The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether CJC Properties, Ltd. (CJC), is eligible for state restoration funding assistance under the Petroleum Contamination Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program for one or more discharges of gasoline at DEP Facility No. 378943938 (“the facility”).
Findings Of Fact The Facility CJC is a Florida Limited Partnership. It is the current owner of property located at 5691 U.S. Highway 27 North, in Tallahassee. Prior to CJC’s acquisition of the property, the property was owned by Carolyn J. Chapman, John W. Chapman, Jane Chapman Latina, and Carolyn Chapman Landrum (“the Chapmans”). The property was leased to various entities and operated as a gas station. The tanks and dispensers remained in service until November, 1995. The last operator of the facility was Lake Jackson 76, Inc. There were five underground petroleum storage tanks at the facility. Before 1991, one of the tanks at the facility was used for regular, leaded, gasoline. When leaded gasoline was phased out, the tank was used for unleaded gasoline. Site Assessments and Sampling Data On November 30, 1995, the Chapmans employed Petroleum Contractors, Inc., to remove the five storage tanks. During the tank removal, Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists, Inc. (“EGS”) performed an assessment to determine whether the facility was contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. The Underground Storage Tank Removal Report prepared by EGS noted that all five tanks appeared to be intact. Soils in the tank pit wall and bottom were not discolored. No significant contamination was observed directly below the tanks. Soil from the tank pit was stockpiled on the site. EGS observed no significant signs of contamination of this soil. The soil stockpile was also screened with a Flame Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). No organic vapors were detected. An OVA detects any organic vapor, but is used as a screening tool to find petroleum vapors. Department rules require that an OVA reading be performed both unfiltered and filtered. The filtered reading screens out everything but methane and is “subtracted” from the unfiltered reading to determine the presence of petroleum vapors. Twenty-four soil samples were taken from various depths at nine locations in the tank pit. These samples were tested using an OVA. Nine of the soil samples, taken from four locations, had corrected OVA readings indicative of petroleum contamination. EGS concluded that “soil contamination detected in the tank pit is likely the result of a leak in the piping” between the dispensers and the tanks. Soil samples were also taken from three borings in the vicinity of the dispenser island and OVA-tested. In boring D-2, organic vapors were detected from the surface to a depth of approximately seven feet. The OVA readings from D-2 declined with depth. EGS reported that “some contamination was detected beneath a dispenser; however, it does not ‘appear’ to significantly extend below six (6) feet.” EGS did not report both filtered and unfiltered OVA readings for the soil samples taken from the dispenser area, as it had done for soil samples taken from the tank pit and the stockpile. For the dispenser area soil samples, EGS reported a single OVA reading for each sample, without indicating whether the reading was “corrected” after filtering. For this reason, the Department contends that these data are unreliable. CJC points out that EGS stated in the text of its report that the soil samples were filtered. CJC also argues that, because the filtered OVA readings for soil samples taken from the tank pit area were not different from their unfiltered readings, the OVA readings for the soil samples from the dispenser area would not have changed after filtering. The preponderance of the evidence is that the contamination in the dispenser area was petroleum. Based on EGS’ findings during the tank removal in November 1995, Petroleum Contractors, Inc., filed a Discharge Reporting Form on December 1, 1995, stating that there had been a discharge of unleaded gasoline at the facility. In January 1996, the Chapmans applied to participate in FPLRIP based on the discharge reported on December 1, 1995. By order dated January 26, 1996, the Department determined that the reported discharge was eligible for state-funded remediation assistance under FPLRIP. In 1997, another consultant, Levine Fricke Recon (LFR) conducted a site assessment at the facility and submitted its Interim Site Assessment Report to the Department. As part of its own soil sampling at the site, LFR collected a “direct push” soil boring in the dispenser island area, near the place where EGS had reported organic vapors. The boring data showed no petroleum vapors until the interval 16-to-20 feet below ground surface. LFR also collected and analyzed groundwater samples from the site. It reported that a sample taken from beneath the former diesel dispenser contained lead. Because lead occurs naturally in soils, its presence in a water sample does not confirm that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. In 1998, LFR conducted a second assessment of the facility site. It installed and sampled four shallow monitoring wells, designated MW-1S through MW-4S, and three deep monitoring wells, designated MW-2D through MW-4D. Groundwater samples from MW-3S and MW-3D were analyzed for lead, ethylene dibromide (EDB), and 1,2-Dichloroethane. All three substances are usually detected in a groundwater sample contaminated with leaded gasoline. On August 28, 1998, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment II to the Department, which shows lead and EDB were found in a sample taken from MW-3S, but not 1,2-Dichloroethane. LFR did not conclude or express a suspicion in either of its two assessment reports that leaded gasoline had been discharged at the facility. The deadline for submitting a Discharge Reporting Form or written report of contamination was December 31, 1998. A site assessment report received by the Department before January 1, 1999, which contained evidence of a petroleum discharge, was accepted by the Department as a “report of contamination.” The petroleum discharge information received by the Department before January 1, 1999, consisted of the Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, the FPLRIP claim, the Interim Site Assessment Report, and the Interim Site Assessment Report II. Post Deadline Site Assessment Data After the statutory deadline, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment III. This report includes January 1999 groundwater sampling data from four monitoring wells which show the presence of low levels of EDB. When EDB is found in a groundwater sample, it is a common practice to re-sample the well from which the sample was taken. Of the wells that showed the presence of EDB, only MW- 10D was re-sampled, after January 1, 1999. There was no EDB present in the groundwater when MS-10D was re-sampled. In June 2000, as part of the remediation of the contamination at the facility, an area of contaminated soil was removed to a depth of 14 feet. The area of soil removed included the former dispenser area. In January 2003, the Department notified CJC that the $300,000 FPLRIP funding cap would soon be reached. In March 2003, CJC signed a Funding Cap Transition Agreement, acknowledging that “At no time will the DEP be obligated to pay for cleanup of this discharge any amount that exceeds the funding cap.” CJC further acknowledged that it “is responsible for completing the remediation of the discharge in accordance with Chapter 62-770, F.A.C.” In 2005, CJC re-sampled one of the monitoring wells for lead and EDB. Neither substance was present. The site is not currently being actively remediated. Periodic groundwater sampling indicates that concentrations of contaminants are dropping. No further active remediation has been proposed. The cost to complete remediation is a matter of speculation. The record evidence is insufficient to make a finding about future remediation costs. Eligibility Determinations On September 2, 2003, CJC submitted a PCPP Affidavit to the Department, seeking state funding under PCPP. On October 30, 2003, the Department denied CJC eligibility for PCPP funding on the basis that the contamination was covered under FPLRIP and, therefore, was excluded from funding under PCPP. The Department has never granted PCPP eligibility for the cleanup of a discharge previously being funded under FPLRIP. Apparently, in 2005, CJC hired Glenn R. MacGraw, an expert in the assessment of petroleum-contaminated sites, to review the EGS and LFR assessments. In a letter to CJC’s attorney dated August 19, 2005, MacGraw expressed the opinion that “at least 2 discharges have occurred on this site, one in the former tank area, and one in the former dispenser area.” MacGraw’s opinion that there had been a discharge of leaded gasoline was based on the detection of EDB and lead in the groundwater. He also thought the presence of methyl tetra-butyl ether (MTBE) in groundwater samples taken from the tank pit area showed a tank leak of unleaded gasoline. CJC requested FPLRIP funding for the other alleged discharges at the facility. On March 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter formally stating its disagreement that there were other reported discharges and denying eligibility for FPLRIP funding. On March 30, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Ineligibility under PCPP. The amended order added a second ground for denial, that the reported discharge was not shown to have occurred before January 1, 1995. Whether There Was A Second Discharge Eligible for Funding CJC argues that the presence of lead and EDB in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3S shows that there was a discharge of leaded gasoline at the facility. However, LFR reported that the well screen for MW-3S had probably been damaged during installation, because a significant amount of filter sand was observed in the purge water. The Department contends, therefore, that the source of the lead detected in the groundwater sample from MW-3S could have been (naturally) in the soil that entered the well. The Department also discounts the detection of EDB in the groundwater sample because EDB is an ingredient of some pesticides and can show up in groundwater when pesticide has been applied to the overlying land. Furthermore, EDB was not detected in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3D, a deeper well located near MW-3S. MacGraw does not think the EDB came from a pesticide application, because the EDB contamination at the site occurs in an elongated “plume,” in the former dispenser area, whereas one would expect to see EDB distributed evenly over the site if the source was a pesticide application. MacGraw mapped the plume of EDB by using data obtained after the discharge reporting deadline. Michael J. Bland, a Department employee and expert in geology and petroleum site assessment, believes the data from the facility are insufficient to confirm the presence of EDB or its distribution. LFR reported in its Interim Site Assessment that no significant soil contamination was found near the dispenser island. Groundwater samples from MW-3D, a deep monitoring well near MW-S3, showed no EDB, lead, or 1,2-dichlorothane. Bland opined that, if the detection of EDB in the shallow well was reliable, EDB would have been detected in the deep well, too, because EDB is a “sinker.” EDB is persistent in groundwater, so when it is not detected when a well is re-sampled, reasonable doubt arises about the detection in the first sample. Of all the wells sampled in 1999 that showed EDB, only MW-10D was re-sampled in 2003. When the well was re-sampled, there was no EDB. CJC contends that EDB was not found in the re-sampling of MW-10D because of the soil removal in 2000, but the Department contends that the soil removal would not have affected the presence of EDB in MW-10D, because the well is significantly down-gradient of the area of soil removal. It was undisputed that the presence of 1,2- dichoroethane in MW-S3 was not reliably determined. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the contamination reported in the dispenser area is the source of contamination which persists at the facility. The reported contamination only affected the top six feet of soil. The soil removal to a depth of 14 feet in that area in 2000 should have fully remediated the reported contamination. The data upon which CJC relies in claiming eligibility under FPLRIP or PCPP for a second discharge are, at best, incomplete and ambiguous. CJC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. CJC also failed to prove that the reported contamination in the dispenser is associated with a discharge that still exists to be remediated with state assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that CJC is ineligible to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program for the discharge reported to the Department on December 1, 1995, and that CJC has not demonstrated eligibility to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program for any other discharges. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Robert R. Waszak, a resident of Broward County, Florida, purchased Lot 258-A, a 1.25-acre lot in an unrecorded subdivision, Pinetree Estates Subdivision, in Parkland, Broward County, Florida. He cleared the property of a major portion of the sawgrass, pine trees, willows and other types of vegetation and placed thereon fill consisting of sand, rock, shell and other porous material. He obtained a test boring report from Nutting Engineers of Florida, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On December 16, 1980 he filed an application for a septic tank permit on a form provided by the Broward County Health Department together with residential plans and a survey of the property, which application was subsequently denied on January 15, 1981 by the environmental engineering section of the health department. Respondent made an on-site inspection of the Petitioner's lot on December 18, 1980 and at least one other inspection subsequent thereto. A report was filed as part of the notification of denial (Respondent's Exhibit 1). The uncompacted fill placed on the subject property by Petitioner created a mound considerably less than six (6) feet in depth on the obviously low, swampy property. Under the fill and the layer of top soil on the lot there is a layer of cap rock overlying the property. The largely impervious cap rock is visible in areas where the fill does not cover it (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Samples of the fill material and also of the cap rock were examined at the hearing by the Hearing Officer. The fill placed on the property has many rock fragments and rock fines in it which, according to the uncontroverted testimony of the Respondent's witness, are subject to chemical reaction which "cements up" a drainfield area when it comes in contact with septic tank effluent. This "cementing" would take from one to two (2) years after installation on the subject property. There was no evidence presented as to the depth of the water table at the wettest season. Petitioner did not dispute the testimony and evidence presented by the Respondent but was interested in further improvement so that he could use his property as a residential site. He noted that a new subdivision was being built near his property. Respondent pointed out that said subdivision had a central disposal system planned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the application of Petitioner Robert R. Waszak for a septic tank permit be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND, 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, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Robert R. Waszak 60 NW 56th Court Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Alan W. Ludwig, Esquire Broward County Health Department 2421 SW Sixth Avenue Post Office Box 14608 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Rule 17 Administrative Code (1991), constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1.-8., below. Stipulated Facts Respondent has documented contamination from the abandoned petroleum storage system. The abandoned petroleum storage system has been properly closed. Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent on Respondent's forms 17-769.900(3) and (4), Florida Administrative Code, which was postmarked on or before June 30, 1992. The site is not eligible for cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes, the Early Detection Incentive Program, or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. This site is not owned or operated by the federal government. This site did not have leaking tanks that stored pollutants that are not petroleum products as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes. Respondent was not denied access to this site. Petroleum contamination was not discovered after the application deadline of June 30, 1992. Additional Facts Petitioner, a Florida corporation, is in the business of owning and leasing property. Petitioner is the fee simple owner of property located at 2022 Wahnish Way in Tallahassee, Florida. The property located on Wahnish Way was leased to James T. "Pete" Thomas by Petitioner's predecessor in title. Thomas operated a gasoline station and automobile repair garage on the property. The lease with Thomas was continued by Petitioner without change upon Petitioner's assumption of the legal title to the property in 1985. Prior to Petitioner's assumption of title to the property in the early 1970's, Thomas had installed four petroleum storage systems in a four tank pit on the property. Thomas later registered all four of the tanks with Respondent by the statutory deadline of December 31, 1984, as required by Florida law. Although Thomas signed the registration documents as an agent of Petitioner, he was not such an authorized agent and the registration occurred without the knowledge or approval of Petitioner. Sometime in the early 1980's, Thomas and his wholesale gasoline distributor determined that one of the four underground tanks was losing product. In 1982, Thomas ceased using the southernmost tank in the pit for the storage of petroleum products for subsequent consumption, use or sale. The distributor ceased placing gasoline in the southernmost tank. Petitioner, unaware that Thomas had experienced any product loss problems or that the tanks on the property had been registered by Thomas with Respondent, became aware of both matters following receipt of a letter from government officials of Leon County, Florida, on November 20, 1990. As set forth in that letter, Petitioner was apprised that the tanks were not in compliance with State of Florida standards and would have to be closed or retrofitted to bring the tanks into compliance. Following receipt of the letter, Petitioner informed Thomas that selling of gasoline at the site was to be discontinued immediately. Closure of the tanks, performed in early 1991, by contractors retained by Petitioner, consisted of excavation and removal of the petroleum storage systems from the property. All four tanks were in the tank pit side by side, from the northernmost end of the pit to the southern end of the pit fronting on Osceola Street in Tallahassee, Florida. When the removal was completed, a Closure Assessment form was prepared by one of the contractors, Jim Stidham and Associates, in accordance with requirements of Florida law. During that process, excessive contamination from petroleum product of the soils in the extreme south end of the tank pit was discovered. Excessive contamination, defined as anything more than 500 parts per million, was located beneath the southernmost pump on the southern end of the pump island and in the southern end of the pit. A 20 foot soil boring as near as possible to the site of the southernmost tank revealed that unacceptable levels of contamination extended to that depth. As supported by the testimony of James A. Stidham, Petitioner's expert in the assessment of contamination caused by underground petroleum storage tanks, the location of contamination in the pit area establishes that the tank causing the contamination was the southernmost tank. The hole discovered in one of the tanks at the time of removal was likely located in the southernmost tank. The excessive contamination located at the shallow depth of two feet under the southernmost pump resulted from the improper disconnection of piping attached to the pump and is not attributable to the leak in the tank. Each tank was connected by piping on the eastern end of each tank to the corresponding pump. The southernmost pump was not used after 1982 and was missing integral parts by the time the tanks were closed. In the course of exploring options for clean up of the property, Petitioner filed for assistance from Respondent in the form of participation in the ATRP. Unaware of the true date of the cessation of use of the southernmost tank, Petitioner gave the date of last use for all tanks in the pit by stating that the "tanks were taken out of service between December 15, 1990 and January 15, 1991." Petitioner provided this response to Respondent's July 30, 1991 request for further information on August 6, 1991. Although Respondent made an initial determination to deny Petitioner's application in the middle of August, 1991, that action was not communicated to Petitioner. Instead, Petitioner's application was held by Respondent, pending possible amendment to Section 376.305(7), Florida Statutes (1991). Respondent held Petitioner's application for a total of almost nineteen months before issuance of a formal decision to deny the application on February 26, 1993. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application was based upon the eligibility requirement restricting ATRP participants to those situations where the petroleum storage system has not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, and the belief of Respondent's personnel that all storage systems on Petitioner's property had stored products beyond that date. Specifically, Respondent eventually gave notice that it intended to deny Petitioner's application for participation in the ATRP for the following reason: Eligibility in the Abandoned Tank Restoration Program is restricted to those petroleum storage systems that have not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, pursuant to Section 17-769.800(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing statement, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is a Florida corporation in good standing, authorized to do business in this state. The Petitioner owns and controls the site which is the subject matter of these proceedings. Such site is located in Brevard County, Florida. The Department has identified the subject site as DER facility no. 05- 8500985 (the facility). At all times material to this case, the facility consisted of: three underground storage tanks (UST), one 3000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, one 1000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, and one 1000 gallon UST used for storing gasoline; five monitoring wells; and pipes and pumps related to the foregoing system. The facility constituted a storage tank system as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-761.200(38), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner holds, and is named insured for, third party pollution liability insurance applicable to the facility. Such insurance was issued pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. The policy for the foregoing insurance, policy no. FPL7622040, was in force from March 22, 1991 through March 22, 1992. The Department issued a notice of eligibility for restoration insurance to Petitioner for the above-described facility. Based upon the foregoing, the Petitioner is a participating owner or operator as defined in Chapter 17-769, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Section 376.3073, Florida Statutes, Brevard County operates a local program that has been approved by the Department. Such local program is managed by the Brevard County Office of Natural Resources Management (County). In July, 1990, a discharge of diesel fuel occurred at the Petitioner's facility. Petitioner's employees estimated that approximately twenty gallons of diesel fuel filled the pump box overflowed from the pump box across the seawall into the adjacent waters. Upon discovering the discharge, Petitioner shut down diesel fuel dispensing until repairs could be made to the apparent cause of the leak. Additionally, the diesel fuel remaining in the pump box and on top of the tank area was removed. Contaminated soil in the pump box was also removed. The apparent cause of the discharge described above was attributed to cracked pipe fittings which were repaired by Glover Oil Co. within a few days of the discharge. No detailed inspection was made to the system to determine if additional sources of discharge existed. Petitioner did not complete a discharge reporting form (DRF) for the above-described incident until April 18, 1991. The April DRF was completed after Petitioner was directed to do so by Ms. DiStasio, an inspector employed by the County. From August, 1990 until May, 1991, at least one monitoring well at the Petitioner's facility showed free product accumulating in the well pipe. The exact amounts of the free product found are unknown, but reports estimated the level at 100 centimeters. From August, 1990 until September, 1991, the Petitioner did not undertake any measure to explore the origin of the free product found in the monitoring well. Further, the Petitioner did not report the monitoring well testing results as a suspected or confirmed discharge. In April, 1991, an inspection of the Petitioner's facility was performed by Ms. DiStasio. That inspection resulted in a letter to the Petitioner that outlined several violations at the facility. Among those violations listed was the Petitioner's failure to report a suspected or confirmed discharge. At the time of the April, 1991 inspection, Petitioner had reported neither the July, 1990 discharge (a known discharge) nor the monitoring well test results (at the minimum a suspected discharge). In connection with the July, 1990 discharge, following the repairs made by Glover Oil, Petitioner did not have the system pressure tested. Only the area visible from the pump box was checked for leakage. In July, 1991, when Ms. DiStasio performed a re-inspection of the facility, she found Petitioner had not (in the interim period, April through July, 1991) taken any steps to test the system or to remove the fuels from the suspect tanks. Since the free product continued to appear in the monitoring well, a pressure test of the system would have definitively answered the discharge question. Alternatively, the removal of the fuels would have prevented further seepage until the system could be pressure tested. On August 6, 1991, the Petitioner issued a letter that advised the County that it had stopped dispensing fuel at the facility. The tanks were not drained, however, until on or about September 11, 1991. Further, the August, 1991, letter acknowledged that the Petitioner "had proposals for initial remedial cleanup related to diesel contamination in the tank field area." Obviously, the Petitioner must have contemplated a need for such cleanup. On September 11, 1991, at the Petitioner's request, Petroleum Equipment Contractors, Inc. attempted to pressure test the 3000 gallon diesel tank. The purpose of the pressure test was to determine if the diesel system had a leak. The company could not even run the test on the tank because of the defective system. A similar test on the Petitioner's gasoline tank passed without incident. Once the Petitioner learned the results of the test, it initiated Initial Remedial Action (IRA) as described on the IRA report filed by Universal Engineering Sciences. The IRA consisted of the removal of the excessively contaminated soil, approximately 74 cubic yards, and the removal of the USTs. The foregoing work was completed on or about September 15, 1991. On October 4, 1991, the Petitioner filed a discharge reporting form dated October 2, 1991, that identified September 11, 1991, as the date of discovery for the discharge. This discharge discovery was allegedly made incidental to the diesel tank pressure testing failure. No reference was made to the months of monitoring well reports showing a free product. On October 8, 1991, Ms. DiStasio prepared a Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program Compliance Checklist that reported the Petitioner was not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. When Petitioner applied for restoration coverage under the statute on January 31, 1992, such request was denied by the Department on March 6, 1992. The basis for the denial was as follows: Failure to notify the Department of a positive response to sampling within three working days of testing, pursuant to the rule in effect at the time of the initial response (17-61.050(1), Florida Administrative Code). An inspection by Brevard County on April 17, 1991, revealed that free product had been detected in one monitoring well since July 1990. The discharge reporting form was not submitted until October 2, 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying Petitioner's claim for restoration coverage under the Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-2121 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are accepted. Except as found above, paragraph 3 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. It is accepted that Brevard County acted as the local agent in this case. Paragraph 4 is rejected as not supported by the record. With regard to paragraph 5, substituting "A" for "The" and "confirmed" for "discovered" the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. Similarly, with the substitution of the word "confirmation" for "discovery" in Paragraph 6, the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. No suitable explanation was offered by the Petitioner for why, if a discharge were not reasonably suspected, it retained the company to immediately remove the USTs upon the failed pressure testing. Clearly, the Club had a notion the tanks were a discharge problem. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While there was some confusion as to the exact volume of free product in the monitoring well, there was clear evidence that such was reported for many months prior to the confirmation in September, 1991. Further, the main confusion regarding the product found in the well was not as to its existence, but as to the individual's knowledge of the metric measurement of it. One hundred centimeters of product in a two or three inch pipe would not be a minute amount. Except as addressed in the foregoing findings, paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner did not undertake all repairs necessary to abate a discharge problem. Paragraph 10 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Clearly, as early as August, 1990, Petitioner knew or should have known of a discharge problem based upon the monitoring well report; that all of the discharge did not necessarily flow from the fittings that had been repaired is irrelevant. Further, Petitioner did no testing to verify that the replaced fittings had solved the discharge problem (especially in light of the well reports). Paragraph 11 is rejected as an inaccurate restatement of the exhibit. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Incidentally, the hearing in this case was in the year 1992. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as a misstatement of the exhibit cited. Paragraphs 13 through 27 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Brigette A. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Scott E. Wilt MAGUIRE, VOORHIS & WELLS, P.A. 2 South Orange Plaza P.O. Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact 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 Whether the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) proved by clear and convincing evidence that Southeastern Liquid Analyzers, Inc.'s (SELA) 1994 equipment approval for its Tank Chek Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR) method should be revoked?
Findings Of Fact The Parties SELA Southeastern Liquid Analyzers, Inc., is a vendor of Tank Chek, a computer program that conducts Statistical Inventory Reconciliation for petroleum storage tanks. The vice president of SELA is David L. Roberts. SIR is a method of release or leak detection for petroleum storage tank systems. In 1994, the Department approved SELA's Tank Chek SIR method (equipment) for use in the State of Florida. The Department The Department has the statutory authority to establish rules to implement the storage tank regulation program. See § 376.303(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Regulated storage tank systems are required to use a method or combination of release detection that meet the applicable performance standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640 (1998). Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.610 (1998). Storage tank system equipment that does not have approval from the Department can still be sold in Florida, but purchasers cannot use that equipment to comply with Department rules. Owners of non-regulated tanks do not have to use approved storage tank system equipment because they are not obligated to comply with Department rules. Only aboveground storage tank systems having individual storage tank capacities greater than 550 gallons, and underground storage tank systems having individual storage tank capacities greater than 110 gallons, are regulated by the Department. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.100(1) (1998). As a release detection methodology, the SIR computer program or method is a piece of release detection equipment that is subject to equipment approval pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998), as it was in 1994 when the Department approved SELA's Tank Chek SIR method. See Rule 17-761.860 (1992). Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 761.850(2)(b) (1998), "[e]quipment approval requests shall be submitted to the Department with a demonstration that the equipment will provide equivalent protection or meet the appropriate performance standards contained in this chapter." "A third-party demonstration by a Nationally Recognized Laboratory shall be submitted to the Department with the application. The third-party demonstration shall provide: 1. A technical evaluation of the equipment; 2. Test results that verify that the equipment will function as designed; and 3. A professional certification that the equipment meets the performance standards contained in Rule 62-761.500, F.A.C." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.850(2)(c)1.-3. (1998). The function of a third-party evaluation is to verify the accuracy of the performance of a particular piece of release detection equipment in light of the performance standards. The Department does not make exceptions to the requirement that all equipment used by owners and operators of regulated storage tanks in the State of Florida must be approved unless expressly excepted by rule. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 761.850(2) (1998). Compare Rule 17-761.860 (1992). The Department does not have the discretion, however, to deny a request for equipment approval if the applicant satisfies all of the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998). Once a vendor has met the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998), the equipment is approved and designated on a list maintained by the Department and updated quarterly. Marshall Mott-Smith testified that permits are not issued for equipment approvals, and the approvals are not viewed as a permit. Mr. Mott-Smith testified that the Department does not write any permits for storage tank systems, nor does the Department view an equipment approval as a license. The Department, however, can and does place conditions on equipment approvals. For example, the Department's 1994 SELA equipment approval Order required the installation of at least two monitoring wells at any facility using the SELA system for release detection. Equipment approvals can be and have been revoked. One of the reasons that equipment approvals have been revoked is because the equipment no longer meets the performance standards in the rule. SELA's PetroWorks Evaluation of SELA's Tank Chek SIR Method In 1993, SELA sought equipment approval from the Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems (BPSS) pursuant to Rule 17-761.860 (1992), for SELA's Tank Chek SIR method. As part of its request for equipment approval, SELA submitted a third-party evaluation, dated June 3, 1993, of its SIR method. SELA has not submitted to the Department any other third-party evaluation of its SIR method. The third-party evaluation was conducted by Wayne E. Hill of PetroWorks. In 1993, at the time of the third-party evaluation, PetroWorks was a Nationally Recognized Laboratory. The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation verified that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method met the performance standard of the existing rule (1992) and that it "works as it was designed by a third party."2 The 1992 and 1994 versions of the underground storage tank systems rules contained a general release detection performance standard applicable to storage tanks that required that release detection methods demonstrate that the method can detect a "0.2 gallon per hour leak rate or a release of 150 gallons within a month with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of 0.05." Rule 17-761.610(5) (1992); Rule 62-761.610(5) (1994). See also Rule 17-761.620(7) (1992); Rule 62-761.620(7) (1994). The 1998 version remained substantially the same, although the term "leak rate" is omitted. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.640(1)(a) (1998)("(1) General. Method of release detection shall: (a) Be capable of detecting a release of 0.2 gallons per hour or 150 gallons within 30 days with a probability of detection of 0.95, and a probability of false alarm of 0.05.").3 The general leak detection performance standard of "0.2 gallon per hour leak rate or a release of 150 gallons within a month with a probability of detection of 0.95 and a probability of false alarm of 0.05" was applicable to all release detection methods under Chapter 17-761 (1992). SELA's 1993 PetroWorks evaluation concluded that the Tank Chek SIR method met the general release detection performance standard ("of 0.2 gallons per hour leak rate . . .") contained in Rule 17-761.610(5) (1992). The Department accepted this evaluation such that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method met the general leak detection performance standard as of the 1993 evaluation as evidenced by the Department's equipment approval Order dated January 21, 1994. The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation submitted to the Department by SELA is on a form entitled "Results of U.S. EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] Standard Evaluation Statistical Inventory Reconciliation Method" and states explicitly that "[t]he evaluation was conducted by the vendor of the SIR method or a consultant to the vendor according to the U.S. EPA's 'Standard Test Procedure for Evaluating Leak Detection Methods: Statistical Inventory Reconciliation Methods.'" The State of Florida has not adopted the EPA protocol because the Department does not perform third-party evaluations of SIR release detection software. However, the Department accepts third-party evaluations that are run based on the EPA protocol. The EPA Protocol was developed in response to the varied performance of leak detection methods.4 The EPA wanted to have leak detection methodologies that could be relied upon by tank owners to accurately detect leaks. The EPA published these "tests" (the protocols) that manufacturers of leak detection equipment must meet in order to sell their equipment, e.g., to a regulated owner or operator of an underground storage tank. The instructions in the EPA Protocol for SIR formed the basis for performing third-party evaluations. The three-page "SIR Method Results Form" indicates that PetroWorks evaluated SELA's "Statistically based proprietary method." This Form provides: This statistical inventory reconciliation method reports on the following basis (check one): [actual box displayed] quantitative results (leak rate reported) X [actual box displayed] qualitative results (pass, fail, inconclusive) Test results are reported and the Form further provides: "Based on these results, the method X [actual box displayed] does [actual box displayed] does not meet the federal performance standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of 0.10 and 0.20 gallon per hour at P(D) of 95% and P(FA) of 5%." (Emphasis in original.) A three-page "Description Statistical Inventory Reconciliation Method" document is included as part of the PetroWorks evaluation. On page two under the heading "Identification of Causes for Discrepancies," the question is asked: "Which of the following effects does the method identify and quantify." Among other items, "leak rate" is a factor "identified and quantified by running a series of additional reports." On page three and under the heading "Reporting of Leak Status," the response "no" is given in response to the question, "Is the leak status reported in terms of a leak rate (e.g., gal/h or gal/day)?" The explanation for this response is: "Qualitative (Tight/Leaking/Inconclusive)." ("Tight/Leaking/Inconclusive" corresponds to "Pass/Fail/Inconclusive.") A "Reporting Form for Test Results" is included with the PetroWorks evaluation. There are 1 through 120 record numbers with a "Submitted" "Induced Leak Rate (gal/h)" heading for a vertical column. (The numbers listed vertically are either "0" or "0.1.") "The Results Reported by Vendor" are stated under two categories: (1) "If Quantitative," and below with two separate vertical columns identified as "Estimated Leak Rate (gal/h)" and "Est. Ind. Leak Rate (gal/h)" and (2) a separate category with one vertical column identified as "If Qualitative (Tank Tight? (Yes, No, or Inconclusive)." Only the "If Qualitative" vertical column is completed with "yes" or "no" responses. The data table for the two "If Quantitative" columns is blank. PetroWorks did not evaluate SELA's SIR method for leak rates. The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation described above certified that SELA's SIR method complied with the performance standard of Chapter 17-761 (1992), i.e., that the SELA Tank Chek SIR method is capable of reporting qualitative results such as "pass," "fail," and "inconclusive," and detecting a "0.2 gallon per hour leak rate." The Department's 1994 Approval of SELA's SIR Method The Department approved SELA's Tank Chek SIR Analysis System (method) on January 21, 1994, in an Order entitled "APPROVAL OF STORAGE TANK SYSTEM AND RELEASE DETECTION EQUIPMENT." The Department found, in part: "Based on the information provided by Warren [ ] Southeastern Liquid Analyzers, Inc., the Department finds that the applicant's Tank Chek Statistical Inventory Reconciliation Analysis System is comparable to an automatic tank gauging system and will provide environmental protection substantially equivalent to that provided by compliance with the requirements established in Florida Administrative Code Rule, [sic] 17-761.640(6)." See Findings of Fact 18 and 19 for a discussion of the slight differences in the wording of the "0.2 gallon per hour leak rate" performance standard. See also Endnote 3. The Department Re-examines Prior Release Detection Equipment Approvals In 1994 and 1996, the Department made minor revisions to the underground storage tank systems rules and Chapter 17-761 became Chapter 62-761. Effective July 13, 1998, the Department adopted revisions to Chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code ("Petroleum Storage Systems") which are detailed below. See also Findings of Fact 3-10 and 47-61. Beginning around December 30, 1999, Department personnel began a dialogue (by e-mail) relating to the requirements of the July 13, 1998, revisions. The participants included Jonathan Reeder and Farid Moghadam for the Department, and David L. Roberts for SELA. (Other persons at the Department including the Office of General Counsel, participated in the discussions.) Mr. Reeder requested guidance from Mr. Moghadam as follows: There seems to be a fundamental conflict between the 7/13/98 Rule requirements for SIR value and data reporting and the qualitative SIR method's ability to provide those values. Specifically, Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3., F.A.C., requires that the data set leak threshold, the minimum detectable leak rate, and the calculated leak rate be reported. However, the SIR qualitative method will only produce a Pass, Fail, or Inconclusive result. My question is as follows: Does the above situation effectively rescind the approval status of the SIR qualitative methods? This "anomaly" affects those vendors that have approved qualitative SIR methods. Specifically: Entropy Limited, EQ-018 Horner Products, SIR Pro 1, Versions 1.0 and 2.0, EQ-126 Syscorp, Inc., EQ-179 South Eastern Liquid Analyzers, Inc., EQ- 157 Ustman Industries, YES SIR 90, EQ-065 I do know that South Eastern Liquid Analyzers is quite active in Florida as I have seen their reports and have, in fact, discussed this problem with David Roberts, the owner. I guess the real question here is "Can we make a new Rule that specifically excludes previously approved equipment?" Maybe we would need to get OGC's comments? This e-mail was sent to Mr. Moghadam on December 30, 1999, after Mr. Reeder had a phone conversation with Mr. Roberts. It was also sent to Mr. Roberts. On May 12, 2000, Mr. Roberts sent an e-mail to Mr. Reeder with the following message: "I understand from Curt Johnson that I need to talk with you about SIR evaluation list. I have several issues to be resolved to be included [sic]. I would like to see if I can work with you to resolve them. What happened with the questions in FL? For SC, I have added the leak rates per John Kneece's instructions. I have providing [sic] in FL as well for your regulators." On May 12, 2000, Mr. Reeder sent an e-mail to Mr. Roberts and stated: To resolve the issues in Florida you will need to submit a third-party evaluation for a QUANTITATIVE method to Farid Moghadam at our Tallahassee office. His phone number is (850) 921-9007. Since this third-party QUANTITATIVE method would initially be routed through me via the NWGLDE it most likely would also address the past issues of the Work Group. I have not seen the file on your Method but Curt is sending it to me via post. If you have any questions you may call either myself or Farid. I will be in Daytona Beach the week of the 15th for our annual DEP Tanks meeting, returning on May 22, 2000. On May 15, 2000, Mr. Roberts responded: "I do not have a third party on the quantitative method. My third party is for qualitative. We discussed this in regard to Florida. You were talking to the legal department about my being an approved vendor and then the state changed to quantitative at a later date and how you are going to handle it. The work group is a separate issue. . . ." (Emphasis added.) On May 22, 2000, Mr. Reeder responded to Mr. Roberts: I discussed this situation with our Office of General Council (sic) and the Tallahassee Engineering Department during our Conference last week. It is a consensus opinion that the SIR Qualitative Method does not meet the requirements of Florida Rule 62-761-640, F.A.C., and therefore any Facility that uses it as a method of Release Detection is in violation of Rule 62-761.610(1)(a), F.A.C. A letter is being sent from our Tallahassee office to the five vendors that currently have Florida approved Qualitative SIR Methods. This letter will basically state the above position and require that either the vendor "upgrade" their SIR method to that of Quantitative or have their Florida equipment approval revoked. This new Rule has been in effect since July 13, 1998 which is ample time for all SIR vendors to make the necessary adjustments to their methods in order to comply with the new requirements. Additionally, any Facility that continues to use the Qualitative method will be cited for using a Release Detection Method that does not meet the Florida Rule requirements. If you choose to comply with the Florida requirements and have your method third-party evaluated as Quantitative then that would most likely address the past concerns of the Work Group - - mainly the data set problem. However, if you elect to cease doing business in Florida and still desire to have your Qualitative Method listed we can then discuss the items needed to reopen the review process. Please let me know what you wish to do and if you would like to discuss this with Farid in Tallahassee his number is (850) 921-9007. From 1993 until the effective date of the 1998 amendments to Chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code, SELA complied with the performance standard in the rules. See Findings of Fact 17 and 21. After Chapter 62-761 was amended in 1998, Department employee Farid Moghadam was told to evaluate all SIR methods being used in the State of Florida to determine whether they were in compliance with the new performance standards. (Some of the recorded dialogue among Department employees and Mr. Roberts is recited above which led to the Department's decision to revoke SELA's equipment approval.) Mr. Moghadam evaluated the already-approved SIR methods by reviewing the third-party evaluations that had been submitted as part of the original application for equipment approval for each SIR method. Mr. Moghadam discovered that at the time of the 1998 amendments to Chapter 62-761, there were 15 SIR methods approved in the State of Florida and each appeared on the Department's approved equipment list. (SELA's SIR method remains on this approved list.) Ten of the approved SIR methods were a quantitative SIR methodology, and five were a qualitative SIR methodology. All 15 of the SIR methods had previously submitted a third-party evaluation. Among the five SIR programs that were qualitative, three of the SIR vendors voluntarily reapplied for equipment approval. All three of these programs were re-approved. One of the SIR vendors requested that the Department rescind its prior order approving the SIR method, thereby requesting that the SIR method be removed from the approved equipment list. Only SELA continued to require a new third-party evaluation as determined by Mr. Moghadam. Mr. Moghadam determined that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method required a new third-party evaluation because the previously submitted PetroWorks evaluation did not indicate that SELA met the performance standards contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998). Chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code (1998), does not specify that previously-approved equipment required re- approval, re-certification, or re-evaluation. Because performance standards were added to Chapter 62-761 specific to SIR and because no previous versions of Chapter 62-761 contained any performance standards specific to SIR, the Department felt it was necessary to determine whether previously-approved equipment continued to satisfy the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998). The issue in this case is not whether SELA's Tank Chek SIR method can produce and report the leak rates required pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3.b. (1998), because the testimony and documentary evidence established that Tank Chek can produce leak rates in its reports. The issue in this case is whether SELA's Tank Chek SIR method must be re-evaluated by a third-party so that the Department can know that the leak rates that are produced and reported are accurate and reliable. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.850(2)(b) and (c). SELA declined to obtain a new third-party evaluation. As a result, the Department gave notice of its intent to revoke the SELA Tank Chek SIR method equipment approval because, as of 1998, the Department no longer had a third-party evaluation certifying that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method complied with the performance standards in Chapter 62-761, Florida Administrative Code. Other than the PetroWorks evaluation of SELA's SIR method performed in 1993, SELA has not provided the Department with another third-party evaluation. On April 18, 2001, the Department advised Mr. Roberts as follows: The Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems has reviewed the information submitted February 1, 16 and 20, 2001, regarding the Tankcheck Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR) equipment approval order, DEP File Number EQ-157 dated January 21, 1994. The Tankcheck SIR algorithm has not been evaluated by a Nationally Recognized Laboratory, has not been verified that it works as designed by a third party laboratory, and has not been certified that it meets the performance standards in Rule 62-761.640, Florida Administrative Code, (1998) (F.A.C.), as required by Rule 62-761.850(2), F.A.C. Therefore, the equipment approval for Tankcheck SIR, DEP File No. EQ-157 is revoked and is no longer in effect. As of the effective date of this order, you must remove all references to the State of Florida and/or Department of Environmental Protection approval from any and all marketing materials distributed in the State of Florida regarding the use of Tankcheck SIR for storage tank systems regulated by the State of Florida. SELA filed a timely challenge to this Department action. The Department Amends Chapter 62-761 in 1998 Neither Chapter 17-761 (1992) nor Chapter 62-761 (1994), specifically enumerated "performance standards" for SIR. The general leak detection standard of "0.2 gallon per hour" was the only release detection performance standard applicable to SIR under Chapter 17-761 (1992). See Finding of Fact 18. Department witnesses testified that, from an inspection standpoint, a SIR methodology that met only the "0.2 gallon per hour" general performance standard would not be in compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), but would have been in compliance with Rule 17-761.610(5) (1992). In 1998, the Department amended Chapter 62-761 (1994), formerly Chapter 17-761 (1992), substantially revising this Chapter, including for the first time, at Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), performance standards specific to SIR. The general release detection standard set forth in, e.g., Rule 62-761.610(5) (1994) (formerly Rule 17- 761.610(5) (1992)), see Finding of Fact 18, was subsumed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(1)(a) (1998). Under the 1998 revised rules, the general leak detection standard of "0.2 gallons per hour" was retained in the rule in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61-761.640(1)(a) (1998), and remained applicable to all release detection methods including SIR. The SIR-specific performance standards are intended to limit use of SIR to quantitative SIR methods only and to eliminate the use of qualitative SIR methods in Florida. Marshall Mott-Smith, the Department's Environmental Administrator, Storage Tank Regulation Section, Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems, was instrumental in drafting the 1998 amendments to Chapter 62-761, and also recommended to the Department that the acceptance of either type of SIR methodology for use in Florida be changed. Mr. Mott-Smith testified that there was a need for the Department to address the type of SIR methodology because the Department was concerned that the current use of SIR in the State of Florida was not providing adequate protection for the groundwaters and the surface waters of the state. Field experience and discussion with experts indicated that qualitative SIR methods were not really working and were problematic. There are two types of SIR methodology, qualitative and quantitative. The major distinction between a qualitative SIR and a quantitative SIR methodology is how the results produced by the SIR method are reported. The fact that a SIR method meets the general performance standard of "0.2 gallon per hour" does not indicate whether it is a qualitative or a quantitative method. Third-parties evaluate the SIR method as either a qualitative or quantitative method. A qualitative SIR methodology produces release detection results identified as "pass," "fail," or "inconclusive." A SIR methodology that produces only "pass," "fail," and "inconclusive" results is not a quantitative SIR method. A quantitative SIR methodology, in addition to "pass," "fail," or "inconclusive," will produce release detection results in terms of other values such as the leak threshold, the calculated leak rate, and the minimum detectable leak rate. The general performance standard ("0.2 gallon per hour") is a measurement that works in conjunction with other quantitative results, but it is not determinative of the type of SIR methodology. Prior versions of the rule, including for example Chapter 17-761 (1992) and Chapter 62-761 (1994), allowed either a "qualitative" or a "quantitative" SIR methodology. In contrast to the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), the previous versions of the rules did not specify that the SIR method had to produce any particular numeric results in order to be in compliance with the rule, only the "0.2 gallon per hour" general performance standard had to be satisfied. Neither Chapter 17-761 (1992) nor Chapter 62-761 (1994), specifically identified SIR as a release detection method. SIR was indirectly referenced as "other similar release detection method." See Rule 17-761.610(5) (1992) and Rule 62-761.610(5) (1994). The performance standards for SIR found at Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), do not specifically identify the SIR method as either a "qualitative" or "quantitative" SIR methodology. However, all of the Department witnesses persuasively testified that Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), requires a "quantitative" SIR methodology. For, example, Mr. Reeder testified that the 1998 rule specifies a specific type of SIR method "in the sense that it requires the production of a leak rate, minimum detectable leak rate and threshold, because those are values that are only produced by a quantitative method and not a qualitative method. So, by that fact, it specifies that a quantitative method be used."5 Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640 (1998), is entitled "Performance Standards for Release Detection Methods." Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998) provides, in part: "Statistical Inventory Reconciliation (SIR). SIR shall be conducted according to" requirements a. through i. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3.b. (1998) requires that the results of each monthly analysis for the SIR method "include the calculated results from the data set for leak threshold, the minimum detectable leak rate, the calculated leak rate, and a determination of whether the result was 'Pass,' 'Fail,' or 'Inconclusive.' For the purposes of this section, the 'leak threshold' is defined as the specific leak threshold of the SIR method approved in accordance with Rule 62- 761.850(2), F.A.C., to meet the release detection level specified in Rule 62-761-640(1)(a), F.A.C." These required reported values are performance standards. A performance standard is something that determines the performance of the method; something that shows what the equipment is supposed to do. Prior versions of the rule, including specifically Chapter 17-761 (1992), did not require that if SIR was used as a leak detection methodology that the SIR method report these leak rates. The requirement that the SIR methodology produce and report these leak rates, see Finding of Fact 59, as well as "pass," "fail," and "inconclusive" results, are SIR-specific performance standards. The SIR performance standards contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), requiring that these results be produced defines the required SIR methodology as a quantitative methodology. Resolution of the Controversy Notwithstanding the 1993 PetroWorks evaluation, the evidence presented during the final hearing demonstrates that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method is capable of producing quantitative calculated results from a data set for leak threshold, the minimum detectable leak rate, and the calculated leak rate. Stated otherwise, SELA's SIR method can produce and report these values that are required. However, even though SELA's Tank Chek SIR method can produce and report quantitative results, and necessarily these values, a new third-party evaluation is required pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 761.850(2)(b) and (c) (1998), to demonstrate that SELA's Tank Chek SIR method complies with the performance standards of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998). Compare Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.640(3)(c)3.b. (1998) with Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-761.850(2)(b) and (c) (1998). The problem with the quantitative results (leak threshold, the minimum detectable leak rate, and the calculated leak rate) SELA's Tank Chek SIR method produces in reports is that it is not known whether those results are accurate or reliable. Determining whether the results produced by a particular SIR method are reliable is the purpose of a third- party evaluation. As noted above, SELA has never had a third-party evaluation that demonstrates that Tank Chek SIR can reliably produce and report a leak threshold, a calculated leak rate, or a minimum detectable leak rate. SELA only has a third-party evaluation that demonstrates that its Tank Chek SIR method can detect a release of "0.2 gallon per hour," the general performance standard, and report the results as "pass," "fail," or "inconclusive." Importantly, the 1992 rules which applied when PetroWorks performed SELA's evaluation in 1993 did not require the production or reporting of leak rates; the rules required compliance only with the general performance standard of "0.2 gallon per hour." Fla. Admin. Code R. 17-761.610(5) (1992). The problem with the leak rates reported on, for example, DEP Exhibit 4, the Seffner Food Stores SIR Historical Summary Report, is that the PetroWorks evaluation did not evaluate the SELA Tank Chek SIR method to accurately produce the numbers (leak rates) that are reported. The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation specifically noted that the SIR method results are on the basis of "qualitative results (pass, fail, inconclusive)" and not on "quantitative results (leak rate reported)." The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation specifically noted that the testing results are not reported in terms of a leak rate. See Findings of Fact 26-29. The 1993 PetroWorks evaluation of SELA's Tank Chek SIR method did not and cannot have certified that Tank Chek meets the requirements of the 1998 rule as required for an equipment approval because the 1998 performance standards for SIR found at Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.640(3)(c)3. (1998), were not included in Chapter 17-761 in 1993. The 1993 Petroworks evaluation is no longer valid as it no longer satisfies the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998), which is a prerequisite to an equipment approval. SELA needs a new equipment approval to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-761.850(2) (1998).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking SELA's 1994 equipment approval, EQ- 157, without prejudice to SELA submitting a new equipment approval application in compliance with Department rules. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 2004.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for clean up costs associated with the Initial Remedial Action, (IRA), activities of the Abandoned Tank Restoration Program performed at his facility, and if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact At all times the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, (Department), has been the state agency in Florida responsible for the administration of the state's Abandoned Tanks Restoration Program. Petitioner is the owner and operator of Mohammad's Supermarket, Department facility No. 29-8628197, a food market and gasoline station located at 3320 Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa. Petitioner has owned and operated the facility for approximately the last ten years. The facility in question included three 5,000 gallon gasoline underground storage tanks and one 5,000 diesel underground storage tank. The diesel tank has not been used for the storage of diesel product for the entire time the Petitioner has owned the facility, at least ten years, but the three gasoline tanks were in use after March 1, 1990. Gasoline tanks were reinstalled at the facility and are still in use. In March, 1993, Petitioner removed all four underground storage tanks from the facility and performed initial remedial action. The field and laboratory reports of the soil and groundwater samples taken at the site at the time the tanks were removed showed both gasoline and diesel contamination. In October, 1993, the Petitioner submitted an application for reimbursement of certain costs associated with the IRA program task to the Department. Thereafter, by letter dated August 5, 1994, the Department notified Petitioner that it had completed its review of the reimbursement application and had allowed Petitioner 25% of the total amount eligible for reimbursement. This was because since the Petitioner continued to use the gasoline tanks after March 1, 1990, the Petitioner's ATRP eligibility is limited to clean up of only the diesel contamination. Petitioner's application for reimbursement covered the entire cost of the tank removal, both gasoline and diesel, and did not differentiate between the costs associated with the remediation of the gasoline contamination and those associated with the diesel contamination. The 25% allowance was for the one tank, (diesel fuel), which was eligible for ATRP clean up reimbursement. The Department subtracted from the personnel costs in the amount of $5,996.25, claimed in Section 2A of the claims form, the sum of $45.00 for costs associated with ATRP eligibility status; $497.50 claimed as a cost associated with the preparation of a Tank Closure Report, and $3,508.75 claimed as costs associated with the preparation of a preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, (CAR). These deductions were made because costs associated with ascertaining ATRP eligibility status, the preparation of a Tank Closure report, and the preparation of a preliminary CAR are all costs ineligible for reimbursement. These three ineligible costs total $4,051.25. When this sum is deducted from the amount claimed, the remainder is $1,944.50. The Department then reduced this figure by prorating it at 25% for the diesel tank and 75% for the gasoline tanks, disallowing the gasoline portion. With that, the total reimbursement for Section 2A, personnel, costs is $486.25. Petitioner claimed $1,765.00 for rental costs, (Section 2C), associated with soil removal, from which the Department deducted the sum of $1,550.00 which represents costs associated with the preparation of a preliminary Contamination Assessment Report, (CAR), which is not eligible for reimbursement. The balance of $215.00 was reduced by the 75%, ($161.27), which related to the three gasoline tanks, leaving a balance of $53.75 to be reimbursed for rental costs attributable to the diesel contamination. Petitioner also claimed $12,865.75 for miscellaneous costs associated with soil removal. This is listed under Section 2I of the application. From that figure the Department deducted the sum of $9,455.99 as costs attributable to the three gasoline tanks. In addition, $2,017.43 was disallowed because it related to the preliminary CAR, and $3,151.99 was deducted because the tank was removed after July 1, 1992. The applicable rule requires justification in the Remedial Action Plan, (RAP), for removal of tanks after that date. Such costs, when justified, can be reimbursed as a part of a RAP application. A further sum of $1,759.66 was deducted from the 2I cost reimbursement since the applicant got that much as a discount on what it paid. Together the deductions amounted to $16,385.07, and when that amount is deducted from the amount claimed, a negative balance results. Section 3 of the application deals with soil treatment. Subsection 3I pertains to such miscellaneous items as loading, transport and treatment of soil. The total amount claimed by Petitioner in this category was $13,973.44. Of that amount, $10,480.00 was deducted because it related to the three gasoline tanks. The amount allowed was $3,493.44, which represents 25% of the total claimed. Category 7 on the application form deals with tank removal and replacement. Section 7A relates to personnel costs and Petitioner claimed $4,187.00 for these costs. Of this, $3,140.25 was deducted as relating to the three gasoline tanks and amounted to 75% of the claimed cost. In addition, $1,046.75 was deducted because the diesel tank was removed after July 1, 1992 and there was no justification given for the removal at that time. This cost might be reimbursed through another program, however. In summary, all personnel costs were denied, but so much thereof as relates to the diesel tank may be reimbursed under another program. Section 7C of the application form relates to rental costs for such items as loaders, trucks and saws. The total claimed was $2,176.00. Of this amount, $1,632.00 was deducted as relating to the three gasoline tanks, and an additional $544.00 was deducted as being associated with the non-justified removal of the diesel tank after July 1, 1992. As a result, all costs claimed in this section were denied. In Section 7D, relating to mileage, a total of $12.80 was approved, and for 7G, relating to permits, a total of $28.60 was approved. In each case, the approved amount constituted 25% of the amount claimed with the 75% disallowed relating to the three gasoline tanks. Section 7I deals with miscellaneous expenses relating to tank removal and replacement. The total claimed in this section was $2,262.30. A deduction of $1,697.11 was taken as relating to the three gasoline tanks, and $565.69 was deducted because the removal after July 1, 1992 was not justified in the application. This cost may be reimbursed under a separate program, but in this instant action, the total claim under this section was denied. Petitioner asserts that the Department's allocation of 75` of the claimed costs to the ineligible gasoline tanks is unjustified and inappropriate. It claims the majority of the costs where incurred to remove the eligible diesel fuel contamination and the incidental removal of overlapping gasoline related contamination does not justify denial of the costs to address the diesel contamination. To be sure, diesel contamination was detected throughout the site and beyond the extend of the IRA excavation. The soil removed to make room for the new tanks was contaminated and could not be put back in the ground. It had to be removed. The groundwater analysis shows both gasoline and diesel contamination at the north end of the property furthest from the site. The sample taken at that point, however, contains much more gasoline contaminant than diesel. Petitioner contends that the costs denied by the Department as relating to gasoline contamination were required in order to remove the diesel contamination and Petitioner should be reimbursed beyond 25%. It contends that the diesel contamination could not have been removed without removing all four tanks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner request for additional reimbursement of $27,653.82 and affirming the award of $6,629.07. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Francisco J. Amram, P.E. Qualified Representative 9942 Currie Davis Drive, Suite H Tampa, Florida 33619 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether Petitioner's service station site known as Siesta Key Exxon Village, at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, is eligible for state administered cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Weeks Oil Company, Inc., owns and operates a service station, Siesta Key Exxon, located at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. On December 21, 1988, Petitioner applied, pursuant to the Early Detection Incentive Program (EDI), for state assistance due to a suspected discharge of gasoline at the facility. The application indicated that a manual test of a monitoring well, conducted on December 16, 1988, detected contamination. After free product was discovered in the monitoring wells in December, 1988, subsequent monitoring well reports for the months of January - May, 1989, indicated the presence of free petroleum product. The January, 1989, monitoring report indicates six inches of free product; the February, 1989, monitoring report indicates twelve inches of free product; the March, 1989, report failed to indicate the presence of free product; and both the April and May, 1989, monitoring reports indicate the presence of sixteen inches of free product. Purity Well Company, the monitoring well contractor retained by Weeks Oil, bailed free product out of the monitoring wells once a month during the period January through May, 1989. On May 23, 1989, Richard Steele of the Sarasota County Pollution Control Division conducted an Early Detection Incentive Program Inspection at Siesta Key Exxon, 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, DER Facility #588521170. During the inspection, Mr. Steele examined the monitoring well reports for Siesta Key Exxon for the months of January through May, 1989. Evidence of contamination was indicated by each month's monitoring well report, and the amount of free product indicated by the monitoring well reports increased over time. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele observed a minimum of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three. As part of the Early Detection Incentive Program inspection, Mr. Steele requested inventory records for Siesta Key Exxon, which records were provided on June 7, 1989. Inventory records for January, February, March and April, 1989, indicated a total shortage of 441 gallons of gasoline. Mr. Steele's inspection report of May 22, 1989, indicates that no initial remedial action other than the bailing of monitoring wells occurred subsequent to the December, 1988, EDI application. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele was neither provided with any evidence of repairs to the petroleum storage system made for the purpose of acting upon monitoring well reports, nor did he visually observe any evidence of repair. By letter dated May 24, 1989, from Richard Steele to Weeks Oil Company, Mr. Weeks was informed of the presence of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three and specifically requested a tank tightness test. The May 24, 1987, letter requested Mr. Weeks to send the results of the tank tightness test to the Sarasota County Pollution Control Office or the Department of Environmental Regulation district office. Mr. Weeks discussed with Steele the fact that the contaminants appeared to come from tanks no longer in service, which tanks were scheduled for relining. Mr. Weeks did not consider it practicable to test tanks scheduled for relining and thought Steele agreed that he could delay the testing until the tanks were refitted. Mr. Steele never made such a commitment, and the tank test was never conducted. On October 20, 1989, the tanks at Siesta Key Exxon were excavated and fiberglass coated. The August 22, 1989 ineligibility determination cites as the reason for denial, the failure of Weeks Oil to conduct a tank tightness test as requested by Sarasota County or otherwise immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, The ineligibility letter concludes that failure to immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, shall be construed as gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system, which precludes participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program. A tank tightness test should be performed by the owner or operator of a petroleum storage system where there are any discrepancies in inventory records or monthly monitoring system checks. Rule 17-61.050(4)(c) 3., Florida Administrative Code, requires upon discovery of an inventory discrepancy that investigation of the system "shall not stop until the source of the discrepancy has been found, the tank has been tested, repaired, or replaced, or the entire procedure has been completed." Pursuant to Rule 17-61.050(6), Florida Administrative Code, the owner or operator of a storage system shall test the entire storage system whenever the Department has ordered that such a test is necessary to protect the lands, ground waters, or surface waters of the state. Specifically, the Department may order a tank test where a discharge detection device or monitoring well indicates that pollutant has been or is being discharged. Given the inventory record discrepancy and the amount of free product continually observed in the monitoring wells at Siesta Key Exxon, it was appropriate for Mr. Steele to request a tank tightness test. The bailing of a contaminated monitoring well is not an appropriate method of determining the source of petroleum contamination. The failure of Weeks Oil Company, Inc., to timely conduct a tank test as requested by Sarasota County, acting on behalf of the Department, creates a risk of or the potential for greater damage to the environment because a continual unchecked discharge leads to the release of more petroleum product into the environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet D. Bowman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2400 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 James B. Weeks, Jr. Weeks Oil Company Post Office Box 100 Sarasota, FL 34230 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, L.B. King, Jr., violated certain rules relating to petroleum contamination site cleanup criteria promulgated by Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), whether he should be required to pay an administrative fine and investigative costs and expenses incurred by the Department, and whether he should take corrective action, as described in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice of Violation) issued on June 15, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record presented by the parties, and those allegations in the Notice of Violation which are undisputed, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is the owner and operator of non-residential property (doing business as King Oil and Tire) located at 16776 Southeast U.S. Highway 19 (at Main Street and Ward Street) in Cross City, Florida. He has owned the property since June 30, 1982. Since July 1978, eight regulated petroleum storage tanks were situated on the property. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 761.200(20), (45), (53), and (65). The Department has assigned facility identification number 15/8839661 to the site. During the intervening time period since Respondent assumed ownership, six of the tanks and their associated piping have been closed or removed, including tank 4 in August 1997 and tanks 5 and 6 in March 2004. Tank 4 was a 1,000 gallon diesel underground storage tank system (UST) originally installed in July 1982, tank 5 was a kerosene UST installed in July 1978, while tank 6 was a waste oil UST installed in July 1978. Only tanks 7 and 8 still remain in service. After tank 4 and the associated piping were closed in August 1997, Respondent conducted a closure assessment in the area of tank 4 and performed soil and groundwater analytical sampling in the area of its former piping run. He then filed a Tank Closure Assessment Report (TCAR) with the Department on August 19, 2003. The TCAR revealed groundwater contaminants above the Department's Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Methylnapthalene in two respects and for Naphthalene. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-777.170(1)(a), Table I. Because of the presence of contamination on the site, on September 3, 2003, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he submit a Discharge Report Form (DRF) and initiate a site assessment, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600, and that he file a completed site assessment report by July 10, 2004.3 Subsection (1) of that rule requires that "[w]ithin 30 days of discovery of contamination, the responsible party shall initiate a site assessment." On September 29, 2003, the Department received the requested DRF. During a tank closure inspection of tanks 5 and 6 performed on March 4, 2004, the Levy County Health Department, acting on behalf of the Department, discovered stained soils in the fill area of tank 6. On May 18, 2004, the Department received a TCAR dated May 7, 2004, for the closure of tanks 5 and 6. The TCAR documented the results of laboratory analytical tests on groundwater samples, which revealed groundwater contaminants above the Department's CTLs for Methylnapthalene in two respects. On May 24, 2004, the Department received from Respondent a copy of a DRF (dated March 9, 2004, as amended on April 9, 2004) for the contamination related to tanks 5 and 6. The DRF was the last report filed by Respondent concerning tanks 5 and 6. On the same date, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he initiate site assessment activities for the discharge related to tanks 5 and 6, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(1). On July 14, 2004, the Department sent Respondent another letter requesting (a) completion of a site assessment and (b) the submission of a Site Assessment Report (SAR) for the discharge from tank 4 (SAR-97), which complied with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(8). (The SAR-97 was originally due on July 10, 2004, but had not yet been filed.) In order to be deemed complete, a SAR must contain all of the information detailed in subsection (8). Also, the letter requested that a SAR for the 2004 discharge (SAR-04) be completed no later than August 1, 2004, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(7). That subsection requires in relevant part that "[w]ithin 270 days of discovery of contamination, the responsible party shall submit to the Department or to the FDEP local program for review two copies of a [SAR] " On July 15, 2004, or the day after the above letter was mailed, the Department received a copy of the SAR-97 from Respondent. The report was then referred to the Department's Petroleum Cleanup Section for its review. By letter dated August 27, 2004, the Department advised Respondent that SAR-97 was under review. The letter also changed the due date for the SAR-04 from August 1, 2004, to November 9, 2004. On September 15, 2004, the Department received correspondence from Respondent requesting an extension of time in which to submit his SAR-04. On December 10, 2004, the Department approved the request and authorized Respondent to file a SAR-04 no later than March 1, 2005. On April 12, 2005, Respondent filed with the Department a Site Assessment Report Addendum (SARA) for the 1997 discharge (SARA-97). The report was dated March 1, 2005. On May 25, 2005, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he file two copies of a supplement to the SARA-97 no later than July 5, 2005, to address certain deficiencies noted in that report, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770-600(11). That subsection provides that "[i]f the [SAR] is incomplete in any respect, or is insufficient to satisfy the objectives of subsection 62- 770.600(3), F.A.C., the Department or the FDEP local program shall inform the responsible party pursuant to paragraph 62- 770.600(9)(b), F.A.C., and the responsible party shall submit to the Department or to the FDEP local program for review two copies of a [SARA] that addresses the deficiencies within 60 days after receipt of the notice." The same letter also requested that a disposal manifest be provided for the tank and piping closures. On July 11, 2005, the Department received a second SARA-97 from Respondent's consultant. On July 14, 2005, it also received the disposal manifest documentation for the closure of tank 4 and its piping. These were the last reports filed by Respondent. On October 4, 2005, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he provide two copies of a third SARA for the 1997 discharge to address deficiencies noted by the Department in the second SARA. The letter indicated that the third SARA was to be filed no later than November 23, 2005. The Department also requested that he provide a completed financial affidavit to justify Respondent's claim that he was financially unable to complete the remaining required cleanup corrective actions at his property. On November 29, 2005, Respondent requested an extension of time to complete the third SARA-97. (The reason for the requested extension was that Respondent's insurance carrier would not give authorization for the work.) On January 12, 2006, the Department advised Respondent by letter that his request had been denied and that he must submit either the third SARA or a financial affidavit, as previously requested, no later than February 15, 2006. In its response, the Department indicated that it did not "consider generic delays by contractors or insurance carriers as good cause for an extension." To date, neither filing has been made. By failing to file the requested third SARA for the 1997 discharge, Respondent has contravened the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-770.600(11) and 62- 770.800(3), which require that within 60 days after notice, a responsible party submit a SARA to address deficiencies noted in a SAR. Respondent's conduct also implicates Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.800(5), which makes it a violation of two Florida Statutes for a responsible party to not submit requested information within the time frame specified. Since March 1, 2005, which was the due date on which a report was to be filed, Respondent has failed to submit an approved SAR for the 2004 discharge, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(7), which in turn contravenes Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.800(3) and (5). To date, Respondent has failed to complete site assessment activities for both the 1997 and 2004 discharges, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(10). That provision states that "[s]ite assessment activities shall not be deemed complete until such time as a [SAR] is approved." To date, Respondent has failed to timely and completely assess and remediate the contamination at his property, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-770. That chapter contains the criteria which apply to the cleanup of a site contaminated with petroleum products. During the course of its investigation of this matter, the Department has incurred expenses "in the amount of not less than $500.00." As mitigating evidence, Respondent offered into evidence Respondent's Exhibits 2-15, the majority of which pertain to his insurance policy and the pending litigation with his carrier, Mid-Continent Casualty Company (MCC), or the priority score funding process, which is the process by which contaminated properties are scored or rated for purposes of determining eligibility to receive state cleanup funds when the responsible party is financially unable to do so. Although evidence regarding the insurance policy and pending litigation was deemed to be immaterial to the issues of establishing Respondent's liability for the violations and responsibility for undertaking the corrective actions necessary to satisfy the violations, the undersigned ruled that it could be used by Respondent as mitigating evidence, if relevant, for the purpose of seeking to reduce the administrative penalty. Respondent's Exhibits 8, 9, and 11 indicate that after he reported the 2003 discharge to MCC, in 2003 the carrier denied coverage for that discharge (on the ground "any 'confirmed release' must commence after the retroactive date of the policy (4/3/98)"). However, MCC initially accepted coverage for the 2004 discharge and authorized Respondent's environmental consultants to conduct a site assessment. The documents further show that in December 2005, or before the 2004 site assessment had been completed and a SAR prepared, MCC reversed its position and denied coverage for the 2004 discharge on the ground there was no "Confirmed Release," as defined by the policy. Respondent then filed his lawsuit seeking a determination that the carrier was responsible for cleanup costs. Respondent asserts that he has expended more than $50,000.00 in pursuing the lawsuit, which is much more than the administrative penalty being assessed by the Department. Respondent points out that prior to the time MCC reversed its position as to coverage for the 2004 discharge in December 2005, he had filed a DFR, TCAR, disposal manifest, SAR- 97, and two SARAs for the 1997 discharge, and a TCAR and DFR for the 2004 discharge, all of which indicate a good faith effort on his part to comply with the assessment requirements. As noted above, the final reports prepared by Respondent's consultant were a second SARA-97 and a disposal manifest for the 1997 discharge, which were filed with the Department in July 2005, and a TCAR and DRF for the 2004 discharge filed in May 2004. Respondent's Exhibit 10A recites language in Coverage B of the insurance policy, which provides in part that MCC "will pay Clean-up Costs by an Insured for environmental damage that an Insured is legally obligated to pay . . . ." Respondent argues that if he acknowledges by affidavit or other proof that he does not have the ability to pay for cleanup costs, he fears that under the above language, MCC would not be "legally obligated to pay." This is because Section 376.3071(7)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that when a responsible party does not have the ability to pay for all of the cleanup costs, the Department "may" enter into an agreement with the responsible party to undertake all or part of the site rehabilitation after "taking into consideration the party's net worth and the economic impact on the party." Respondent contends that if he files an affidavit under this statute, MCC would then be relieved of any responsibility under the policy, and his rights in the lawsuit would be jeopardized. Respondent further points out that several other provisions in the insurance policy prohibit him from completing the assessment until the litigation is concluded. For example, one provision (Section II.B) provides that "No Clean-up Costs, charges, and expenses shall be incurred without the Company's consent," while another (Section II.C) provides that "An Insured shall not admit or assume any liabilities or settle any Claim(s) without the Company's consent." Respondent asserts that these provisions prevent his consultant from conducting any further work on the site without MCC's consent, and if he does so, he will lose the right to reimbursement under the policy. Finally, Exhibits 3 through 6 show that Respondent's property has been assigned a site ranking score of ten points, and that the Department is currently funding sites that are eligible for state restoration funding only if they have scores of 37 points and higher. Thus, Respondent argues that a delay in remediation of the site is not unreasonable. Except for the two discharges at issue in this case, there is no evidence that Respondent has a history of non- compliance or that he gained any direct economic benefit by virtue of the discharges. Although no reports have been filed since July 2005, through counsel, Respondent has kept the Department abreast of his efforts to establish liability on the part of MCC so that the site assessments can resume.
