding 14. Included in finding 15. Included in finding 16. Included in finding 17. Included in finding 20. Included in finding 18. Included in finding 19. Included in finding 20. Included in finding 21. Included in finding 23. Included in part in finding 21. Remainder rejected as unnecessary. Included in finding 23. Included in part in findings 23 and 24. Included in finding 24. Included in finding 24. Included in finding 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Pettigrew, Esquire Luis R. Figueredo, Esquire 5300 Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131-2339 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Twin Towers Office Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
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
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1.- 8.,below. Stipulated Facts Respondent has documented contamination from the abandoned petroleum storage system. The abandoned petroleum storage system has been properly closed. Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent on Respondent's forms 17-769.900(3) and (4), F.A.C., which was postmarked on or before June 30, 1992. The site is not eligible for cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes, the Early Detection Incentive Program, or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. This site is not owned or operated by the federal government. This site did not have leaking tanks that stored pollutants that are not petroleum products as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes. Respondent was not denied access to this site. Petroleum contamination was not discovered after the application deadline of June 30, 1992. Additional Facts Petitioner, a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Leon County, Florida, is in the business of owning and leasing property. Petitioner is the fee simple owner of property located at 2022 Wahnish Way in Tallahassee, Florida. The property located on Wahnish Way was leased to James T. "Pete" Thomas by Petitioner's predecessor in title. Thomas operated a gasoline station and automobile repair garage on the property. The lease with Thomas was continued by Petitioner without change upon Petitioner's assumption of the legal title to the property in 1985. Prior to Petitioner's assumption of title to the property, Thomas had installed four petroleum storage systems in a four tank pit on the property in the early 1970's. Each tank and its integral piping is a petroleum storage system, as defined by Section 376.301(15), Florida Statutes (1991). In the early 1980's, Thomas and his wholesale gasoline distributor determined that one of the four underground tanks was losing petroleum product. In 1982, Thomas ceased using the southernmost tank in the pit for the storage of petroleum products for subsequent consumption, use or sale. The distributor ceased placing gasoline in the southernmost tank. Later, in compliance with subsequent statutory enactments, Thomas registered all of the tanks, including the abandoned southernmost tank with Respondent by the statutory deadline of December 31, 1984. Although Thomas signed the registration documents as an agent of Petitioner, he was not such an authorized agent and the registration occurred without the knowledge or approval of Petitioner. As a result, Petitioner cannot be viewed as having filed the registration. Petitioner, unaware that Thomas had experienced any product loss problems or that the tanks on the property had been registered by Thomas with Respondent, became aware of both matters following receipt of a letter from government officials of Leon County, Florida, on November 20, 1990. As set forth in that letter, Petitioner was apprised that the tanks were not in compliance with State of Florida standards and would have to be closed or retrofitted to bring the tanks into compliance. Following receipt of the letter, Petitioner informed Thomas that selling of gasoline at the site was to be discontinued immediately. Closure of the tanks, performed in early 1991 by contractors retained by Petitioner, consisted of excavation and removal of the petroleum storage systems from the property. All four tanks were in the tank pit side by side, from the northernmost end of the pit to the southern end of the pit fronting on Osceola Street in Tallahassee, Florida. When the removal was completed, a Closure Assessment form was prepared by one of the contractors, Jim Stidham and Associates, in accordance with requirements of Florida law. During that process, excessive contamination from petroleum product of the soils in the extreme south end of the tank pit was discovered. Excessive contamination, defined as anything more than 500 parts per million, was located beneath the southernmost pump on the southern end of the pump island and in the southern end of the pit. Both soil sample seven in the southernmost end of the pit and soil sample 11 under the southernmost pump document these unacceptable high levels of contamination. A 20 foot soil boring as near as possible to the southernmost tank on the site revealed the unacceptable levels of contamination extended to that depth. As supported by the testimony of James A. Stidham, Petitioner's expert in the assessment of contamination caused by underground petroleum storage tanks, the location of contamination in the pit area establishes that the tank causing the contamination was the southernmost tank. In view of the location of the contamination in the pit area, the tank discovered to have a hole in it at the time of removal was the southernmost tank. The excessive contamination located at the shallow depth of two feet under the southernmost pump resulted from the improper disconnection of piping attached to the pump and is not attributable to the leak in the tank. Each tank was connected by piping on the eastern end of each tank to the corresponding pump. The southernmost pump was not used after 1982 and was missing integral parts by the time the tanks were closed. In the course of exploring options for clean up of the property, Petitioner filed for assistance from Respondent in the form of participation in the ATRP. Unaware of the true date of the cessation of use of the southernmost tank, Petitioner gave the date of last use for all tanks in the pit by stating that the "tanks were taken out of service between December 15, 1990 and January 15, 1991." Petitioner provided this response to Respondent's July 30, 1991 request for further information on August 6, 1991. Although Respondent made an initial determination to deny Petitioner's application in the middle of August, 1991, that action was not communicated to Petitioner. Instead, Petitioner's application was held by Respondent, pending possible amendment to Section 376.305(7), Florida Statutes (1991), the law controlling admission to the ATRP. Respondent held Petitioner's application for a total of 19 months before issuance of a formal decision to deny the application on February 26, 1993. Such delay by Respondent is unreasonable. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application was based upon the eligibility requirement restricting ATRP participants to those situations where the petroleum storage system has not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, and the belief of Respondent's personnel that all storage systems on Petitioner's property had stored products beyond that date. Specifically, Respondent eventually gave notice that it intended to deny Petitioner's application for participation in the ATRP for the following reason: Eligibility in the Abandoned Tank Restoration Program is restricted to those petroleum storage systems that have not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, pursuant to Section 17-769.800(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent utilized provisions of Subsection 376.305(7)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), to permit entry of some applicants into the ATRP, demonstrating that Respondent did not consider the March 1, 1990 deadline contained in provisions of Subsection 376.305(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), to be absolute. As attested at the final hearing by Respondent's employee, Respondent considered "variables" when determining whether to enforce the March 1, 1990, deadline. Those variables comprise the criteria listed in Subsection 376.305(7)(f), Florida Statutes (1991). By use of those variables, Respondent effectively applied provisions of Subsection 376.305(7)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), to some program applicants other than Petitioner and permitted their participation while choosing to refrain from final agency action under that same criteria with regard to Petitioner's application pending subsequent legislative enactment. Petitioner's southernmost tank is an abandoned petroleum storage system that was not required to be registered with Respondent when it was in service; the system came into the possession of Petitioner following its abandonment; was never returned to service; and is not otherwise eligible for cleanup pursuant to Subsection 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes, or Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner's application for participation in the ATRP with regard to contamination resulting from Petitioner's southernmost petroleum storage system. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2658 The following constitutes my rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, upon proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-23. Adopted, though not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 3.-4. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings on this point. 5.-11. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. A mischaracterization of the evidence in that the testimony establishes that an existing lease agreement was continued. Accepted to the extent that the evidence establishes that there were four tanks in the pit. Rejected, credibility, weight of the evidence as to the accuracy of the registration form in the face of conflicting evidence. 16.-18. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 19.-20. Accepted. 21.-22. Rejected, subordinate. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. 25.-26. Accepted. 27.-29. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, argumentative. Accepted. Rejected, legal conclusion, argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa Fletcher Allaman Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jefferson M. Braswell Lisa M. Duchene W. Douglas Beason Assistant General Counsels Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
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
