The Issue Whether proposed amendments to Rules 17-761.200, 17-761.500 and 17- 761.510, Florida Administrative Code, are arbitrary and capricious, and therefore, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority? Whether the economic impact statement accompanying the proposed amendments to Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code, was adequate? Whether the Department of Environmental Regulation properly considered the impacts of the proposed amendments to Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code, on small and minority business pursuant to Sections 120.54(2)(a) and (3)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is responsible for, among other things, regulating underground petroleum storage tank systems in the State of Florida. Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. FPMA is a voluntary, nonprofit trade association comprised of 190 voting members who sell and distribute petroleum products on a wholesale and retail basis in Florida. FPMA also includes nonvoting associate members who provide equipment and technical services to FPMA members. FPMA's members include entities which are "small businesses" (approximately 18 to 20%) within the meaning of Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes, and/or who sell petroleum products to customers that store petroleum products and constitute "small businesses." A substantial number of FPMA's members also include owners and operators of petroleum storage facilities with bare steel tanks and/or with storage tanks that currently are not equipped with secondary containment. A substantial number of FPMA's members operate in rural areas. FPMA's purposes include providing representation before the Florida Legislature and agencies. Background and History. The Water Quality Assurance Act, Chapter 83-310, Laws of Florida, was enacted by the Legislature in 1983. This Act gave the Department the authority to promulgate rules regulating the construction, maintenance, installation and removal of underground storage tanks. Section 376.303(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Act also preempted local regulation of the prevention and removal of pollutant discharges unless a local ordinance had been adopted prior to September 1, 1984, or the local effort is approved by the Department. Section 376.317, Florida Statutes. Dade County, Florida, had adopted an Underground Storage Facilities Ordinance, Ordinance 83-108. Ordinance 83-108 imposed storage tank requirements depending on the location in Dade County relative to identified wellfield protection areas and zones of influence around potable well supplies. Ordinance 83-108 requires replacement of underground petroleum storage tanks by certain dates depending on when existing tanks were installed. The Ordinance also takes into account whether a tank is made of corrosion resistant materials. See proposed finding of fact 3 of the Petitioner's Proposed Final Order for some of the specific requirements of Ordinance 83-108. Dade County Ordinance 91-33 amended the requirements of Ordinance 83- 108. Ordinance 91-33 requires secondary containment for new underground petroleum storage tanks installed in Dade County 180 days after the effective date of Ordinance 91-33 but does not require the replacement of existing single- walled tanks not located in a zone of influence or which are on property served by a public utility. Broward County, Florida, adopted Chapter 27-10, in May, 1984, regulating underground storage tanks. Chapter 27-10 contains less stringent requirements than those required by the rules at issue in this proceeding. See proposed finding of fact 5 of the Petitioner's Proposed Final Order for some of the specific requirements of Chapter 27-10. In May, 1984, the Department promulgated Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. These rules regulated underground (and aboveground) storage tanks on a statewide basis, with two exceptions (Dade and Broward Counties). Rule 17-61.060(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, required that new underground storage tanks and piping be constructed of corrosion-resistant materials, and be installed with overfill protection and monitoring systems. This Rule also prohibited the use of new bare steel tanks and integral piping containing motor vehicle fuels. Rule 17-61.060(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, required that existing underground storage tanks be retrofitted with monitoring systems and overfill protection beginning December 31, 1986, and ending December 31, 1989, depending on the age of the tank. Rule 17-61.060(2)(c) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, also required that existing bare steel underground tanks and piping be replaced with corrosion-resistant systems on a schedule beginning December 31, 1989, and ending December 31, 1998, depending on the age of the tank. As an alternative, bare steel tanks could be retrofitted with internal lining or cathodic protection, and bare piping could be retrofitted with cathodic protection. Rule 17-61.060(2)(b)-(c) and (3), Florida Administrative Code. In adopting Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, the Department exempted facilities which did not receive, store, or use more than 1,000 gallons in any calendar month or more than 10,000 gallons in any calendar year. Rule 17-61.040(1), Florida Administrative Code. In adopting this exemption the Department indicated that "[v]ery small users are considered to pose a smaller risk and are not anticipated to contribute as significantly to contamination of groundwater across the state." The Department also indicated that the businesses being exempted included agricultural businesses, small businesses and other commercial activities and governmental installations. Finally, the Department indicated that it had developed the retrofitting schedules to allow for the exhaustion of the useful life of existing systems. In October, 1985, Alachua County, Florida, filed a petition with the Department for approval of its local storage tank ordinances, Ordinances 85-7 and 85-13. Alachua County required secondary containment for underground storage systems. The Department approved the ordinances conditioned upon Alachua County amending them to take into account concerns the Department expressed concerning the ordinances. In particular, the Department questioned whether Alachua County should require secondary containment for all of the County without taking into account the differences in the groundwater throughout the County. The Department also questioned the schedule for requiring secondary containment. For more specific complaints raised by the Department see proposed finding of fact 8 of the Petitioner's Proposed Final Order. Alachua County subsequently adopted a new storage tank ordinance, Ordinance 87-10. Ordinance 87-10 required secondary containment for new facilities and extended the retrofit schedule for existing facilities. The extended schedule took into account to hydrogeology of the location of the storage tank and the proximity to public water supply wells. Existing corrosion-resistent tanks were allowed twenty years from installation if overfill protection and leak detection were installed. Congress banned the installation of most new bare steel storage tanks. They were banned by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter referred to as the "EPA"), was ordered to adopt regulations governing underground storage tanks. On September 28, 1988, the EPA promulgated 40 CFR 280. These regulations required, among other things, that: new underground storage tanks be constructed of corrosion-resistant materials; existing bare steel tanks must be upgraded by December 22, 1990; and, existing tanks may be replaced by corrosion- resistant materials, may be internally lined or protected by cathodic protection. The EPA also promulgated 40 CFR 281, authorizing the approval by the EPA of state storage tank programs which are no less stringent that the EPA's requirements. On June 8, 1990, the Environmental Regulation Commission adopted Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code. These rules, which were adopted to bring Florida's storage tank program into compliance with the regulations adopted by the EPA in 1988, imposed new construction requirements on underground storage systems. In light of the fact that some of the requirements of Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code, were more stringent than those imposed by the EPA, the Governor and Cabinet were required by Section 403.804, Florida Statutes, to approve the rules. On October 9, 1990, the Governor and Cabinet considered the new rules. ManaSota-88, Inc., appeared at the meeting and requested that the Governor and Cabinet limit the definition of secondary containment to double- walled tanks and piping, and to move up the date requiring secondary containment for the installation of new and replacement tanks from December 31, 1998, to December, 1990. The Governor and Cabinet approved Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Existing Rules"), and "recommended" that the Environmental Regulation Commission "review" ManaSota-88, Inc.'s, recommendations. On January 10, 1991, the Department held a public workshop before the Environmental Regulation Commission to receive public comment on several alternative changes to the Existing Rules developed as a result of ManaSota-88, Inc.'s, suggestions to the Governor and Cabinet. New information concerning the environmental or technological necessity of amending the Existing Rules was not provided at the workshop. On February 8, 1991, the Department caused notice of rule making to be published in Volume 17, Number 16, Florida Administrative Code, amending the Existing Rules (the proposed amendments will hereinafter be referred to as the "Proposed Amendments"). On March 1, 1991, FPMA filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of Proposed Rules challenging the validity of the Proposed Amendments. On March 14, 1991, the Environmental Regulation Commission, following a public hearing, adopted the Proposed Amendments with certain changes not relevant to this proceeding. Members of the FPMA testified at the public hearing. The Requirements of the Existing Rules and the Changes Thereto of the Proposed Amendments. Generally, the Existing Rules require owners and operators of underground vehicular fuel storage tanks to upgrade their underground storage tank systems to include secondary containment according to a schedule which takes into account the date of installation of an existing storage tank or whether the tank is a new storage tank. "Secondary containment" under the Existing Rules is defined as a system used to improve release detection and release prevention and includes double-walled tanks, double-walled integral piping systems or a single-walled tank or integral piping system protected by an outside liner. For petroleum storage systems, secondary containment consists of a primary container composed of fiberglass or steel. The primary container is surrounded by an outer wall or liner. New Underground Storage Tanks. Under the Existing Rules new underground storage tanks (other than those used to store hazardous substances) installed between December 10, 1990, and December 31, 1998, may be single-walled tanks if they are corrosion- resistant. A storage tank is considered to be corrosion-resistant under the Existing Rules if it is a single-walled fiberglass tank, a tank with an internal lining or a tank with cathodic protection. New underground storage tanks installed after December 31, 1998, must be constructed with secondary containment under the Existing Rules. Under the Existing Rules, any new underground storage tank installed as a replacement for an underground storage tank during the existing life of the tank could be a single-walled tank if it was corrosion-resistant. The Existing Rules also provide that new storage tanks may not be installed within 50 feet of an existing potable water supply well. Secondary containment must be installed for any new, upgraded or replacement tank located within 300 feet of an existing private, public or noncommunity water supply system. These requirements were not changed by the Proposed Amendments. Under the Proposed Amendments, all new underground storage tanks installed after December 31, 1991, must be installed with secondary containment. New tanks that are corrosion resistant are not allowed under the Proposed Amendments. Replacement tanks under the Proposed Amendments also must be installed with secondary containment. Existing Underground Storage Tanks. Existing single-walled underground storage tanks must be replaced with secondary containment under the Existing Rules by certain dates, which depend on whether the existing tank has corrosion protection. The replacement dates recognize the useful life of the existing tanks being replaced. Under the Existing Rules, an existing underground storage tank was to be upgraded with an internal lining if the integrity of the tank is assured, it is tightness tested and it otherwise meets applicable standards. As an alternative, an existing tank was to be upgraded with cathodic protection if the structural integrity of the tank is certified after inspection and the tank is tightness tested. Finally, an existing tank could be upgraded with a combination of internal lining and cathodic protection. Cathodic protection is a device that utilizes an electrochemical process to protect the external surface of a metal tank against corrosion. Depending on the useful life of an existing underground storage tank, the Existing Rules require that existing tanks that were corrosion resistant or internally lined be replaced with secondary containment by December 31, 2012, 2015 or 2018. Existing underground storage tanks which are upgraded with cathodic protection must be replaced with secondary containment under the Existing Rules by December 31, 1989. Pursuant to the Proposed Amendments, existing steel tanks that have not been lined or that do not have cathodic protection prior to December 31, 1991, must be replaced with secondary containment by December 31, 1992, 1995 or 1998, depending on the age of the tank. Existing underground storage tanks that are made of corrosion resistent materials, that have been lined or that were initially installed with cathodic protection prior to December 31, 1991, must be replaced with secondary containment by December 31, 2009, under the Proposed Amendments. Existing tanks with field-installed cathodic protection must be replaced with secondary containment, depending on the age of the tank, by December 31, 1992, 1995 or 1998, under the Proposed Amendments. Under the Existing Rules and the Proposed Amendments, underground petroleum storage tanks are ultimately required to be installed with secondary containment. The Existing Rules allow the use of alternative forms of protection (corrosion resistant single-walled tanks, liners and/or cathodic protection) during a period of time beginning on the effective date of the Existing Rules and ending December 31, 2018. The Proposed Amendments substantially speed up the time schedule for secondary containment. The alternative forms of protection allowed under the Existing Rules may still be used, but only if installed before December 31, 1991. Justification for the Proposed Amendments. Petroleum storage systems, including underground storage tanks, can and do leak petroleum for a number of reasons, including failure of tanks and lines. There are 2,295 permitted petroleum storage facilities in Dade County. Of these facilities, approximately 1,614, or just over 70%, have petroleum contamination. The Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management conducted a study of the cause of the petroleum contamination at 50 randomly selected permitted petroleum storage facilities. Based upon a review of these 50 sites, the source of contamination at 13 of the sites (26%) was discernible. The source of contamination at the other 37 sites could not be determined. Of the 13 sites for which the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management was able to determine the source of contamination, tank failures were identified as the source of contamination at 10 of the sites (20% of the total sites reviewed) and lines were the source of contamination at the other 3 sites. Five of the tank failures involved bare steel tanks, one involved a fiberglass coated steel tank, two were fiberglass tanks and one was a fiberglass tank with a liner. None of the 13 tank failures were attributable to double-walled steel or double-walled fiberglass tanks. There are in excess of 10,000 petroleum contamination sites located throughout the State of Florida that have been reported to the Department. These sites have been ranked by the Department based on fire and explosion hazards and the proximity of the contamination sites to drinking water wells. Some of the contamination sites reported to the Department for cleanup have been caused by leaking underground petroleum storage tanks. The Department's petroleum contamination cleanup standards are based on whether groundwater is considered to be of G-II quality. A G-II classification for groundwater includes all groundwater in aquifers suitable for potable water use. Such aquifers are considered to have a total dissolved solids content of less than 10,000 mg/1. Groundwater in Florida of G-II quality includes groundwater in both the surficial aquifers and the Floridan aquifer. The Department considers the quality of water in any aquifer that will produce water as having potential resource value regardless of whether it is currently used for potable drinking water. Therefore, contamination in such aquifers must be cleaned up to G-II quality. Petroleum contamination in Florida has affected every aquifer of G-II quality in the State. Ninety-two percent of Florida's drinking water is provided by groundwater. The Inland Protection Trust Fund was created in October, 1986, to provide funds for the cleanup of petroleum contamination (benzine) sites in Florida. Since that time, the Department has spent approximately $1,600,000.00 for the restoration and replacement of petroleum contaminated potable drinking water. Since October, 1986, 225 water supply wells (public and private) in Florida have been contaminated with benzine to the extent that action was necessary to correct the contamination. Eight of the 225 wells were used for municipal water. These 8 wells have been restored or replaced. Approximately 44 potable drinking water wells serving mobile homes, restaurants and service stations, (or noncommunity public water systems), and 143 private wells have been contaminated with petroleum and have been restored or replaced. Use of secondary containment systems of storing petroleum allows monitoring of the interstitial space between the primary container and the secondary external barrier of the storage tank. Interstitial monitoring methods include: (a) placing a probe inside the space which detects and responds to the product stored or vapors therefrom; (b) filling the space with liquid and monitoring the level of the liquid; and (c) creating and monitoring a vacuum in the space, which allows monitoring of both walls. There is a high probability that the use of secondary containment will facilitate the detection of petroleum leaks in a storage tank before the petroleum escapes the secondary containment into the environment. Interstitial monitoring in a secondary containment system greatly reduces the number of factors which can interfere with petroleum leak detection. For example, interstitial monitoring provides an opportunity to distinguish new leaks from existing contamination. Secondary containment represents the best underground petroleum storage tank technology currently available. Leak detection for a single-walled tank provides detection of a leak of petroleum contamination after the contamination has entered the environment. Double-walled secondary containment tanks are stronger than single- walled tanks. Therefore, double-walled tanks are less prone to flex and, consequently, are less prone to crack than a single-walled tank. Each wall of a double-walled tank provides protection from physical damage for the other wall not provided in single-walled tanks. Cathodic protection provides protection from external corrosion of metal storage tanks. It does not, however, provide leak detection in the manner that secondary containment does. Cathodic protection systems are generally not warranted because their effectiveness depends on the operation and maintenance of the system by the tank owner. Internal linings are used for either preventive maintenance or to repair existing underground storage systems. Internal linings do not prevent external corrosion unless cathodic protection is also provided. Internal linings provide a barrier to petroleum release. Internal linings extend the life of a storage tank system for at least 10 years. If the tank is also cathodically protected, the life of the tank is warranted for 20 years. Internal linings do not provide leak detection in the manner that secondary containment does. The Proposed Amendments Represent a Change in Policy. The record of the process of developing and adopting the Existing Rules indicates that the alternative forms of protection (use of corrosion- resistent tanks, internal linings and cathodic protection) included in the Existing Rules afford some protection to Florida's groundwater from petroleum contamination. In proposing the Existing Rules the Department supported the provisions of the Existing Rules concerning the use of alternative forms of protection and the schedules for implementing the use of secondary containment contained therein. At the time that the Existing Rules were presented to the Governor and Cabinet, the Department did not recommend that secondary containment be required in the manner that it has now provided for under the Proposed Amendments. In adopting the Proposed Amendments, the Department has not developed or obtained any additional information in support of the Proposed Amendments. Nor did ManaSota 88, Inc., provide any such information. The reason why the Department initiated the process of adopting the Proposed Amendments was that the Governor and Cabinet directed the Department to consider whether changes to the Existing Rules were needed. The foregoing findings of fact do not support a finding that the Proposed Amendments are arbitrary and capricious. At best, the record of the process of developing and adopting the Existing Rules and the requirements of the Existing Rules prove that a policy decision was made by the Department that the requirements of the Existing Rules were an acceptable method of dealing with petroleum contamination from underground storage tanks in Florida. The fact that the policy decision evidenced in the Existing Rules was made, however, does not prove that a policy decision to require the use of other methods of protection, i.e., secondary containment, is arbitrary and capricious. The record of the adoption of the Existing Rules does raise some question as to the propriety of adopting the more stringent requirements of the Proposed Amendments. That record, however, also adds support to the policy decision to adopt the more stringent requirements. First, although the Department accepted the use of alternative forms of protection when the Existing Rules were adopted, it still evidenced a policy decision that secondary containment is the preferred method of protecting Florida's waters. Additionally, the acceptance by the Governor and Cabinet of the policy decision evidenced in the Existing Rules was conditioned on a reconsideration of the use of the alternative forms of protection (at least for new tanks) which evidenced a willingness on the part of the Governor and Cabinet to make policy decisions which would more stringently protect Florida's waters. Although it is true that the Alachua, Broward and Dade County ordinances and the EPA's regulations are less stringent than the Proposed Amendments, these laws also support the use of secondary containment as the preferred method of protecting the environment from contamination from underground petroleum storage tanks. The evidence proved that there a range of methods available to provide varying degrees of protection to Florida's waters. The use of corrosion- resistant tanks, internal linings and/or cathodic protection provides better protection to Florida's waters than bare steel underground storage tanks. Therefore, these methods of protection are within the range of acceptable methods of protecting Florida's waters. The evidence also proved, however, that secondary containment is not only within the range of acceptable methods of providing protection to Florida's waters, but that it is the best method currently available. The evidence failed to prove that the policy decision of the Department evidenced in the Proposed Amendments is not within the range of reasonable methods of dealing with petroleum contamination of Florida's waters authorized and required by the Florida Legislature. Therefore, the decision to require the use of secondary containment of the Proposed Amendments is not arbitrary and capricious. The Economic Impact Statement and the Economic and Environmental Impact Statement. The Department, as required by Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, prepared an economic impact statement (hereafter referred to as the "EIS"), for the Proposed Amendments. The EIS was prepared by Clyde Diao, the Department's expert in environmental economics. The Department, as required by Section 403.804(2), Florida Statutes, also prepared an Economic and Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter referred to as the "EEIS"). The EEIS consisted of a study of the economic impact of the Proposed Amendments and included the costs and benefits to the public of the Proposed Amendments. Dr. Diao also prepared the EEIS. The EIS and EEIS contain identical information, except that the EEIS also contains an analysis of the environmental impact of the Proposed Amendments. The following findings of fact only refer the EIS. To the extent relevant to this proceeding, the findings of fact concerning the EIS also apply to the EEIS except to the extent indicated otherwise. It is estimated in the EIS that the additional costs the Department may incur as a result of adopting the Proposed Amendments are expected to be minimal. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this estimate impaired the fairness of the proceedings adopting the Proposed Amendments or the correctness of the Proposed Amendments. The following conclusions were included in the EIS concerning the impact of the Proposed Amendments on the installation of new underground storage tanks: It is recognized that the Proposed Amendments require that new tanks installed after December 31, 1991, have secondary containment instead of requiring secondary containment for new tanks installed after December 31, 1998, as provided under the Existing Rules. It is projected that even if new tanks were not required to have secondary containment until after December 1998, "investors intending to install underground storage tanks would most likely prefer to install secondary containment right away because it is more economical in the long run." In making this projection the Department recognized that "the immediate economic impact of having secondary containment might be greater than installing tanks with no secondary containment, . . ." but concluded that "long-run cost would likely be lower." In concluding that the long-run cost would be lower, the Department considered the difference in the cost of installing a tank with secondary containment with the cost of installing single-walled fiberglass tanks and steel tanks with cathodic protection. The Department estimated that the additional cost would be "in the range of 13.5% to 46.8% depending upon the type of tank used. . . ." It is pointed out that this additional cost, however, will "be a onetime expense to the facilities since they don't have to replace the double- walled tanks anymore." The Department, in concluding that the long-run cost would be lower, also relied upon its conclusion that insurance and monitoring cost associated with tanks installed with secondary containment would be lower in the long-run. The EIS indicates that the cost of insurance for a double-walled tank or a tank with a liner beneath it is about $200.00 per year as compared with $560.00 per year for a tank with no secondary containment. The EIS also indicates that the cost of groundwater monitoring wells or vapor monitoring devices of approximately $8,500.00 will be avoided by using tanks with secondary containment which will be required to have an interstitial monitoring device which cost approximately $1,000.00. Finally, the Department took into account the additional cost of ultimately replacing new underground storage tanks installed without secondary containment which will be incurred under the Existing Rules or the Proposed Amendments if secondary containment is not provided immediately in reaching its conclusion that it will be cheaper in the long-run to install new tanks with secondary containment. The Department included a cost comparison of the long-run cost of installing tanks with and without secondary containment in Annex I and Annex II to the EIS. Finally, the Department made the following finding in the EIS concerning the installation of new tanks: The only problem with requiring secondary containment by the end of 1991 instead of 1998 is that it gives the new underground storage tank owners a shorter period of time to generate the funds to install secondary containment. Smaller firms with lower financial leverage might have difficulty obtaining additional funds necessary to cover the incremental costs. This new requirement could have adverse effects on smaller gas stations that are already planned to be constructed in rural or remote areas where the market is very limited. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that these estimates impaired the fairness of the proceedings adopting the Proposed Amendments or the correctness of the Proposed Amendments. The Department did not make any specific findings in the EIS concerning the additional cost for new tanks which will be incurred in the short-term because of the acceleration of the date for which secondary containment will be required under the Proposed Amendments. See however, finding of fact 70.b., and 75.c., supra. The following conclusions were included in the EIS concerning the impact of the Proposed Amendments on existing tanks: The Department recognizes that "[t]he proposed requirements for existing underground storage tanks could have adverse economic impacts on some facilities, especially those with no corrosion protection and which were installed in 1981-1984 period." In reaching this conclusion, the Department recognized that owners of these tanks would not be able to "recoup their investments before the economic life of the tanks is reached." The Department's conclusion concerning the inability of facilities to recoup the useful life of existing underground storage tanks reasonably applies to almost all existing tanks. The Department recognized that approximately 731 of the owners of existing tanks (2,193 total tanks) constructed during the periods 1970-1975 and 1976-1980 will have to install secondary containment by 1992, and approximately 926 of such owners (2,778 total tanks) will have to install secondary containment by 1995, under the Proposed Amendments instead of the years 2012 and 2015, respectively, under the Existing Rules. These dates are extended to the year 2009 if corrosion protection is installed by December 31, 1991. The EIS indicates that the cost of adding corrosion protection is $2,500.00 to $4,000.00 per tank ($7,500.00 to $12,000.00 for a three tank facility). The EIS indicates that existing tank owners who do not install corrosion protection before December 31, 1991, "might experience economic hardship." The EIS estimates that, for "a typical facility with three tanks having a capacity of 10,000 gallons per tank, the replacement cost could be very high ranging from $101,500 to $107,000." This cost is compared to the $4,500.00 cost of adding internal lining or cathodic protection to an existing tank. The total cost of providing secondary containment for existing retailers is estimated to "range from $75 million to $79 million in 1992 and $94 million to $100 million in 1995." The EIS indicates the total cost could be higher if inflation is taken into account. Based upon these findings, the Department indicates in the EIS that "this could have some adverse economic impacts on some facilities which are currently struggling to survive under present economic conditions but are hoping to improve their business operations in the future." The Department recognizes that large suppliers will not experience the same difficulties as smaller facilities because of existing resources and the ability to pass on the additional costs to individual dealers. The Department also recognizes in the EIS that: smaller firms (gas stations) which are the recipient of this price hike could experience heavy financial strain. Since they operate in a highly competitive industry, they cannot just pass on any increase in the price of their products to the consumers without losing a certain part of their market share. Existing small gas stations without corrosion protection operating in rural areas where the market is small, might really be hurt financially by adoption of the proposed revisions. . . . The Department did not specifically address the costs of, or specify the total cost expected to be incurred for, replacing existing tanks with secondary containment in 1998, including those with field installed cathodic protection. Nor did the EIS specifically address cost which may be incurred by non-retail facilities in complying with the Proposed Amendments. The discussion in the EIS of some of the cost associated with existing tanks are more equivocal than the discussions of those costs in some of the internal documents utilized by the Department. The uses of "could" and "might" as opposed to "will" and "likely" did not impair the fairness of the proceedings adopting the Proposed Amendments or the correctness of the Proposed Amendments. The following conclusions were included in the EIS concerning the impact on competition and employment of the Proposed Amendments: The EIS indicates that the Proposed Amendments "might have some impacts on competition among existing underground storage tank owners and operators." In particular, the EIS indicates that some facilities "would have to either partly operate or shutdown their business for a while until the construction is done." During the time that facilities are partly operating or shutdown the Department projects that other facilities would have a competitive advantage and that employment would be adversely impacted. The EIS also indicates that smaller gas stations would be competitively disadvantaged by larger facilities because of their limited capitalization. The EIS concludes that "[s]ome [smaller facilities] may encounter difficulty in complying with secondary containment requirements." The EIS also indicates that competition will be enhanced between sellers/manufacturers of secondary containment materials at a much earlier date because the demand for such materials would increase much earlier. This same conclusion is reached with regard to businesses providing installation services associated with secondary containment. The EIS does not specifically address some of the costs which smaller facilities may be expected to occur as a result of the competitive advantage larger facilities will probably have in the short-run as a result of the Proposed Amendments. The EIS does not specifically discuss the competitive disadvantage to facilities which must replace tanks in 1995 or 1998. The EIS does not discuss the effect on competition between providers and installers of cathodic protection, single-walled corrosion resistant tanks or tank liners. The following conclusions were included in the EIS concerning the economic and environmental benefits of the Proposed Amendments: The Department indicates that "the new requirements would enhance protection of human health as well as to ground water resources of the State." Recognizing that it is difficult to quantify the economic benefits of the Proposed Amendments, the EIS indicates that "it can be strongly argued that the benefits would outweigh the costs in the long-run." It is concluded that the Proposed Amendments will prevent health hazards and groundwater contamination instead of relying on remedial solutions. The Department estimates that it is more economical to the public and to facility owners and operators to prevent contamination than to clean up contamination. It is estimated that the average cost of cleanup is approximately $200,000.00 per site. The Department also estimates that there are 56,018 underground storage tanks in Florida. Of these tanks, it is estimated that 10,500 are leaking underground fuel tanks, some of which are causing groundwater contamination. The Department has also estimated that 2,500 to 2,600 potable wells in Florida have been contaminated by petroleum storage systems. Because the groundwater level in Florida is very close to the surface, the Department indicates that discharge from a leaking tank will easily travel into the groundwater. The Department concludes that the Proposed Amendments will increase the protection of groundwater from potential contamination. The evidence failed to prove what the exact number of potable wells in Florida that have been contaminated by petroleum leaks. The evidence also failed to prove how many of the known petroleum contamination sites are attributable to underground storage tank leaks as opposed to other sources of leaks, i.e., overfill or pipe leaks. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that the conclusions of the Department concerning the benefits of the Proposed Amendments are not reasonable or are so misstated as to be unreliable. The conclusions reached by the Department in the EIS concerning the benefits of the Proposed Amendments are consistent with the Legislatures intent set out in Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. The Department never conducts an econometric study in preparation of economic impact statements for proposed rules. Nor did the Department prepare such a detailed study in preparing the EIS in this case. As a consequence, there were a number of items of cost or amounts of cost which the Department did not specifically include in the EIS. Taking all of the facts concerning the EIS as a whole, based upon the conclusion that most of the economic impacts of the Proposed Amendments are fairly obvious and based upon the expression of Legislative intent found in Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, it is concluded that the evidence failed to prove that the EIS was so inadequate as to have impaired the fairness of the process or the correctness of the Proposed Amendments. Consideration of Small Businesses. In preparing the EIS, the Department assumed that a "small business" was any business with a net worth of $1,000,000.00 or less and which employed 25 or fewer employees. Small businesses in the petroleum industry often buy products from larger companies and are in competition with larger companies. It is recognized by the Department in several places in the EIS that small businesses will be adversely affected by the Proposed Amendments: It is recognized that small businesses will have difficulty raising capital and/or obtaining financing for the installation of secondary containment under the shorter time schedules of the Proposed Amendments; It is recognized that small businesses will have difficulty passing the cost of complying with the Proposed Amendments they incur on to consumers like larger facilities will likely be able to do; It is recognized that small businesses will be at a competitive disadvantage with larger facilities which are better able to obtain the funds necessary to pay the cost of complying with the Proposed Amendments; and It is recognized that rural facilities, which generally tend to be smaller facilities, will be adversely effected by the Proposed Amendments. The EIS does not specifically identify the number of small businesses which will be affected by the Proposed Amendments or the amount of additional cost small businesses can expect to incur. Although the majority of the cost which will be incurred by small businesses in complying with the Proposed Amendments will be the same as those for larger businesses, the effect on competition of small businesses will be greater. Therefore, the effect of the Proposed Rules will have somewhat of a disproportionate impact on small businesses. This impact, despite the Department's assertion in this case that there will be no disproportionate impact, is recognized in the EIS. As required by Section 120.54(2)(a), Florida Statutes, a number of options concerning secondary containment requirements with varying impacts on small businesses were considered at the Environmental Regulation Commission meeting of January 10, 1991. The express purpose of this meeting was to consider such options. The options specifically addressed during the meeting are set out in proposed findings of fact 98 and 99 of the Department's Recommended Final Order. Among the options obviously considered, are those which are contained in the Existing Rules which FPMA has argued should not be changed. Testimony was presented by representatives of the FPMA and others before the Environmental Regulation Commission at the January 10, 1991, meeting and at the March 14, 1991 public workshop concerning the impact of the Proposed Amendments on small businesses. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the adverse impact on small businesses will be so great that the Department should have tiered the Proposed Amendments to reduce the impact on small businesses. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that small businesses do not contribute significantly to the problem the Proposed Amendments are designed to regulate. The Proposed Amendments do allow some flexibility by providing that facilities that provide the alternative forms of protection prior to December 31, 1991, need not provide secondary containment until after December 31, 1992, 1995, 1998 or 2009. Not all facilities will be able to take advantage of this flexibility because not all facilities can meet the December 31, 1991, deadline. The Department of Commerce's Review of the Proposed Amendments. The Department mailed a copy of the Proposed Amendments to the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Business Assistance, on February 8, 1991. A copy of the Proposed Amendments was logged into the Small and Minority Business Advocate's Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Advocate's Office") on February 12, 1991. Between February 12, 1991, and February 15, 1991, Jonathan Elimimian, an economic legislative analyst in the Advocate's Office, received a copy of the Proposed Amendments from the Bureau of Business Assistance. The evidence failed to prove what happened to the copy of the Proposed Amendments logged into the Advocate's office on February 12, 1991. Dr. Elimimian reviewed the Proposed Amendments and prepared two analyses. In his first analysis, he concluded that the economic impact on small and minority business "is very significant" and that: [m]ost importantly the existing small and minority businesses already operating underground storage tank systems will close their door to business because of economic hardships that might result form the proposed revised rule. To make the situation worst [sic] for small and minority businesses, the scheduled replacement of underground storage tanks shifted from the year 2012 to 12/31/95 makes it further difficult for small and minority underground storage tank owners to raise capital to carry out the expense involved in the changes and still be able to remain competitive or survive. The economic impact is direct and is not productive to small and minority businesses in the field. These findings are not inconsistent or different from the conclusions reached by the Department in the EIS. The findings of Dr. Elimimian were not provided to the Department. Nor was any other correspondence sent to the Department by the Advocate's Office. Instead, as was the practice of the Advocate's Office prior to the employment of the current Small and Minority Business Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the "Advocate"), Dr. Elimimian's review was simply filed in the Advocate Office's files. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department failed to follow any of the procedural requirements of Section 120.54(3)(b), Florida Statutes, concerning the Advocate's Office. In light of the fact that the Advocate did not provide the Department with any comments, the Department did not fail to consider the Advocate's comments or take any action required under Section 120.54(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether the Advocate had any "evidence and argument . . . [or] alternatives regarding the impact of the rule on small business" concerning the Proposed Amendments. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that the Advocate had any "evidence and argument . . . [or] alternatives regarding the impact of the rule on small business" which was not considered by the Department, the Environmental Regulation Commission or the Governor and Cabinet. Therefore, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the fairness of the proceedings adopting the Proposed Amendments or the correctness of the Proposed Amendments were impaired by the Advocate's failure to comment of the Proposed Amendments pursuant to Section 120.54(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
The Issue The question presented here concerns the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' Stop Sale Notice placed against Respondent, Pinner Oil Company under the alleged authority of Section 525.06, Florida Statutes (1980), by the process of requiring a refundable bond in the amount of $471.34, pending the outcome of this dispute in which it is contended that the Respondent supplied gasoline for sale which failed to comply with Rule Subsection 5F-2.01(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, dealing with the allowed lead content in gasoline.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is an agency of government which has, among other responsibilities, the requirement to establish and enforce standards related to maximum allowable lead content in unleaded gasoline offered for sale to the general public. This regulation is designed to avoid the destruction of catalytic devices found in the exhaust systems of certain cars, in which the destruction of a catalyst would bring about problems, with the exhaust system causing its replacement and more importantly, lead to adverse effects on the environment due to an increase in undesired emission from the exhaust system. The Respondent, Pinner Oil Company of Cross City, Florida, is a jobber which supplies gasoline to retail outlets who in turn sales the gasoline to members of the motoring public. The facts reveal that on October 6, 1980, an official with the Petitioner made a routine inspection of the unleaded gasoline reservoir at the B. F. Goodrich-Texaco at 210 Rogers Boulevard, Chiefland, Florida, a customer of Pinner Oil Company. This gasoline was subsequently analyzed and on October 7, 1989, a Stop Sale Notice was served based upon a determination that the unleaded gasoline found in the reservoir at that station contained more than 0.05 grams of lead per U.S. gallon. The gasoline in question was provided to the B. F. Goodrich outlet by an employee of Pinner Oil Company as a part of his duties with the Respondent. In lieu of the total confiscation of the gasoline found in the reservoir tank at the station In question, the Respondent was allowed to post a refundable bond in the amount of $471.34 which represented the price for the number of gallons sold at a retail price since the time of the prior delivery to that station. (By Stipulation entered into between the parties, it was agreed that a finding of fact would be made to the effect that the Respondent, during the course of the last two years, had not been cited for a violation of the Florida Statutes pertaining to contaminated fuels.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent issued an invitation to bid for the project. The bidders were reminded that the bids were due March 9, 1995. The bid opening was to occur on March 10, 1995. Under the general conditions to the invitation, (at paragraph 7), in the interest of the State, the Respondent reserved the right to reject all bids that it received. That same reservation was announced at paragraph 1.8.1 to the invitation. In addition to the general reminder that the Respondent had the right to reject all bids, paragraph 1.14 to the invitation describes cancellation privileges available to the Respondent. That paragraph provided that the obligations under the invitation would be subject to and contingent upon the availability of moneys lawfully appropriated to pay for the services. Paragraph 1.1 to the invitation described the project as one involving removal and disposal of existing tanks and contents of those tanks at three locations. The locations were Floral City, Cocoa, and Kissimmee, Florida. The project demands at Floral City were for removal and disposal of a 10,000 gallon above-ground "tack coat" tank and surficial "tack coat" material and removal and disposal of a 500 gallon tank. The work at Cocoa involved removal and disposal of a 10,000 gallon above-ground "tack coat" tank, removal and disposal of a 500 gallon tank and removal and disposal of a 1,000 gallon kerosene tank. Finally, the Kissimmee work involved removal and disposal of a 500 gallon above-ground "tack coat" tank and surficial "tack coat" material. In Exhibit "A" to the invitation, describing the scope of services for storage tank removal and disposal, paragraph 2.0 identified more specifically the services that the bidder was to provide. In Exhibit "A", at subparagraph B.1 to paragraph 2, the bidder was instructed that the work included removal and proper disposal of the tank contents and any related material in the vicinity of the tanks. In Exhibit "A", at subparagraph B.3 to paragraph 2, the bidder was instructed that the work included removal and proper disposal of all tanks and associated piping. In Exhibit "A", at subparagraph B.4 to paragraph 2.0, the bidder was instructed that any records and analytical results that the bidder might generate from a storage tank closure assessment should be sent to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, Storage Tank Regulation Section with a copy of those reports being provided to Respondent's project manager. In Exhibit "A", scope of services for storage tank removal and disposal, at subparagraph A to paragraph 5.0, further instructions were given concerning the manner in which the tank contents would be removed. In Exhibit "A" at subparagraph B to paragraph 5.0, more specific instructions were given concerning tank disposal. In Exhibit "A" at subparagraph H.5 to paragraph 5.0, the bidders were reminded that a laboratory analysis report concerning the contents of the tanks was available upon request from the project manager, David Schappell. The laboratory analysis referred to was one performed on August 31, 1994, by Ardaman and Associates, Inc. Paragraph 1.9 makes reference to budget constraints involved with the project in which a budgetary ceiling of $45,000 is announced in the materials sent to the prospective bidders. In reality the $45,000 amount was in a circumstance that contemplated an additional site for tank removal and disposal and installation of new tanks in substitution for the removed tanks in Respondent's maintenance facility at Orlando, Florida. The Orlando work is not described in the invitation to bid. The appropriate reference for the budgetary ceiling contemplated by the invitation to bid is $20,000 for the three sites that are described in the project. Although Respondent through appropriate personnel realized that the $45,000 amount stated was not correct, that official, Helen Lund, purchasing and contracting agent for Respondent, did not arrange to correct the amount before issuing the invitation to bid. Ms. Lund simply failed to realize that the $45,000 budgetary ceiling was still set forth in the invitation when the invitation was made. Had she realized this mistake an addendum would have been sent to the prospective bidders to correct the figure to become $20,000. At hearing, Respondent presented its reasons for establishing a budgetary ceiling of $20,000. Petitioner was allowed to question that estimate. Subsequently, that issue will be discussed in greater detail. Paragraph 1.7.5 reminds the bidders that any necessary authorizations and/or licenses to provide the services sought in the project should be obtained by the bid due date and time and no later than the point at which a contract would be awarded. Paragraph 1.8.2 explains to the bidders what is necessary to offer a responsive bid. In her job Ms. Lund prepares and assembles bid documents, sends those out to the prospective vendors, and conducts bid openings. In this case David Schappell, Assistant District Drainage and Permits Engineer for Respondent's District V, Deland, Florida, discussed the tank removal project with Ms. Lund. In turn Ms. Lund prepared the bid blank/ITB in its boiler-plate language. Mr. Schappell prepared the invitation to bid concerning the scope of services to be provided by the bidders. Ms. Lund mailed out eight invitations to bid. She received responses from Petitioner and Chemical Development Corp. The bid from Chemical Development Corp. was rejected for failure to meet the licensing requirements set forth in paragraph 1.7.5. That left the Petitioner's bid which was considered responsive. Nonetheless Respondent decided to reject that bid for reasons that the price submitted for performing these services was too high when compared to the $20,000 estimate by the Respondent. Petitioner's bid price was $38,252. In addition, Petitioner was concerned that it would have to submit an exceptional purchase request and get the approval from the State of Florida, Department of Management Services, to enter into a contract in a setting in which there was only one responsive bidder. Finally, Petitioner was also concerned about the disparity between the price submitted by Chemical Development Corp. at $11,520 and the $38,252 price from Petitioner as indicating some possible problem associated with the scope of work contemplated in the project and the understanding which the bidders had about the work to be performed. Petitioner obtained a copy of the laboratory analysis from Ardaman and Associates to assist in preparing its response to the invitation to bid. The principal focus in the Ardaman test was to determine constituents related to TCLP as this would determine whether the tank contents constituted hazardous waste. Results from the Ardaman test revealed that in removing material from the tank at Floral City one would be confronted with chromium concentrations of 1.6 mgl. The threshold limits for chromium concentration as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulation, Title 40, Section 261.24, for determining hazardous characteristics of those materials is 5.0 mgl. The sampling conducted by Ardaman also revealed a pH of 9.0. According to Ardaman, that ph did not indicate that the "tank coat" is corrosive. The Ardaman test did not detect reactive cyanide and sulfide. The test did not reveal characteristic ignitability. In summary, the Ardaman report concluded that the Floral City facility tank did not exhibit the characteristics of a hazardous substance as determined by the TCLP method, and by the ignitability and corrosivity testing. Petitioner proceeded on the basis that the Ardaman results indicated that the tank contents did not constitute hazardous waste and could be disposed of as other than hazardous waste material. Theoretically, Petitioner believed that disposal could be made in a landfill that would take the type of material found in the tank. As Petitioner points out, the Ardaman test did not speak to the possible disposal of the tank material as a fuel source or through incineration. From the results set forth in the Ardaman report, Petitioner erroneously assumed that Respondent intended to limit the method of disposal to placement in a landfill facility. While the Ardaman report speaks to the issue of whether the material constitutes hazardous waste, the remaining provisions within the invitation to bid leave open the opportunity for the bidders to make additional tests on those materials in deciding the proper disposal method. The provisions in the invitation do not select a proper disposal method and the results in the Ardaman report do not create the inference that Respondent's choice for disposal is by placement in a landfill. In Petitioner's research, it concluded that the material in the tanks could not be disposed of by incineration given the nature of this material compared to the type of material that could be destroyed at a facility which used incineration as a disposal method. Petitioner was persuaded that there might be some possibility to burn the material as a fuel source, but was not confident that this could be done without performing more tests. Petitioner was unable to find a landfill site that was near Respondent's Cocoa and Kissimmee facilities that would accept the tank contents. Petitioner intended to transport the material from the Cocoa and Kissimmee sites to Floral City and use Floral City as a staging area to consolidate the contents from the tanks. Having in mind consolidation, Petitioner discussed the possibility that it might make disposal in solid waste facilities in Sumter County, Florida. Petitioner was told that Sumter County facilities would not accept the material. Petitioner collected a sample of the tank material and had it analyzed by Howco Environmental in an attempt to ascertain the commercial value for the tank contents. Howco is a company that tests materials to ascertain whether those materials can be used as a fuel source and then uses the material as a fuel source. In a test, Howco determined that the tank material had no commercial value. Petitioner contacted two paving companies to determine whether the paving companies could reuse the tank material in the paving process. Those companies indicated that they could not reuse the material in the paving process. Terry Newman, who owns Petitioner, holds a B.S. in geology and has worked for the Suwannee River Water Management District, Collier County Pollution Control Department and the Alachua County Pollution Control Department as a hydro-geologist. Ms. Newman reviewed the Ardaman report and spoke about the report to a chemist in a laboratory which her firm uses. Through this review and discussion and based upon the information set forth in the Ardaman report, she concluded that the only disposal method available was to place the tank contents in a lined landfill. Ultimately the bid that was submitted by Petitioner was based upon making an arrangement with a sub-contractor to transport the material to Jacksonville for disposal. The transport method was that which would be used for transporting hazardous waste. In this arrangement the material is taken from the tank and put in a container for transport and off-loaded at the landfill. The tank itself would be disposed of in the conventional manner. The subcontractor which the Petitioner intended to use for transporting the contents within the tanks was a hazardous waste carrier. Mr. Schappell established that the Orlando project which was originally part of the $45,000 pre-bid estimate would cost approximately $25,000 to remove two single-wall steel tanks, one holding diesel fuel and the other gasoline, and replace those tanks with double-wall tanks. That estimate was not shown to be one based upon fraud, illegality, dishonesty, arbitrariness or caprice. Since the Orlando project was not pursued, this left $20,000 as the estimate to do the work in the three sites described in the invitation to bid. Prior to the invitation to bid, Respondent had solicited a price quotation, unrelated to a competitive bidding process, for the work at Floral City. ACTS Construction Co., Inc., submitted a price of $12,825 to include $1,875 for tank closure. The present project does not include a requirement for tank closure. This quotation from ACTS Construction Co., Inc. was from a contractor who had done similar work in removal of tanks, thereby creating proper confidence in Mr. Schappell that the quotation from ACTS was a reasonable quotation. A total of six vendors were invited to offer price quotations for the work at Floral City unrelated to the present project. Those six vendors were given access to the Ardaman report. There were a wide range of responses to the request for quotations and different ideas concerning methods of disposal. The overall price quotations ranged from the amount quoted by ACTS to an amount of approximately $20,000 by Westinghouse Company. Based upon the prices quoted by ACTS, Westinghouse, and others, Mr. Schappell determined that the pre-bid estimate for the work to be done at Floral City in the present project would be based upon the ACTS price quotation. The remaining work to be done at Cocoa and Kissimmee, in the present project, was given a pre-bid price of approximately $7,000. The estimate for Kissimmee and Cocoa was based upon having removed somewhat similar tanks, in somewhat similar conditions, from Respondent's maintenance yards at Oviedo, Leesburg, Ocala, and Cocoa. Respondent's pre-bid estimate of project costs amounting to $20,000, as established by Mr. Schappell, is a reasonable pre-bid estimate. It was not arrived at by illegal, fraudulent, dishonest, arbitrary, or capricious means. Mr. Schappell established that the Ardaman report was solely provided to offer assistance to the bidders in responding to the invitation. The language in the invitation to bid contemplates that limited use. The Ardaman report did not enter into the decision by Mr. Schappell in placing a pre-bid estimate on the work to be done. Mr. Schappell established that the "tack coat" in the tanks is a bituminous material to be applied as a sealer over the lime rock or soil cement which the Respondent places as a base for road construction. The "tack coat" also has an adhesive property which helps to retain the asphalt material that is placed on top of the lime rock and soil cement. The condition of the tank material in around the time that the bid invitation was made, was such that the material would be nearly viscous or liquid on warm summer days and in the winter would be solid. Its condition at other times was somewhat in between. Mr. Schappell properly points out that the invitation to bid relies upon the bidders' expertise in determining proper disposal methods and whether that disposal might involve reusing the tanks contents. Mr. Schappell established that in addition to the fact that the Petitioner's price far exceeded the pre-bid estimate, there was a concern about the price differential between the Chemical Development Corp. bid and that presented by Petitioner and the expectation that if the project was re-bid more vendors would express an interest in bidding.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the final order be entered which dismisses Petitioner's protest to Respondent's decision to reject all bids. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 16th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact by the parties: Petitioner's Facts: The first sentence to Page 2 is subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Facts: Respondents facts are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Randy Wiggins, President RAN Contracting & Engineering, Inc. 3056 Palm Avenue, Suite 1 Ft. Myers, FL 33916 Thomas H. Duffy, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Sharon Roehm, President Chemical Development Corporation 910 Pinellas Bayway #102 Terra Verde, FL 33715 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner failed to obtain a permit for abandoning an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system septic tank, and failed to notify Respondent so that Respondent could inspect the system prior to abandonment, in violation of Section 386.0065, Florida Statutes (1997), and, if so, whether Petitioner should pay a $500 fine. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for issuing citations under Chapter 386 and is the licensing authority for Petitioner. The Osceola County Health Department (the "Department") is an agency of Respondent. All Pro Services ("All Pro") practices septic tank contracting in Osceola, Orange, and Seminole counties. All Pro is a Florida corporation wholly-owned by Mr. Wayne H. Crotty. Mr. Crotty is licensed in the state as a septic contractor pursuant to Chapter 386. Mr. Crotty has been in the septic tank business for over 25 years. He has extensive experience in septic tank repair and contracting. Mr. Crotty also has had experience in the rule-making process conducted by Respondent pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 10D-6. He has participated in various committees and held offices in the Florida Septic Tank Association. (Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.) In the summer of 1996, Petitioner submitted an application to the Department for a repair permit. Petitioner sought to install a standard drainfield utilizing gravity fall from the existing septic tank of a mobile home owner who used the mobile home facility as a day-care center. The existing drainfield was antiquated, clogged, and had ceased disposing effluent properly. Petitioner made arrangements for the day-care center to refrain from using water or sewage for a period of hours so that the drainfield could be repaired. The application came to the attention of Mr. Thomas Franklin Wolf, Director of the Department's Environmental Health Section. Mr. Wolf did not accept the site evaluation in the application. He chose to perform his own evaluation of the repair site. When Mr. Wolf performed a site evaluation, he placed the seasonal high water table two inches higher than the high water table stated by Petitioner in the application for a repair permit. As a result, Mr. Wolf issued the permit at an elevation that would have required either the use of a pump system or elevated plumbing lines in the existing septic tank to meet the higher elevation deemed necessary by Mr. Wolf. The higher elevation established in the permit could be accommodated in either of two ways. The plumbing underneath the mobile home, along with the septic tank, could be raised. Alternatively, a new pump, and other equipment meeting the requirements of Chapter 10D-6, could be installed. The repair permit issued by Mr. Wolf contemplated the use of a new pump chamber complete with alarm. Pumps fail, are problematic, and are expensive. A conventional gravity-fed drainfield line is preferable, whenever feasible, to the use of a pump chamber system and is less expensive. Petitioner determined that the plumbing and septic tank could be elevated to meet the higher elevation requirements thereby avoiding the need for a pump system and its increased cost. This lower-cost alternative satisfied the requirements of Chapter 10D-6 for a septic tank drainfield. Based on past experience, Mr. Crotty believed he could obtain the Department's approval of this alternative to the pump chamber requirements of the permit. The Department had no objection to an alternative that achieved the higher elevation requirement with a gravity-fed system. One risk associated with Petitioner's alternative was that the existing septic tank might not withstand the rigors of being excavated and raised and could break during the repair process. After conferring with the homeowner about the matter, Petitioner proceeded to elevate the existing plumbing lines and septic tank. Petitioner began excavation and removed the lid from the existing septic tank. Petitioner then determined that it would not be feasible to lift the tank up and reinstall it at the higher elevation due to the age and style of the tank. Petitioner determined that the best way to proceed was to abandon the old tank and to install a new tank at the higher elevation. Petitioner replaced the existing septic tank without obtaining a separate abandonment permit. Petitioner did not need a separate abandonment permit. The repair permit was inclusive of the abandonment of the existing tank. In a previous repair effort for another customer, Petitioner broke the existing septic tank while attempting to elevate the tank to a higher location. The prior incident led to a disagreement between Petitioner and the Department over whether a separate abandonment permit was required for replacing a tank in the course of a repair. Petitioner wrote a certified letter to the Department and Department's counsel memorializing an understanding reached during discussions with Department representatives. Any requirement for a separate abandonment permit in the course of a repair was tabled pending further review by the state health office in Tallahassee. The letter further stated Petitioner's understanding that under Chapter 10D-65, the replacement of an existing tank was provided for through a repair permit, and that no separate abandonment permit is necessary for an abandonment which occurs in conjunction with a repair effort. The letter was received by Mr. Wolf on behalf of the Department. In response, the Department specifically informed Petitioner that the replacement of an existing tank is provided for through the repair permit. Mr. Wolf never retracted this position in his dealings with Petitioner. At about the same time, the state health office, through its acting Health Officer for Environmental Health, issued an interoffice memorandum advising every district administrator in the state that a separate abandonment permit is not required when an existing tank is abandoned during repair. The interoffice memorandum stated, in relevant part: This addresses permitting procedures when a septic tank is abandoned in conjunction with a system repair. Since the repair and tank abandonment inspections can be conducted at the same time, a separate permit and fee is not required if a tank is abandoned in conjunction with a repair permit. The repair permit should specify the abandonment requirements from s. 10D-6.053, F.A.C., and the requirements to have the abandonment inspected. If an additional inspection visit is required for either the repair or abandonment, the unit should charge the $25.00 re-inspection fee. Respondent's memorandum served as the Department's official interpretation of its rules relating to abandonment procedures. The memorandum made a separate abandonment permit unnecessary because the repair permit "is inclusive of the abandonment if the abandonment is necessary." The repair permit in this case suffices as an abandonment permit. Petitioner relied upon the representations of Mr. Wolf personally as well as the Department memorandum of February 18, 1996. Based upon Department policy, Petitioner was not required to amend its permit application to seek specific approval for abandonment of the existing tank, because the tank was being abandoned in conjunction with a repair permit. Petitioner pumped out, ruptured, and demolished the old septic tank with the exception of the inlet end wall and the sidewall closest to the tank. Petitioner left intact the latter portions of the old septic tank for inspection purposes and for stabilization. Petitioner placed the lids and the broken pieces of concrete from the tank alongside the new septic tank that was installed. Mr. Crotty requested an inspection by the Department. Inspector Garner arrived on the scene with a standard probe. The probe is a tool useful for inspecting on-site sewage disposal systems. Mr. Crotty informed Mr. Garner that Petitioner had abandoned the old tank and replaced it with a new one. Mr. Crotty took Mr. Garner over to the site and specifically pointed out the remaining sidewall of the old tank and the lids piled up on-site and remaining from the old tank. Mr. Garner inspected the repairs and satisfied himself that Petitioner had installed a new septic tank in the place of the old tank and had done it in a way that would allow gravity feeding to the new drainfield. The repairs dispensed with the need for a pump and were accomplished at a lower cost to the customer. After the inspection on August 13, 1998, and a subsequent review on August 14, Inspector Garner approved the installation by Petitioner. The approval specifically approved the use of a gravity-fed line rather than the use of the pump contemplated in the permit. The approval constituted the "construction final" approval for the septic system that was repaired. Rule 10D-6 does not specify when the inspection for an abandonment of a septic tank in conjunction with a repair is to occur. Nor does it say anything about requesting an inspection before the tank is filled with sand or other suitable material and covered. It was Inspector Garner's practice, and the unwritten policy of the Department, to conduct inspections of damaged septic tanks at the same time the Department inspected repair constructions. The practice of the Department in such an inspection was to inspect the abandoned tank after it had been pumped and the bottom ruptured, but before a new tank was installed. According to Department practice, the inspection of an abandonment in conjunction with a repair must determine that the tank had been pumped and that the bottom of the tank had been opened or ruptured or collapsed to prevent the tank from retaining water. The inspection can only occur after the tank has been pumped out, opened, ruptured or collapsed. Inspector Garner arrived for the inspection after abandonment of the old tank. Mr. Garner does not dispute that Petitioner abandoned the old tank, but maintains that the abandonment was accomplished without proper notification to the Department. Mr. Garner approved the construction, but recorded x- marks on the approval form adjacent to a box for abandonments and next to "tank pumped" and "tank flushed and filled." Mr. Garner also recorded on the form under "explanation of violations" a notation that the old septic tank "was abandoned without any inspection of [sic] verification." The promulgated rules of the Department and Respondent do not require an inspection before an abandoned tank is filled with sand, or other suitable material, and covered. It was the Department's unwritten policy, evidenced by its practice, to insist that inspection of the abandoned septic tank occurred before the tank is actually crushed. The promulgated rules of Seminole and Orange counties do not require inspection prior to abandonment of an existing tank. The unwritten policies of Seminole and Orange counties deviate from those of the Department. The Seminole County Health Department ("Seminole") also received the Department's interpretive memorandum regarding abandonment of septic tanks in conjunction with repairs. Seminole concluded that abandonment inspections should be conducted simultaneously with the final inspection for repairs. At that point, the old septic tank is already ruptured and filled with sand. Seminole adopted the practice of inspecting abandoned septic systems with a probe to verify the pump-out and the rupturing of the old tank. It is the same type probe used by Mr. Garner and the Department. The probe allows a department employee to verify all of the requirements of Rule 10D-6.053 for abandonment. The Orange County Health Department ("Orange County") also received the interpretive memorandum concerning abandonment of septic tanks in the course of repair procedures. By the time the memo was received, however, it was already the practice of Orange County not to require a separate abandonment permit for an abandonment as part of a repair. In Orange County, inspectors permitted abandonment inspections to occur at the point where the tank was already collapsed and covered with sand. The inspection was accomplished with the use of a probe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding Petitioner not guilty of the allegations against it and dismissing the citations. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Marya Reynolds Latson Marion County Health Department Post Office Box 2408 Ocala, Florida 34478-2408 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath and Gilchrist, P.A. Post Office Box 3791 Orlando, Florida 32802-3791 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Handy Food Stores, Inc. (HFS), is a small, family owned corporation that owns and operates a chain of thirty-four convenience stores in Florida, thirty two of which sell gasoline. At issue in this proceeding is Store No. 82 (Store 82 or the store) located on State Road 378 in LaBelle, Florida. The facility has also been identified by respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), as DER facility number 268520172. This controversy concerns an application by HFS for reimbursement of costs and expenses related to cleanup activities at Store 82 incurred after that store site became contaminated with petroleum and petroleum products. The application was preliminarily denied by DER on the ground HFS was "grossly negligent" in the maintenance of the petroleum storage system at Store 82. Because the average clean-up cost per site is $330,000, and HFS denied that it was grossly negligent in its operation and management of the system, HFS requested a formal hearing to contest the agency's proposed decision. The facts in this case are not complicated, and with certain exceptions, are relatively free of dispute. Until February 1988 HFS's director of operations was Ray Collier. On February 2, 1988 Collier ordered the installation of four monitoring wells at Store 82 to determine if any leaks were occurring in two underground storage tanks located on the site. Such wells were required to be installed by DER for monitoring purposes no later than December 31, 1988. The parties have stipulated that the wells were properly installed in accordance with agency rules. When the wells were installed on February 2, the contractor's report reflected no contamination was present. Collier also contracted with Purity Well Testing, Inc. (PWT) to conduct monthly monitor system checks at the store. Such checks are required by DER to determine if any discharges of product are occurring in the storage system. On February 10, 1988 Collier resigned as director of operations to accept a position in Saudi Arabia. Prior to his resignation Collier was replaced by David A. Laughner, who still remains in that position. According to Laughner, he and Collier spent only two weeks together prior to Collier's departure, and Collier did not advise him of the details concerning the monitoring program. Thus, he had no immediate knowledge of the existence of the monitoring wells or the tests being conducted by PWT. HFS's corporate offices are located in an office building at 9330 Adams Drive, Tampa, Florida. Besides three corporate officers and the director of operations, the corporation had only three office employees who worked at the corporate headquarters. The building is owned by B & B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc. (B & B), which operates a chain of grocery stores in southwest Florida. HFS's offices are on the second floor while B & B's corporate offices are located on the first floor. Although the two corporations are legally separate entities, they have certain common directors and shareholders, and the two corporations once utilized a centralized bookkeeping and billing department which was controlled and staffed by B & B. Under that arrangement, bills sent to HFS were actually processed by B & B's accounting department which paid the invoice on behalf of HFS. In addition, the two corporations once shared the same post office box. Under that arrangement, which existed in February 1988 and continued until at least August 1988, all mail sent to HFS at the post office box was initially processed by B & B's mail room rather than being sent directly upstairs to HFS. On April 24, 1988 PWT conducted its first monthly monitor well inspection at the store. That report indicated that three inches of free product was present in monitoring well three. A second monthly monitoring well inspection was conducted on May 10, 1988 reflecting the presence of two inches of free product in well number three and twelve inches in well number four. Free product was defined by a DER witness as "material (such as a petroleum product) that will be left on the water table." The presence of a free product, including a refined petroleum product, in a monitoring well is an indication that a discharge or release of the product from a storage tank has and may be continuing to occur. If free product is observed, it is the responsibility of the tank owner to determine the cause of the discharge, and if it is determined that the discharge is coming from the tank, he must empty the tank so that the system can be repaired or replaced. Also, the owner is obliged to notify DER within three working days of discovery of the discharge. The purpose behind these reporting and investigating requirements is to try to decrease the size of the petroleum plume and the area of contamination. The results of the two tests, and the invoices for the charges, were sent by PWT to HFS's post office box. Consistent with existing procedure, B & B's mail room received the reports and invoices and forwarded both to B & B's billing department for processing and payment of the invoices. Rather than forwarding the test reports upstairs to HFS, B & B filed the reports with the invoices in B & B's billing department. The parties have stipulated that no one in the billing department knew or had reason to know of the potential significance of the monitor well inspection reports. Because the bills had been paid, PWT did not contact HFS to determine whether the reports had been received. Consequently, neither Laughner nor any other HFS corporate employee had knowledge that monitor well inspections had been conducted at Store 82 or that inspection reports had been forwarded by PWT. However, it is found that copies of such reports were either forwarded to Store 82 by someone in Tampa or by PWT because they were available for inspection by DER representatives at a store inspection that took place in late June 1988. As the result of an unconfirmed telephonic report received in early February 1988 concerning possible contamination at Store 82, on June 17, 1988 a DER inspector, Jeffrey Gould, sent a letter to Laughner at HFS's corporate post office box advising that Gould would be conducting a stationary tanks compliance inspection at Store 82 during the week of June 27, 1988. The letter also requested that all records associated with the storage tank system be available at the facility for inspection. This inspection is commonly referred to as a "17-61 compliance inspection", meaning that the storage tanks would be checked to see if they met the requirements of Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code (1987). Although the letter was addressed to Laughner, it was forwarded by an undisclosed person to a Store 82 employee, Betty Smith, whose title is area supervisor, and Laughner denies having seen the letter until several months later. 1/ Gould and another DER employee, Alicia Andersen, met with Betty Smith at the store on June 29, 1989. It may be inferred that Smith had copies of the PWT monitoring reports for she produced copies of the same for Gould, who then hand-copied and reviewed the two reports. Gould also made a physical inspection of the four monitoring wells on the site. He noted the presence of free product in two of the four monitoring wells. One had 7/8 of an inch of free product (gasoline) while a second well had fourteen inches of free product. Gould also detected a strong odor and observed sheen in the northeast monitoring well and a strong odor in the southeast monitoring well. These findings are memorialized in a written compliance inspection report received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 2. After the inspection was completed, Gould discussed generally the results with Smith, had her sign the report and gave her a copy. Since Smith was not present at final hearing, Gould's version of their conversation is the only competent evidence of record on the subject. According to Gould, he told Smith that he "had found product and that it is a problem." Gould acknowledged that he did not go into too much detail with Smith concerning the report since she was only an employee, but he specifically recalled advising her "there was a definite problem at this facility" and that he "spent a long time" with her. Finally, after giving Smith a copy of the report, Gould told Smith to "return it to her office." However, Smith did not do so. Gould's version of the events was not credibly contradicted and it is hereby accepted. On July 11, 1988 Gould, over the district manager's signature, sent Laughner by certified mail a "warning" letter and copy of the June 29 inspection report. The documents were sent to the post office box in Tampa. The return receipt was signed on July 15 by one Patty Jackson, whose relationship, if any, to HFS was not disclosed. The letter provided in pertinent part as follows: Free gasoline product was found in two of the compliance monitoring wells. Product thickness in one well exceeded the bailer limitation of fourteen inches. The presence of free product was also noted on monitor well records by Purity Well Testing Company for April 24, 1988 and May 10, 1988. A maximum thickness of twelve inches was measured. Such discharges are in violation of Chapter 376, Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-3. It is required that the discharges be stopped and the integrity of the storage system verified. Records available onsite indicate the 4000 gallon tank failed a tightness test with a leak rate of -0.1057 gallons per hour (gph) on September 26, 1986. The tank however passed the test on October 7, 1986 at +0.027 gph. Please describe all repairs, if any, to the storage system after the initial failure. The Department requests a meeting to discuss entry into a Consent Order to resolve the violations. Please contact Jeff Gould at 813/332-2667 or write the letterhead address within ten (10) days of receipt of this letter to schedule a meeting. Your cooperation is appreciated. (Emphasis added) As noted in the previous finding, the letter and report were received on July 15, 1988 but were not forwarded upstairs to Laughner or any other corporate employee. When Gould received no oral or written response - to his letter, Gould eventually telephoned Laughner on August 26, 1988. During the course of the telephone call, for the first time Laughner became aware of the existence of the contamination problem at Store 82 and the nature of the tests that had been performed that spring by PWT. It is also noted that during the telephone call, Laughner acknowledged that Gould's letter of July 11 had just been routed to his desk. The two agreed to meet at DER's Fort Myers district office on September 1, 1988 to discuss the violations. On August 29, 1988, or three days after Laughner spoke with Gould, HFS filed its incentive program application for Store 82. The application, which noted that the date of discovery of a petroleum discharge at Store 82 was on June 29, 1988, was received by DER on September 6, 1988. On September 1, 1988, Laughner met with DER representatives to discuss Store 82. Laughner was told that certain specific measures should be taken to insure the integrity of the storage tank system. That same day, in a letter to DER, HFS informed DER that a tank integrity test had been scheduled for Store 82 and that HFS was implementing initial remedial action (IRA) to remove any petroleum product and excessively contaminated soils and that an enviromental consultant had been contracted to conduct IRA, site contamination assessment and any necessary remedial action. Until that time, and dating back to June 29, 1988, HFS had only conducted a stick test at Store 82 to monitor the presence of petroleum product. Also, HFS personnel had not reviewed any repair records, monitoring well records, or inventory records during this same period of time. On September 7, 1988, HFS conducted a tank integrity test at Store 82. The integrity test passed under the criteria set by the National Fire Protection Association, which is the acceptable standard under Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. However, DER did not consider the testing to be a timely response since it considered no more than a week to be a reasonable period of time for testing once a discharge is discovered. On October 7, 1988, DER, through its inspector Gould, conducted an incentive program compliance inspection at Store 82. Although Gould observed two and one-eighth inches of free product in one well and a sheen in another well, the compliance inspection checklist noted that Store 82 was in compliance with Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. Question 3 on the verification checklist asked if there was "evidence of gross negligence." Gould checked "yes" and made the following notations: See penalty worksheets (draft CO to OGC for review). Major violations failed tank test (enclosed) showed leaks Sept. 1986! - D.E.R. not notified, free product in well treated as a discharge and D.E.R. not notified of product in wells to take action. Gould responded in the above fashion because he concluded that nothing had been done for long periods of time to insure the integrity of the petroleum storage system at Store 82. It should be noted, however, that nothing in the checklist indicated that damages of any kind were caused by HFS's failure to take remedial action until September 1988, and DER representatives admitted they had no proof of such damages. On September 14, 1989, or approximately one year later, DER issued its proposed agency action denying Store 82's eligibility for reimbursement under the incentive program. As later amended on March 16, 1990, the agency's letter recited the following reason for denying the application: Monitor well reports dated April 24, 1988 and May 10, 1988 listed free product in monitoring wells. No report of discharge discovery was made to the Department by Handy Foods as required by Chapter 17-61, F.A.C. On June 29, 1988, an inspector from the Department discovered free product in Petitioner's monitoring wells. Petitioners were sent a warning letter by the Department on July 11, 1988, requesting that Petitioner stop any discharges and verify the integrity of its storage system. Petitioner conducted such tank tightness tests on September 7, 1988, or approximately five months after the monitoring well reports indicated the discovery of free product. Failure to report, investigate and abate where there is evidence of a discharge shall be construed to be gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. In other words, DER contended that HFS was "grossly negligent" within the meaning of the law by failing to "report, investigate and abate" the discharge until almost five months after the leaks were first detected by PWT. DER admits that it has no information to support a contention that, as to Store 82, HFS failed to maintain or falsified inventory or reconciliation records, intentionally damaged the petroleum storage system, failed to make monthly monitoring system checks, or failed to meet monitoring and retrofitting requirements in accordance with chapter 17-61 procedures. Although the incentive and reimbursement programs under section 376.3071 were enacted by the legislature in 1986, the agency has not promulgated formal rules that define or identify "gross negligence" or the criteria for determining eligibility under the incentive reimbursement program. Through the introduction of various agency records received in evidence as petitioner's composite exhibit 6, HFS sought to establish the fact that DER, in at least four prior cases, reached a result inconsistent with that reached in its proposed agency action regarding HFS. However, DER has processed thousands of applications of this nature, and the presence of four contrary results does not establish any binding precedent. Moreover, DER's administrator acknowledged that the agency had either erred in the cited cases or the facts were distinguishable from those presented herein. The parties disagree on the meaning of the words "gross negigence" as it is used in Subsection 376.3071(12(b), Florida Statutes (1987). Both parties presented expert testimony concerning what they perceived to be a proper interpretation of the statute. According to HFS's expert, Howard Ledbetter, he construed the term to mean a willful and reckless disregard for agency regulations that were known and understood by the alleged offender. Ledbetter established that in the spring of 1988 there was no firm understanding by the industry of what was required by DER's underground storage tank rules. Finally, he recalled receiving several different interpretations of the rules from DER personnel. In contrast, a DER expert, John Svek, opined that gross negligence occurs whenever an owner/operator commits a major violation of chapter 17-61. However, Svek conceded that chapter 17-61 does not distinguish or define major or minor violations, and nothing in chapter 17-61 equates a failure to immediately investigate a discharge to gross negligence. Further, he admitted that a lack of knowledge of a discharge is a factor to consider in determining whether gross negligence is present. A second DER expert, Patricia Dugan, acknowledged that not only is there no written document setting forth guidelines for determining when gross negligence occurs but that the term "gross negligence" does not appear in chapter 17-61. However, Dugan maintained that if notices are received by a corporation but are misfiled, as was alleged to have been done here, that conduct equates to gross negligence on the part of HFS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Handy Food Stores, Inc. for participation in the petroleum contamination clean-up program be approved. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 381.0065 and Chapter 489, Part III, Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6, by engaging in septic tank contracting without registration as alleged by Petitioner in the Administrative Complaint and Order to Crease Operations, dated January 26, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation and the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, documentary materials received in evidence, stipulation of the parties, and evidentiary rulings during the hearings, and the record compiled, the following relevant and material facts are determined: The Department of Health ("Department"), Lee County Health Department, is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to the practice of septic tank contracting in Florida, pursuant to Chapter 489 Part II and Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (2004). Violators of these laws are subject to penalty assessments of Section 381.0061, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.002. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent, Keithon M. Patterson, has not been licensed as a plumber pursuant to Subsection 489.105(3)(m), Florida Statutes (2004). All times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was doing business using the business name Full Spectrum Home Improvement, Inc. (Full Spectrum). The business is not nor has it ever been licensed under Subsection 489.105(3)(m), Florida Statutes (2004). All times relevant to these proceedings, the City of Cape Coral, Florida, has an ongoing utility expansion program extending city water services and city sewer services to properties within the limits of the city. All homeowners are required to connect or hookup to city water/sewer systems when such services become available in their respective location within the city. Each homeowner connection or hookup process to city- provided water and sewer, once completed, requires the homeowner to get the Department's abandonment permit to abandon their septic system after hookup to the city water/sewer system. Abandonment requires trenching from the street hookup to the water/sewer hookup. It requires disconnection from the home and the septic tank. It requires pumping or emptying of the septic tank followed by a crushing of the septic tank and filling in of soil. Vicki Adams lives in her home located at 3216 Southeast 1st Place, Cape Coral, Florida. When city services extended to her location, she was required to hookup to the city water/sewer system and have her septic tank system abandoned. To abandon a septic tank means to have a registered person, empty the septic tank, crush the septic tank, fill the septic tank space with clean fill, dig up the underground septic lines from the home to the septic tank, remove piping, and fill the trench with clean fill. For reasons of sanitation and safety, a Departmental permit is required for each property owner before they can abandon their private septic tank system. On or about November 22, 2004, Ms. Adams obtained her septic system abandonment permit from the Department. At some undetermined date but subsequent to November 22, 2004, Ms. Adams, for promise of monetary payment, hired Mr. Patterson to connect her home to the city sewer and to abandon her septic tank. When she was leaving for work, Ms. Adams observed Mr. Patterson doing trench work (i.e. digging, removing soil, hauling sod, etc.) and actually laying some pipe. Ms. Adams' son, Jeff, observed Mr. Patterson with a sledge hammer while in their front yard. Ms. Adams told Mr. Patterson where to park the trucks hauling the clean fill needed to fill the hole after the septic tank was crushed. Mr. Patterson rightly pointed out that neither Jeff nor Ms. Adams personally saw him crush the septic tank. However, when Ms. Adams returned home from work that afternoon she saw clean fill in the spot her crushed septic tank once occupied. Ace Septic Service, Inc. (Ace), a Department authorized septic tank contracting company, removed all residue from Ms. Adams' septic tank by pumping the tank contents into its truck. It invoiced Ms. Adams for pumping her tank. Carlos Casanova, manager of Ace at the time, gave undisputed testimony that his company only pumped out Ms. Adams' septic tank--they did not perform abandonment (i.e. crushing of the tank and filling the abandoned hole with fresh soil). Ms. Adams paid Mr. Patterson $790.00 for his work at her home, which included hooking-up her home to the city sewer line and abandoning her septic tank system. Mr. Patterson gave her a receipt indicating that she paid him in full, in cash, received by him, "K.M. Patterson's," on December 8, 2004, by his signature thereon. The receipt, however, is from "Full Spectrum Home Improvement," and under the "Description" states: "50' trench excavation, 50'4 DWV PVC pipe w/fitting, 6" X4" PVC DWV WVE, trench backfill and restoration (w/out sod)." It is abundantly clear from evidence of record that Ms. Adams' septic tank was abandoned, and, for the septic tank abandonment service rendered, Ms. Adams paid Mr. Patterson, who was not registered with the Department as required. Ace Septic Service, Inc. (Ace), a Department-authorized septic tank contracting company, did not abandon Ms. Adams' septic tank. On January 5, 2005, Department inspector, Ms. Pickerill (no first name in the record), went to the Adams' residence to inspect and confirm proper septic tank abandonment. Her inspection included probing the area where the tank had been located, confirming that the tank had been crushed and that clean fill was used to fill the hole. Satisfied by her inspection that Ms. Adams' septic tank had been properly abandoned, Ms. Pickerill signed the Department's abandonment permit for the Adams' property. Nicola Verna's home is located at 4117 Southwest 20th Avenue, Capt Coral, Florida. City sewer and water had been extended to his home, and he was required to hookup to the city water/sewer system and to abandon his septic system. Mr. Verna obtained the Department's septic system abandonment permit on May 7, 2004. At some undetermined time before September 27, 2004, Mr. Verna hired Mr. Patterson to connect his home to the city water/sewer system and to abandon his septic system. At his home site, Mr. Verna observed Mr. Patterson crush his septic tank with a sledgehammer and bring in a truckload of clean fill material that Mr. Patterson placed in the hole where he had crushed the septic tank. The arrangements to have Mr. Verna's septic tank pumped by Ace were made by Mr. Patterson, for which Mr. Verna paid Ace $165.00 for pumping only, evidenced by a September 27, 2004, invoice. As with Ms. Adams, Mr. Casanova gave undisputed testimony that his company only "pumped out the septic tank-- they did not perform septic tank abandonment," the issue in this cause. For services rendered (hooking-up home to city water, irrigation services, to city sewer, and abandoning the septic tank), Mr. Verna paid Mr. Patterson a total of $1,073.00. Mr. Patterson gave Mr. Verna two receipts. One August 16, 2004, receipt from Full Spectrum "for '120' trench for 120' water and irrigation lines, $619.00 paid in full ch# 1083 rec'd by K.M. Patterson." The second September 27, 2004 receipt "for '1 40' trenching sewer line" for a total of $454.00, with notation at the bottom, "deposit ch# 1086, Balance of $200.00 Rec'vd by K. Patterson ch# 1088." Mr. Verna is certain that the two receipts represented his payments to Mr. Patterson for a part of the work he performed in abandoning his sewer system, because Mr. Patterson is the only person who performed those services for him. As with Ms. Adams, Ms. Pickerill went to Mr. Verna's home on December 27, 2004, to conduct her inspection and to confirm Mr. Verna's septic system was abandoned properly. Her probing the area where the tank was located confirmed that it had been crushed and clean fill had been used to fill the hole. Satisfied by her inspection that Mr. Verna's septic tank had been properly abandoned, Ms. Pickerill signed the Department's abandonment permit for the Verna's property. The Department has taken previous enforcement actions for engaging in septic tank contracting without registration against Mr. Patterson. On June 4, 2004, the Department served an Administrative Complaint on Mr. Patterson seeking to impose a $1,500.00 fine for three separate episodes of tank contracting without being a registered septic tank contractor. Mr. Patterson settled the complaint for septic tank contracting without being a registered septic tank contractor with the Department by his agreement to pay a $750.00 fine. The Department memorialized the agreement in its Final Order Number DOH-04-1071-S-HST of September 15, 2004. Mr. Patterson paid his fine of $750.00 in January 2005, but not before the filing of the instant Cease Order entered by the Department in this proceeding. Based upon the above allegation of septic tank contracting without being a registered septic tank contractor with the Department, in the instant proceeding are "repeat violations" for penalty purposes as provided in disciplinary guidelines of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.002. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Patterson, did on two separate occasions violate Section 381.0065, and Chapter 489, Part III, Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6, by engaging in septic tank contracting abandonment without registration as alleged by the Department in the Administrative Complaint and Order to Crease Operations, dated January 26, 2005. Mr. Patterson's protestations to the contrary are without merit and unworthy of belief.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order affirming its January 26, 2005, Order to Crease Operations and imposing a $1,000.00 fine against Respondent, Keithon M. Patterson. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 28th day of July, 2005.
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
The Issue The issue is whether the application of Petroleum Products Corporation for reimbursement of the cost of assessment and clean-up of soil and groundwater contamination at its site in Broward County, Florida, under the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response Act of 1986 should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Legislature provided a system for the clean-up of sites contaminated as the result of the storage of petroleum or petroleum products in the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response Act of 1986 (Super Act), Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, codified primarily as Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. The Super Act contains a reimbursement program funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund. Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, permits reimbursement of allowable costs for the rehabilitation of sites contaminated from discharges related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products. Petroleum Products Corporation owns a parcel of land located at 3130 Southwest 17th Street, Pembroke Park, Florida. From 1959 to 1970 Petroleum Products Corporation operated a facility on that land which collected used oil from service stations and automobile dealerships, processed it, and sold it either as fuel oil or lubricating oil. About 90% of 150,000 gallons of used oil processed monthly at the facility was sold as fuel; the remaining oil was sold as lubricating oil, but even when sold as lubricating oil, it was sometimes burned as fuel because re-refined oil makes good fuel. The storage tanks were located on the southeastern portion of the property, near Carolina Road. The facility used a two-phase distillation process. Used oil was distilled to remove water, after which it could be sold as fuel oil. If processed in the second phase, for sale as lubricating oil, it was distilled further, and treated with sulfuric acid and clay to remove additives and residue, and change color. This phase produced a waste consisting of acid/clay sludge. This sludge is generally very black, and has a pH of approximately 3. It is very viscous, and has the consistency of roofing cement; laymen would describe it as tar. It does not flow easily, but is liquid enough to be pumped. This processing also occurred in the southeast part of the property. While the recycling facility produced lubricating oil using the acid/clay treatment from 1959 to 1970, the acid sludge was hauled to a municipal dump, or placed in pits dug into the ground on the north and east of the plant site. When the pits were dug, they were dug below the water level, and there was water in the pits before the sludge was dumped in them. The disposal of sludge in pits on the recycling site was a prevailing industry practice, and violated no regulatory requirements at the time. Operators considered on-site disposal of sludge preferable to hauling sludge to a landfill. During periods of heavy rain, some of the sludge may have overflown the pits and spread to nearby land, where it would become mixed with the surface soil. Petroleum Products Corporation ceased making lubricating oil in 1970, but continued to process used oil into fuel oil. The local Broward County Pollution Control Agency asked Petroleum Products Corporation to remove the acid/clay sludge from its property, and to refill the pits with other fill material. Petroleum Products Corporation acceeded to this request, and a great volume of sludge, perhaps hundreds of thousands of gallons, was removed from the pits, which were then refilled under the supervision of the Broward County Pollution Authority. Receipts Petroleum Products Corporation produced at the hearing, or thereafter from the custody of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, show that more than 150 truck loads of sludge were removed and hauled to landfills operated by Metropolitan Dade County or by the City of Surfside. Some pockets of the sludge remain at the site of the pits because they were not completely emptied. The backfill was clean fill, and the area was then bulldozed so that warehouses could be constructed in the area. This filling and bulldozing changed the contour of the land from what it had been in the past. The Department contends that much of the sludge was spread out over an extended area of the site, and not removed to landfills. The evidence is persuasive that almost all of the sludge from the pits was removed to landfills. The testimony of Mr. Blair denying that the sludge was spread was credible. In addition, on-site spreading of the sludge would have been impracticable. As a tar-like substance, if spread out, it would have been tracked everywhere. It would stick to the tracks or wheels of any vehicles operating on the surface, and was so acidic it would burn or irritate the skin of anyone who came in contact with it. It would be extremely difficult to perform maintenance on equipment used to spread the sludge because of the need to clean the sludge off, so that the mechanic would not be burned. In addition, there are a large number of receipts evidencing the systematic hauling of the sludge to landfills. The logic of Mr. McDonnell's testimony is persuasive: If you have the alternate, which they obviously did, of hauling it away and simply dumping it, no one would go out and deliberately choose to do a very difficult job [spreading the sludge over the property] where there is an easy alternative available to them. (Tr. 285) Although the facility ceased its re-refining of lubricating oil in 1970, it continued to collect, process, and sell used oil as a fuel until 1984. About 150,000 gallons per month of used oil were processed and sold as fuel. The oil was typically crank case engine oil which contained the substances normally found in used oil of that type. There is no persuasive evidence that Petroleum Product Corporation ever received any hazardous waste, or mixed used oil with any hazardous waste. Used oil is not listed as a hazardous waste by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or by the Department. The used oil collected and recycled at Petroleum Product's facility was pumped into and stored in above-ground storage tanks. There were, over time, from 10 to 25 tanks, which ranged in size from 12,000 to 20,000 gallons. Normally, the facility stored between 400,000 and 500,000 gallons of used oil. Occasionally, the facility also received virgin oil, but it was processed quickly or sold because of its higher value. At the peak of its operation, the facility had 25 to 35 storage tanks. Recycling operations had slim profit margins and were small operations. Storage tanks, pumps, and other equipment were bought used, often from other businesses dealing in virgin petroleum products. That used equipment was often rusty or deteriorating. Tank bottoms could have holes in them as the result of rust from standing water; tanks were sometimes riveted, and would have side or bottom leaks. The tanks had virtually no overfill protection. When oil was pumped in, it would overflow from the top and run down the sides. Operators were typically not careful with the oil, because it had a very low value, about 2 to 5 cents a gallon. A spill of a few thousand gallons was regarded as an inconsequential matter. The pumps used in storing oil often had leaks in packing seals, or had screw joints which would leak. Tank valves, also usually bought as used equipment, were often installed without new stem packing, and also would leak during operation. Almost no preventive maintenance was done, because it was not cost-effective to do so. Equipment was repaired only if its current state of repair interfered with operations, which usually meant that leaks were not repaired until they created a fire hazard. Leaks and spills from used oil storage tanks, including their pumps, valves, and piping, were common. A great volume of used oil leaked or spilled from Petroleum Products Corporation's tanks, pumps, and piping over its 25 year operation. There were also large oil spills resulting from four or five major fires at the facility in the 1960s. The fire in 1963, which may have been the result of vandalism, caused 40,000 to 60,000 gallons of use oil to spill from storage tanks; 8 or 10 tanks were destroyed. There were no dikes, so that the oil flowed freely. When firemen used water on the fire, the oil was absorbed into the soil. Another major fire occurred in October, 1966 in which three oil storage tanks collapsed spilling about 50,000 gallons of oil. Another 25 foot high oil tank collapsed on a firetruck. There is no way to know, with certainty, the volume of used oil, virgin oil, and lubricating oil which spilled or leaked into the ground on the site. It is reasonable to believe that 9 to 12 gallons of oil would have leaked or spilled each day at the facility, which would have resulted in spill of over 100,000 gallons of oil. This estimate, made by Mr. McDonnell, is credible and is conservative, given the volume of oil also spilled during the fires. Petroleum Products Corporation does not contend that the leaks and spills from process tanks, rather than from storage tanks, are eligible for reimbursement of site assessment and cleanup costs. Oil leaked from both, however, and once in the ground, the oils are indistinguishable. Due to the capacity of the tanks and the years they were in use, however, it is reasonable to assume that 15% or less of the leaks and spills were attributable to process tanks. After processing, most of the oil was burned as fuel. Some was used as a lubricant. The only difference between used oil sold as fuel or lubricant was that the lubricating oil had the additives removed and the color changed. Both burn well. There is an insufficient basis in this record to justify the Department's interpretation excluding this site from eligibility for cleanup because oil processing ocurred at the site to produce lubricating oil. Section 376.3071 does not disqualify all or part of a site from eligibility for cleanup reimbursement because a portion of the used oil stored there was ultimately used as lubricants. In 1984 a Department investigator asked Petroleum Products Corporation to install exploratory wells to determine whether there was contamination at the site. Petroleum Products engaged the firm of Dames & Moore to undertake a preliminary investigation, which revealed that there was groundwater contamination in the form of floating hydrocarbons. On April 1, 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Petroleum Products Corporation entered into a consent order agreement which required the removal of 17 above-ground tanks leaking used oil into the ground, which constituted a continuing source of contamination. Petroleum Products Corporation contracted with Conversion Technology Corporation to recover and recycle the oil and wastes, with Waldron's tank cleaning services to clean the empty tanks and drum the sludge, with Cuyahoga Wrecking Service to make the tanks inoperable, and with Seven & Seven Transporters to remove the waste to a disposal facility. The employee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who was in charge of the site commended Petroleum Products Corporation for its cleanup effort, and wrote as the OSC [on- scene coordinator] for this EPA-monitored cleanup I may say that [Petroleum Products Corporation] exemplified industrial cooperation and responsibility in combating the vexing problem of hazardous waste management. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) Petroleum Products Corporation cooperated with the Environmental Protection Agency and with the Department in determining how to deal with the contamination. It has already spent approximately $150,000 to perform remedial action. Contamination at the site is of three types: oil floating in the groundwater, soil contamination, and groundwater contamination. It is not possible to clean any individual phase of the contamination without affecting the other phases. Attempts at remediation must be monitored to prevent an influx of organic contaminants into the aquifer. Similarly, the cost related to the cleanup of an individual phase of contamination cannot be isolated because of the inter-related nature of the cleanup phases. The creation of a cone of groundwater depression is necessary for any recovery of the free or floating oil. The cost of recovery of the free product cannot be separated from groundwater cleanup because it is necessary to treat large quantities of groundwater involved in creating a cone of depression. To the extent that a proportion of the cost might be estimated, the cost associated with the recovery of free product would be a minor portion of the overall cleanup. There is currently a free product recovery effort in place at the site, which is intended to prevent further migration of the product off-site. This ongoing action is not considered an element of the site cleanup. The most feasible method of cleanup for the free product will involve the excavation of the soils to create a trench. The free product and ground water will be recovered as they flow into the trench. During October and November of 1984, Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., a consulting firm working under contract with the Department, assessed the extent of free floating oil in the groundwater under the Petroleum Product Corporation's site. Those consultants found a free floating layer of oil from 5" to 30" thick under approximately one-half of the one acre site Petitioner still owns. The free product generally mirrors the location of the former recycling facility and its storage tanks. The viscosity of the free product is comparable to about 40-weight engine oil. Environmental Science and Engineering estimates that the floating layer of oil contains 20,000 to 60,000 gallons of recoverable petroleum product. The direction of ground water flow and the migration of contaminants off-site is to the east or southeast. The soil above the oil layer has been saturated with oil because of the fluctuations of the layer with movement of the water table as the area experiences heavy rains or dry spells. Wells drilled in the location of the former sludge lagoons to the north and east of the plant site reveal a heavy slightly liquid type of sludge. The oil in the lagoon sites is immobile, and no free product collects in the wells after 24 hours. One sample collected in the mason jar shows a slight degree of oil separation after 24 hours. This anecdotal evidence of separation is not very informative, and is not persuasive that oil separates from the remaining sludge on-site. See, Finding 32, below. A second assessment of soil and groundwater contamination was done by another consulting firm under contract with the Department, Ecology and Environment, Inc. That study showed free floating product at the site. The only calculation of the amount of free floating oil was that done by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., see, Finding 29, estimating that there would be 20,000 to 60,000 gallons of recoverable oil. That calculation understates the amount of oil in the ground. The estimate given by George McDonnell of 103,000 gallons is more persuasive. It is consistent that the large amounts of oil which leaked or spilled at the site over a 25 year period. It is unlikely that any appreciable portion of the approximately 103,000 gallons of floating oil has its genesis in the separation of oil from the acid/clay sludge which had been disposed in the two lagoons for the following reasons: Oil associated with acid/sludge would be quite acidic, and have a pH between 2 and 4. The pH scale is not a linear scale, so differences in pH are quite dramatic as the pH values change. Samples of free product shows a uniform pH of approximately 6 or 7. In almost all 31 monitoring or observation wells the pH is consistent with the characteristics of used oil, (a pH of 6 or 7), not the pH of sludge (a pH of 2 to 4). The only sample which disclosed a low pH was that taken in monitoring well number 3 which was located in the former sludge lagoon site. The groundwater flows to the east or southeast. This does not explain the presence of free product to the west and southwest of the sludge pits nor the absence of free product to the east of the pits. The viscosity of the oil is similar to that of 40-weight engine oil and not highly viscous, as the tar-like sludge would be. The oil in the sludge pits is basically immobile and no free product surfaced in the monitoring well after waiting 24 hours. The pH of the free product is nearly neutral. The Department believes that the sludge was mixed with lime rock or fill and spread over the site to increase the pH of the oil. This is unpersuasive. Mixing with lime rock would increase the pH of the sludge (tend to bring it towards neutral) but it would not cause the dramatic lowering of acidity which would bring the sludge to a pH of 6 or 7. In addition, the viscosity of the sludge would not be so changed by mixing the sludge with fill that its viscosity would become similar to that of 40-weight engine oil. To believe that the free product results from sludge disposal rather than leaks ignores the normal operating practice of used oil recovery facilities in the late 50s and 60s where spills from storage tanks, pumps, and piping were very common. Little of the free product has been recovered through the current remediation efforts. If not recovered, over time the approximately 103,000 gallons of floating oil will spread to adjacent property. To recover this oil by conventional trench or well recovery operations will probably cost $250,000 or more. The capital cost of the groundwater recovery/discharge system, with monitoring wells, will be about $85,000; cost of operating and maintenance are approximately $180,000. The firm of Ecology & Environment, Inc., collected soil samples at 56 locations in two phases in its remedial investigation. Forty-six of the samples were taken at shallow depths (27 at 8 inches, 19 at approximately 10 inches); 10 more samples were taken in the old disposal pit sites at depths between 0 and 35 feet). The two primary classes of contaminants found in the soil were lead and organics (hydrocarbons associated with petroleum products). Both contaminants are found in used oil. The lead and organic contaminants were found in the shallow soils over the southern half of the site. Very little contamination was found beyond the main area of site activity. The soil contamination was concentrated in the plant and former disposal pit areas. Samples with high lead concentrations were found in the former disposal pit sites. Contamination extended to a depth of 25 feet in one soil sample from a former pit, where oily plastic sludge was found with fine sand or clay. The two former pit sites are the only places with documented contamination below a 10 foot depth. Although the organic contamination extended laterally further than the lead contamination, Environment & Ecology concluded that the wider distribution did not reflect contamination from Petroleum Product Corporation's activities. The general area has long been the site of commercial and industrial activities, and there are many other possible sources for contamination including a firing range, which would have been disposing of lead bullets fired at the range, a generator plant, and a former spray-painting facility. Solvents and other chemicals used in these activities would contribute to soil and groundwater contamination. The consultants had been told by area businesses that small scale dumping of industrial chemicals in the vicinity has been common. Soil samples revealed a "great deal of heterogeneity." There was no uniform distribution of soils in the shallow zone. This probably occurs because after the reprocessing operations ended in 1970, the land was cleared and filled, so that many of the warehouses now in the area could be constructed. Most of the upper 8 to 10 feet is fill material. The ground water was monitored by installing 38 wells on the site, most of which were screened at depths of 10 to 12 feet. Five intermediate wells with depths of 50 feet and two deep wells of 100 to 200 feet were also installed. Every sample exhibited a pH of between 6.4 and 7.4. The primary contaminants were lead, organics, and chromium. The evidence does not indicate the source of the chromium. It is unrelated to Petroleum Product Corporation's activities. The groundwater contamination, both metal and organic, was only in the shallow zone. It extends laterally roughly to the same extent of the shallow contamination found in the soil. This suggests that the contaminants in the soil migrated due to seepage from rainfall or fluctuation in the water table into the groundwater. The water table is about five feet below the land surface. The Department has argued that the contaminants in the soil and groundwater were caused by mixing and spreading of the sludge material during the early 1970s over the surface of the area. This hypothesis has already been rejected for the reason stated in Findings 7 and 8, above. It is more likely that the soil contamination resulted from frequent spills and leaks of oil from storage tanks years ago. The soil contaminants are those found in used oil. The area generally is flat. There was no impediment to oil spills flowing over a large surface area, following the contour of the land at that time. Depending on the method used to clean up the site, the cost of rehabilitating the area will range between two and forty-six million dollars. It will cost over one million dollars to recover and treat contaminated groundwater. Approximately 110,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil must be removed and treated, the majority of that coming from the area outside the former sludge pits. The presence of contamination at the site is to be expected, given the site's former use. All of the 8 turnpike facilities and 8 maintenance yards operated by the Florida Department of Transportation report petroleum contamination from tanks, and the Department of Transportation has estimated cleanup cost will range from $20 to $30 million, although DER believes the cost may be $5 million. The cleanup will be funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund, as would the reimbursement in this case. The cost of rehabilitation is in the range of estimates that the Department has received for other petroleum contamination sites. In summary, the Petitioner's site is contaminated primarily from leak and spills of used and virgin oils processed or unprocessed and from storage tanks, pumps and integral piping. Small spills were continuous and some associated with fires were massive. The only portion of the site not contaminated due to leaks and spills is the residual soil and groundwater contamination from the sludge disposal pits, which is a small part of the overall contamination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Petroleum Products Corporation fo eligibility to participate in the cleanup program funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Rulings on Findings of Fact proposed the Petitioner: As will be obvious, the proposed order submitted by Petroleum Products Corporation comported closely with the Hearing Officer's view of the evidence, and with some modification was essentially adopted as proposed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10, to the extent necessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33 Rejected as repetitious of Finding of Fact 6. Rejected, see Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. The spreading theory is rejected in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. See also the stipulation of the parties entered as Exhibit 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Findings of Fact proposed by the Department. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted as modified in Finding of Fact 2. Discussed in the Conclusions of Law, see page 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Implicit in Findings of Fact 3 and 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unsupported by the transcript references given. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 Rejected as unnecessary. Generally rejected; see Finding of Fact 6 concerning the filling of the disposal pits. While some pockets of sludge remain at the site of the pits, the volume is difficult to determine. In an absolute sense, those pockets may contain a substantial amount of sludge, but on a comparative basis, by far the greatest part of the sludge was removed. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1), but see the final sentence of (1). Generally adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 28, and 34. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28, since the recycling facility and storage tanks were on the southern part of the property. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Implicit in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected because the process tanks necessarily store the product being processed, serving as a vessel to contain the product. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 3 with respect to the turnover in the volume of used oil processed at the facility. Only about 10 percent of the oil was reprocessed as lubricating oil. This is more significant than the volume of the tanks. See also Tr. 24 with respect to the storage capacity, and Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the surficial drainage has probably been changed by the filling and regrading of the property in preparation for building the warehouses. See Finding of Fact 6. The current surficial flow says little about the flow when the facility operated in the late 1950's and throughout the 1960's. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 through 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Generally rejected, the evidence is persuasive that about 50,000 gallons of oil were lost in the 1966 fire. (See Tr. 36-37.) Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected, the free product covers approximately one-half acre. Rejected, the more persuasive evidence is the 103,000 gallons estimated by Mr. McDonnell. See Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. See Findings of Fact 28 and 34. Rejected because it is unlikely that sludges are separating in the former sludge lagoon. See Finding of Fact 30. The source of the oil is more likely the substantial loss of oil which occurred from the fires and from leaks over the years which is now floating above the ground water. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected as unpersuasive. Rejected, the source of the free product is not leaching from the disposal pit, but the oil from over flows and leaks during operation as well as large inundations during fires. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 30. Rejected because oil does not separate from the sludge. Rejected for the reason given for rejecting Finding of Fact 63. Rejected, the seepage is not the result of separation in the disposal pits, but from the plume of free product in the ground above the ground water. Rejected as unnecessary, but the similarity of the oil seeping from the sludge pit area to waste oil is consistent with its source as leaks and spills inicident to fires. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate, see Finding of Fact 30. Rejected as unnecessary; obviously as there is no more storage, so there is no more source for leaks or spills. 71-73. Discussed in Finding of Fact 30. Rejected because liquid product will not accumulate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(5). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Rejected for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Rejected for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Rejected as unnecessary and for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1), which is consistent with the source of the free product being used oil rather than separation from sludge remaining onsite. 83-84. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. McDonnell has been accepted. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as redundant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Implicit in the finding that lead is a contaminant found in used oil. See Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary; see also, Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, although there were disposal pits in the north and eastern parts of the property. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34 with respect to location, but the testimony with respect to spreading of the sludge is rejected. See Finding of Fact 7. It is unlikely that sludge was spread over the site. The more likely explanation for the appearance of sludge in the lithologic logs for the southern end of the site is that the disposal lagoons periodically overflowed after heavy rains and provided a mechanism for the active transport of sludge out of the disposal pits into some areas on the southern end of the site. Apparently the northern area now occupied by the warehouses was higher, because no sludge was found in observation wells 4, 5 and 19. Rejected, page 41 of DER's Exhibit 3 shows no sludge at observation well 5, which the proposed finding implies. 107-112. Generally rejected because the testimony with respect to the surface flow from the tank area being to the south is rejected because the grading of the property as the warehouses were built likely changed the contour of the land. Mr. Levin's testimony was not particularly strong; for example, at page 25 of his prefiled direct testimony he states, "And for the shallow soil contamination I would still have to lean towards the fact that the materials were mixed and spread." 113-114. The sludge contamination is not the predominant or source of contamination. Rather, it is the oils which floated across the land and were carried into the soil and resulted from the leaks and spills. 115-120. Generally accepted in Finding of Fact 36, although subordinate to that finding. 121. Generally accepted, although the soil contamination by lead is attributable to leaks and spills from the used oil. 122-124. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 38. 127-128. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 36, especially the last sentence, and 38. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 39. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 39, especially the last sentence. Rejected as unnecessary. 132-134. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. 135. Rejected because the soil contamination is the result of leaks and spills of oil. 136-137. Rejected, it is more likely that the neutral pH of the ground water is the result of the essentially neutral contaminant, the used oil. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, although consistent with Finding of Fact 39 that the lateral extent of ground water contamination mirrors the soil contamination which has resulted from leaks and spills. 140-141. The predominant source of contamination is leaks and spills. 142. Rejected, the area affected by the leaks and spills is large, due especially to the fires and consequent loss of large amounts of oil from tanks. See Finding of Fact 41. 143-144. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 145. Although true, not relevant. 146-148. Rejected, whether the Environmental Protection Agency is correct or not in its assessment is not at issue here. This site was contaminated by used oil. 149-150. Although true, not relevant. Implicitly accepted in that no finding with respect to "bias" has been made. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected because the predominate source of contamination is an eligible source. Rejected, but the source here falls within the statutory directive. Rejected. The site here is predominantly contaminated by used oil, which is eligible. The eligible portion is not a minor part of the entire of the contamination. COPIES FURNISHED: R. L. Caleen, Jr., Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent Baldwin is liable for the violations of state statutes and rules that are alleged in the NOV and, if so, whether Respondent should be ordered to pay the civil penalties proposed by the Department.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapters 376 and 405, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Respondent BR Baldwin, Inc., is a Florida corporation. Beginning in July 31, 2006, Baldwin owned and operated an automotive service station at 2000 Drew Street in Clearwater, Florida (“the property”). Located at the property are three underground fuel storage tanks, along with their associated piping and dispensers. There is also an underground storage tank for waste oil. Baldwin ceased using the underground storage tanks in May 2007 and had them taken out of service in July 2007. Count I of the NOV charges Baldwin with a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.400(3)(a) which requires owners and operators of petroleum storage tank facilities to carry liability insurance or to otherwise demonstrate to the Department that they are financially able to pay for corrective actions and third party liability. Baldwin admits that from July 31, 2006, until June 25, 2007, it did not have liability insurance coverage for the facility and did not otherwise demonstrate to the Department that it was able to pay for potential liability. Bobby Baldwin, the president of Baldwin, contends that he tried to obtain insurance coverage but was unable to do so until June 2007. The more persuasive evidence shows that he did not at first make reasonable efforts to obtain insurance. His efforts to obtain insurance only became reasonable after the corporation was cited for failing to obtain insurance. Baldwin alleged, but did not prove, that the violation was caused by circumstances beyond his reasonable control and could not have been prevented by his due diligence. Bobby Baldwin contends that his receipt of a storage tank registration placard from the Department misled him to believe that he did not have to get insurance. The issuance of a placard is not tied to the requirement for insurance coverage. Bobby Baldwin admitted that he was unfamiliar with the regulations that are applicable to petroleum storage facilities when he purchased the facility. His failure to inform himself about the applicable regulations was unreasonable and does not provide a basis for mitigating the penalties assessed for violating the regulations. In the NOV, the Department seeks a penalty of $5,000 for the violation addressed in Count I. Count II of the NOV charges Baldwin with violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.610(3)(c), which requires that manual tank gauging be performed for tanks of 550 gallons or less nominal capacity. The tank gauging is required so that a leak can be discovered. Baldwin admits that it did not perform manual gauging for its waste oil tank during the approximate year that it operated the service station. Bobby Baldwin testified that he would have performed the manual gauging, but he was unaware that it was required. He also testified that he never used the waste oil tank. In the NOV, the Department seeks a penalty of $4,000 for the violation addressed in Count II, which represents two days of violation. At the hearing, the Department modified the penalty demand to seek only a single day violation, or $2,000. Count III of the NOV is the Department’s claim for investigative costs of $1,000. The Department apparently determined not to seek costs and presented no evidence in support of its costs claim at the final hearing. At the hearing, the Department stated its willingness to have the (modified) penalties of $7,000 reduced by 50 percent, to $3,500, and to allow Baldwin to pay the penalties in twelve equal monthly installments. Bobby Baldwin testified that he is financially unable to pay even the revised penalties of $3,500. There are exhibits in the record that relate to Bobby Baldwin’s personal finances. However, Bobby Baldwin is not named in the NOV. BR Baldwin, Inc., alone, is responsible for any penalties. The Department contends that a respondent’s inability to pay or difficulty in paying a penalty is not a mitigating factor that can be applied to reduce penalties. The statute does not identify inability to pay as a mitigating factor, but neither does it exclude its consideration. See § 403.121(10), Fla. Stat. The issue is moot in this case, however, because the Department has already stipulated to the reduction of the penalties by 50 percent.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint? Respondent's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and petitioner's proposed recommended order have been considered in preparation of the following findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact have been adopted for the most part, in substance, but they have been rejected when not supported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times respondent Son-Mar Propane, Inc. operated as a liquefied petroleum gas dealer under license No. 0156030178 issued by petitioner. Liquefied petroleum gas is stored under pressure. A gallon of the liquid expands to 270 gallons of vapor, at normal temperatures and pressures. Because it is so much denser, the liquid occupies the bottom of any space in which both liquid and vapor are confined. If a storage tank stands upright, and the valve is open or there is a leak at or near the valve (by far the most common place for leaks), vapor will escape. But, if the cylinder is on its side, the top-mounted valve is low enough that liquid can escape, immediately to expand as vapor to 270 times its volume as liquid. More fuel increases the risk of fire. The agent of ignition is unknown in the present case. SAINT PATRICK'S DAY 1983 Raymond Towse is not a well man; fourteen surgical operations have taken their toll; and Loretta Towse was arthritic. On March 17, 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Towse discovered that there was no propane to cook breakfast with, so they put the empty tank into their customized, 1975 Dodge Tradesman 200 van. The tank, big enough to hold 239 pounds of water, stands 49 1/4 inches tall. Curtis Howard Jones, Jr., the next door neighbor who owned the tank and had made a loan of it to the Towses, regularly helped the Towses lift the tank, which weighed 71 pounds empty, into the van. After getting something to eat at K-Mart, Mr. and Mrs. Towse drove to respondent's place of business. On their way inside, Mr. Towse asked John Dahlem to fill the cylinder tank with propane. Mr. Dahlem, who can handle these tanks single-handedly, even when they are full, retrieved the tank from the van, filled it with liquefied petroleum gas, and replaced the filled tank in the van. Only he and Mrs. Towse witnessed this replacement and she is no longer alive. Mrs. Towse went inside to look at a stereo cassette recorder they were considering purchasing, then returned to the van without it. She climbed into the front seat on the passenger's side. Later she left the front seat of the van and moved, inside the vehicle, toward the cylinder tank. She may have heard gas escaping or seen liquid leaking. She may actually have reached the tank and turned the valve perhaps, inadvertently, the wrong way. When the explosion occurred, the tank lay horizontally across the bottom of the van, leaving only the carpet underneath to tell the color of the whole before the conflagration. A moan then a sigh, as Mrs. Towse breathed her last, followed the whoosh of the exploding fire, gasping for oxygen. The windshield and the skylight popped out. The frame buckled. The Pasco County Fire Service arrived at two o'clock and put the fire out. The tank was red hot. The valve lacked a half turn being closed. Forty- nine and a half pounds of liquefied petroleum gas had escaped to be consumed by the fire. Full, the tank had weighed 171 pounds. NO RECERTIFICATION The propane cylinder tank involved was manufactured in January of 1959. Mr. Dahlem filled this tank, No. 23860, with propane at least four times in the last three and a half years. It had never been recertified, even though "NFPA requires recertification 12 years after date of manufacture" (T. 41) and periodically thereafter. Recertification contemplates at least a visual inspection for rust, dents and gouges in the cylinder, and soaping the welds and valve to determine whether there are any leaks. If the cylinder passes the test, "they mark it `E' for external, then the month and the year that they do the inspection. It's stamped right in the top of the cylinder." (T. 41) NOT SECURED VERTICALLY The Towses' neighbor, Mr. Jones, who used to help lay the tank on its side in the van, also saw it lying on its side, ready for unloading, after having been filled and driven back, on at least three occasions. The tank was too tall to be made to stand upright in the van, Mr. Jones believed. Whether the tank is too tall in fact was unclear from the evidence. Measurements of the van after the fire suggest there would not have been room enough, but the fire caused buckling of the van's roof and maybe other changes. Measurement of another Dodge van with different customizing suggest that there may have been room enough to stand the tank vertically, after all, perhaps with as much as an inch clearance. The burn patterns leave no doubt that the cylinder lay on its side during the fire. The bottom of the tank, which has a diameter of 16 to 18 inches, was almost flush with the side of the van; the likelihood that the cylinder simply fell over is very small. Mr. Dahlem testified that, although the empty tank arrived lying down, he stood the tank upright in the van, after he filled it, but his testimony that he left the tank in a vertical position has not been credited. There is no dispute that he did not say anything to the Towses about securing it on March 17, 1983. DAHLEM ACTED FOR CORPORATION John Dahlem is the brother-in-law of one of the principals of Son-Mar, Inc. He has worked there for three and a half years. He cuts the grass, pumps gas and works on trucks in addition to filling propane tanks. Before he filled propane tanks himself, Mr. Dahlem watched it being done many times over a period of a year and a half. This was evidently the extent of his training. (T. 143-144) Mr. Dahlem testified that he had been instructed to check for certification but had failed to do so on the four occasions he refilled the tank the Towses used. At one time, but not on the day of Mrs. Towse's death, he did use soapy water to check for a leak, and discussed replacing part of the tank with the Towses: I had checked that tank previous when I . . . on the shroud because he had an option then. He could either have a standard valve put in, which would have been cheaper, because he would have bought just the cap; he wouldn't have needed the shroud. (T. 138-139). Mr. Berdeaux and Mr. Johnson, respondent's principals, told Mr. Dahlem he need not secure propane tanks he filled and placed in people's conveyances. "They had to tie the tank off themselves. . . I didn't have to tie it off. No, sir." (T. 143) STANDARDS The National Fire Protection Association publishes safety standards which include the following: 6115. Containers and their appurtenances shall be determined to be leak-free before being loaded into vehicles. Containers shall be loaded into vehicles with sub stantially flat floors or equipped with suitable racks for holding containers. Containers shall be securely fastened in position to minimize the possibility of movement, tipping over or physical damage. 6116. Containers having an individual water capacity exceeding 200 pounds shall be transported with the relief valves of containers in direct communication with the vapor space. * * * B-212. All containers, including those apparently undamaged, must be periodically requalified for continued service. The first requalification for a new cylinder is required within 12 years after the date of manufacture. Subsequent requalifications are required within the periods specified under the requalification method used. B-213. DOT regulations permit three alternative methods of requalification for most commonly used LP-Gas specification containers (see DOT regulations for permissible requalification methods for specific cylinder specifications). Two use hydrostatic testing, and the third uses a carefully made and duly recorded visual examination by a competent person. In the case of the two hydrostatic test methods, only test results are recorded but a careful visual examination of each container is also required. DOT regulations cite in detail the data to be recorded for the hydrostatic test methods, the observations to be made during the recorded visual examination method, and the marking of containers to indicate the requalification date and the method used. The three methods are outlined as follows: The water jacket type hydrostatic test may be used to requalify containers for 12 years before the next requalification is due. A pressure of twice the marked service pressure is applied, using a water jacket (or the equivalent) so that the total expansion of the container during the application of the test pressure can be observed and recorded for comparison with the permanent expansion of the container after depressurization. The following disposition is made of containers tested in this manner: Containers which pass the retest, and the visual examination required with it (see B-213), are marked with the date and year of the test (Example: "6-70", indicating requalification by the water jacket test method in June 1970) and may be placed back in service. Containers which leak, or for which the permanent expansion exceeds 10 percent of the total expansion (12 percent for Specification 4-E aluminum cylinders) shall be rejected. If rejected for leakage, containers may be repaired in accordance with B-220. The simple hydrostatic test may be used to requalify containers for 7 years before the next requalification is due. A pressure of twice the marked service pressure is applied but no provision is made for measuring total and permanent expansion during the test outlined in B-213(a) above. The container is carefully observed while under the test pressure for leaks; undue swelling or bulging indicating weaknesses. The following disposition is made of containers tested in this manner: Containers which pass the test, and the visual examination required with it (see B-213) are marked with the date and year of the retest followed by an "S" (Example: "8-715", indicating requalification by the simple hydrostatic test method in August 1971), and may be placed back in service. Containers developing leaks or showing undue swelling or bulging shall be rejected. If rejected for leaks, containers may be repaired in accordance with B-220. The recorded visual examination may be used to requalify containers for 5 years before the next requalification is due provided the container has been used exclusively for LP-Gas commercially free from corroding components. Inspection is to be made by a competent person, using as a guide Compressed Gas Association "Standards for the Visual Inspection of Compressed Gas Cylinders" (CGA Pamphlet C06, 1975), and recording the inspection results as required by DOT regulations. (Note: Reference to NLPGA Safety Bulletin Recommended Procedures for Visual Inspection and Requalification of ICC Cylinders in LP-Gas Service is also recommended). The following disposition is to be made of containers inspected in this manner: Containers which pass the visual examination are marked with the date and year of the examination followed by an "E" (Example: "7-70E," indicating requalification by the recorded visual examination method in July 1970), and may be placed back in service. Containers which leak, show serious denting or gouging, or excessive corrosion shall either be scrapped or repaired in accordance with B-220. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, NFPA No. 58 (1979 ed.). These provisions are adopted by reference in Rule 4B-1.01, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's license No. 0156030178. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Silverman, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Leslie King O'Neal, Esquire Markel, McDonough & O'Neal Post Office Drawer 1991 Orlando, Florida 32802 William Gunter, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
