The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has violated the standards of practice in septic tank contracting, Florida Administrative Code rule 64E-6.022, and, if so, the penalty. (All references to Respondent are to Arlender Miller. All references to Ms. Rooter are to Ms. Rooter, Inc.)
Findings Of Fact At the times of the alleged jobs, Respondent was registered as a septic tank contractor and served as the qualifying agent for Ms. Rooter. At the time of all three jobs, Respondent had apparent authority to serve as the agent of Ms. Rooter in contracting for and performing the septic tank contracting work described below. However, nothing in the record establishes any relationship between Respondent and Ms. Rooter at the time of the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, so as to justify treating the notice of this proceeding, when served upon Respondent, as notice to Ms. Rooter. Hans Seffer, who testified, is the son of the woman who owns the apartment complex located at 14950 North Miami Avenue, Miami. Mr. Seffer found Ms. Rooter on the internet and spoke with Carolyn Futch, operations manager of Ms. Rooter, about septic tank contracting services needed at the apartment complex. Respondent later met with Mr. Seffer at the property. Initially, Mr. Seffer believed that the existing septic tank needed only to be pumped out. However, upon inspection, Respondent determined that the system also required a new drainfield, pump, and dosing tank. Accordingly, on February 20, 2008, Respondent, as "technician," and either Mr. Seffer or his mother signed a one-page contract on a form identifying the contractor as Ms. Rooter, license number SA0071430. The contract describes the following work: Install 1,000 sq. ft. drainfield with 300 gallon dosing tank including immediate (2/21/08) tank pump out. Additionally if tank requires pumpout prior to securing all necessary permits, Ms. Rooter will perform pumpout at no additional cost. Manhole cover included. Respondent and either Mr. or Mrs. Seffer initialed this section of the contract. The contract states that the total due for this work is $10,500. Ms. Seffer paid $5,000 by check on February 21, 2008, leaving a $5,500 balance due. On March 1, 2008, Respondent, as agent for Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system. The application describes the property improvements as a multifamily complex with ten bedrooms and 5,284 square feet of building space. The site plan attached to the application states: "Replace drainfield only." On April 2, 2008, Ms. Futch emailed Mr. Seffer to confirm an earlier discussion between them. The discussion addressed a requirement of Petitioner that Ms. Rooter install a second tank. The email states that the property owner will pay $5,600 for the installation of a "2nd tank (1,050-gal)," so the new total contract price is $11,100. This email restates the scope of the work as the installation of a 1,000-square-foot drainfield and 300-gallon dosing tank. By return email two days later, Mr. Seffer agreed to the additional work. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner issued to the property owner a construction permit that specifies a 2,575-gallon septic tank and a 1,000 square-foot drainfield. The permit states: "The licensed contractor installing the system is responsible for installing the minimum category of tank in accordance with sec. 64E-6.013(3)(f), F.A.C." This rule does not refer to tank capacities. On April 23, 2008, Petitioner issued a "construction inspection and final approval" form that shows the installation of two 1,200-gallon septic tanks and a 1,005-square-foot drainfield. The form states that items bearing an "X" are "not in compliance with statute or rule and must be corrected." The construction and final system are approved by Petitioner's inspector. During the course of the work, Respondent told Mr. Seffer that the existing tank was damaged and needed to be replaced, at an additional cost of $5,000, so the remaining balance rose to $16,100. Mr. Seffer agreed to this change. By email dated April 30, 2008, to Mr. Seffer, Ms. Futch confirmed the additional cost of $5,000 for the second septic tank and expressed "hope [that] Ms. Rooter has met your expectations." The email acknowledges, however, that "we must complete the electrical portion of the job." On May 2, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Rooter two checks totaling $15,000, leaving a balance of $1,100. On the same date, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch an email that, pursuant to their agreement, he would retain this amount for the "electric and final raking work." By email dated May 27, 2008, to Ms. Futch, Mr. Seffer noted that the manhole that Ms. Rooter had installed in the middle of the lawn was not level and was sunken, presenting a tripping hazard; the final grading was incomplete, leaving low spots and holes; a large rock remained near the palm tree and needed to be removed. Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch a reminder email on June 4, 2008, that resent the May 27 email. Mr. Seffer sent another email to Ms. Futch on June 21, 2008. In it, he notes that a Ms. Rooter employee worked on digging an electrical trench on June 13, but left mid-day, and no work had been performed since that day. In the meantime, recent rains had revealed a lack of compaction in the backfilling done by Ms. Rooter, as the fill had settled and undermined a sidewalk. After failing to obtain a response, on July 26, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent a final email to Ms. Futch warning her that he would file complaints with governmental agencies and advising that the unconnected pump was not pumping sewage throughout the entire system. The record does not contain the contracts for the septic tank contracting services involved in the second and third jobs alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Also, Petitioner did not present the testimony of the property owners involved in these jobs. The record for these jobs is limited to the permitting documentation. On September 26, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Shoreview Properties, Respondent submitted an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 9999 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores. This application describes the property as commercial with a 47,771 square-foot building. On October 1, 2008, Petitioner's inspector inspected the property. The inspector found an opened drainfield area with contaminated material and other conditions capable of hosting various disease vectors. He also found a backhoe and worker, who claimed that someone else had excavated the drainfield. The inspector immediately posted an ONASN, pursuant to the authority of chapter 386, Florida Statutes, that required the immediate abatement of the listed insanitary conditions. The inspector also determined that the existing onsite sewage disposal system exceeded Petitioner's jurisdictional threshold of 5,000 gallons per day. On September 10, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Lisa Mullin, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 101 Northeast 195th Street, Miami. This application describes the property as 0.19 acres, on which is situated a single family residence comprising 1,663 square feet and three bedrooms. On September 22, 2008, an agent of the property owner called Petitioner and complained that Ms. Rooter had commenced the work without having first obtained a permit. Petitioner's inspector visited the site on the same day and found "very recent" earthwork. The owner informed the inspector that the contractor had installed three drainlines, cut an old water line, and installed a new water line over the drainfield. However, the record fails to establish the amount of time that elapsed between the work claimed to have been performed by Ms. Rooter and the report by the property owner. Respondent has paid numerous fines imposed by Petitioner for improper septic tank contracting. In 1999, Respondent paid a fine in an unspecified amount for performing an unpermitted drainfield repair and making the repair without the required filter sand. On January 27, 2000, Respondent paid a fine of $250 for performing unpermitted system repairs. On February 4, 2000, Respondent was assessed a fine of $1,000 for performing unpermitted and uninspected system repairs and failing to honor a warranty. On January 8, 2004, Respondent received a cease and desist order for qualifying more than one septic tank contracting business. In 2007, Respondent paid separate fines of $1,500 and $1,000 for illegal septic tank contracting work in Dade and Monroe counties, respectively.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three violations identified in paragraphs 26, 27, and 29 above, dismissing the remaining charges against him, dismissing any charges against Ms. Rooter, and revoking Respondent's septic tank contracting registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 31st day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Arlender Miller 640 Northwest 129th Street Miami, Florida 33168 Jenea Reed, Esquire Miami Dade County Health Department 8323 Northwest 12th Street, Suite 214 Miami, Florida 33126 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Shairi Turner, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Kim Berfield, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether CJC Properties, Ltd. (CJC), is eligible for state restoration funding assistance under the Petroleum Contamination Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program for one or more discharges of gasoline at DEP Facility No. 378943938 (“the facility”).
Findings Of Fact The Facility CJC is a Florida Limited Partnership. It is the current owner of property located at 5691 U.S. Highway 27 North, in Tallahassee. Prior to CJC’s acquisition of the property, the property was owned by Carolyn J. Chapman, John W. Chapman, Jane Chapman Latina, and Carolyn Chapman Landrum (“the Chapmans”). The property was leased to various entities and operated as a gas station. The tanks and dispensers remained in service until November, 1995. The last operator of the facility was Lake Jackson 76, Inc. There were five underground petroleum storage tanks at the facility. Before 1991, one of the tanks at the facility was used for regular, leaded, gasoline. When leaded gasoline was phased out, the tank was used for unleaded gasoline. Site Assessments and Sampling Data On November 30, 1995, the Chapmans employed Petroleum Contractors, Inc., to remove the five storage tanks. During the tank removal, Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists, Inc. (“EGS”) performed an assessment to determine whether the facility was contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. The Underground Storage Tank Removal Report prepared by EGS noted that all five tanks appeared to be intact. Soils in the tank pit wall and bottom were not discolored. No significant contamination was observed directly below the tanks. Soil from the tank pit was stockpiled on the site. EGS observed no significant signs of contamination of this soil. The soil stockpile was also screened with a Flame Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). No organic vapors were detected. An OVA detects any organic vapor, but is used as a screening tool to find petroleum vapors. Department rules require that an OVA reading be performed both unfiltered and filtered. The filtered reading screens out everything but methane and is “subtracted” from the unfiltered reading to determine the presence of petroleum vapors. Twenty-four soil samples were taken from various depths at nine locations in the tank pit. These samples were tested using an OVA. Nine of the soil samples, taken from four locations, had corrected OVA readings indicative of petroleum contamination. EGS concluded that “soil contamination detected in the tank pit is likely the result of a leak in the piping” between the dispensers and the tanks. Soil samples were also taken from three borings in the vicinity of the dispenser island and OVA-tested. In boring D-2, organic vapors were detected from the surface to a depth of approximately seven feet. The OVA readings from D-2 declined with depth. EGS reported that “some contamination was detected beneath a dispenser; however, it does not ‘appear’ to significantly extend below six (6) feet.” EGS did not report both filtered and unfiltered OVA readings for the soil samples taken from the dispenser area, as it had done for soil samples taken from the tank pit and the stockpile. For the dispenser area soil samples, EGS reported a single OVA reading for each sample, without indicating whether the reading was “corrected” after filtering. For this reason, the Department contends that these data are unreliable. CJC points out that EGS stated in the text of its report that the soil samples were filtered. CJC also argues that, because the filtered OVA readings for soil samples taken from the tank pit area were not different from their unfiltered readings, the OVA readings for the soil samples from the dispenser area would not have changed after filtering. The preponderance of the evidence is that the contamination in the dispenser area was petroleum. Based on EGS’ findings during the tank removal in November 1995, Petroleum Contractors, Inc., filed a Discharge Reporting Form on December 1, 1995, stating that there had been a discharge of unleaded gasoline at the facility. In January 1996, the Chapmans applied to participate in FPLRIP based on the discharge reported on December 1, 1995. By order dated January 26, 1996, the Department determined that the reported discharge was eligible for state-funded remediation assistance under FPLRIP. In 1997, another consultant, Levine Fricke Recon (LFR) conducted a site assessment at the facility and submitted its Interim Site Assessment Report to the Department. As part of its own soil sampling at the site, LFR collected a “direct push” soil boring in the dispenser island area, near the place where EGS had reported organic vapors. The boring data showed no petroleum vapors until the interval 16-to-20 feet below ground surface. LFR also collected and analyzed groundwater samples from the site. It reported that a sample taken from beneath the former diesel dispenser contained lead. Because lead occurs naturally in soils, its presence in a water sample does not confirm that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. In 1998, LFR conducted a second assessment of the facility site. It installed and sampled four shallow monitoring wells, designated MW-1S through MW-4S, and three deep monitoring wells, designated MW-2D through MW-4D. Groundwater samples from MW-3S and MW-3D were analyzed for lead, ethylene dibromide (EDB), and 1,2-Dichloroethane. All three substances are usually detected in a groundwater sample contaminated with leaded gasoline. On August 28, 1998, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment II to the Department, which shows lead and EDB were found in a sample taken from MW-3S, but not 1,2-Dichloroethane. LFR did not conclude or express a suspicion in either of its two assessment reports that leaded gasoline had been discharged at the facility. The deadline for submitting a Discharge Reporting Form or written report of contamination was December 31, 1998. A site assessment report received by the Department before January 1, 1999, which contained evidence of a petroleum discharge, was accepted by the Department as a “report of contamination.” The petroleum discharge information received by the Department before January 1, 1999, consisted of the Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, the FPLRIP claim, the Interim Site Assessment Report, and the Interim Site Assessment Report II. Post Deadline Site Assessment Data After the statutory deadline, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment III. This report includes January 1999 groundwater sampling data from four monitoring wells which show the presence of low levels of EDB. When EDB is found in a groundwater sample, it is a common practice to re-sample the well from which the sample was taken. Of the wells that showed the presence of EDB, only MW- 10D was re-sampled, after January 1, 1999. There was no EDB present in the groundwater when MS-10D was re-sampled. In June 2000, as part of the remediation of the contamination at the facility, an area of contaminated soil was removed to a depth of 14 feet. The area of soil removed included the former dispenser area. In January 2003, the Department notified CJC that the $300,000 FPLRIP funding cap would soon be reached. In March 2003, CJC signed a Funding Cap Transition Agreement, acknowledging that “At no time will the DEP be obligated to pay for cleanup of this discharge any amount that exceeds the funding cap.” CJC further acknowledged that it “is responsible for completing the remediation of the discharge in accordance with Chapter 62-770, F.A.C.” In 2005, CJC re-sampled one of the monitoring wells for lead and EDB. Neither substance was present. The site is not currently being actively remediated. Periodic groundwater sampling indicates that concentrations of contaminants are dropping. No further active remediation has been proposed. The cost to complete remediation is a matter of speculation. The record evidence is insufficient to make a finding about future remediation costs. Eligibility Determinations On September 2, 2003, CJC submitted a PCPP Affidavit to the Department, seeking state funding under PCPP. On October 30, 2003, the Department denied CJC eligibility for PCPP funding on the basis that the contamination was covered under FPLRIP and, therefore, was excluded from funding under PCPP. The Department has never granted PCPP eligibility for the cleanup of a discharge previously being funded under FPLRIP. Apparently, in 2005, CJC hired Glenn R. MacGraw, an expert in the assessment of petroleum-contaminated sites, to review the EGS and LFR assessments. In a letter to CJC’s attorney dated August 19, 2005, MacGraw expressed the opinion that “at least 2 discharges have occurred on this site, one in the former tank area, and one in the former dispenser area.” MacGraw’s opinion that there had been a discharge of leaded gasoline was based on the detection of EDB and lead in the groundwater. He also thought the presence of methyl tetra-butyl ether (MTBE) in groundwater samples taken from the tank pit area showed a tank leak of unleaded gasoline. CJC requested FPLRIP funding for the other alleged discharges at the facility. On March 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter formally stating its disagreement that there were other reported discharges and denying eligibility for FPLRIP funding. On March 30, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Ineligibility under PCPP. The amended order added a second ground for denial, that the reported discharge was not shown to have occurred before January 1, 1995. Whether There Was A Second Discharge Eligible for Funding CJC argues that the presence of lead and EDB in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3S shows that there was a discharge of leaded gasoline at the facility. However, LFR reported that the well screen for MW-3S had probably been damaged during installation, because a significant amount of filter sand was observed in the purge water. The Department contends, therefore, that the source of the lead detected in the groundwater sample from MW-3S could have been (naturally) in the soil that entered the well. The Department also discounts the detection of EDB in the groundwater sample because EDB is an ingredient of some pesticides and can show up in groundwater when pesticide has been applied to the overlying land. Furthermore, EDB was not detected in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3D, a deeper well located near MW-3S. MacGraw does not think the EDB came from a pesticide application, because the EDB contamination at the site occurs in an elongated “plume,” in the former dispenser area, whereas one would expect to see EDB distributed evenly over the site if the source was a pesticide application. MacGraw mapped the plume of EDB by using data obtained after the discharge reporting deadline. Michael J. Bland, a Department employee and expert in geology and petroleum site assessment, believes the data from the facility are insufficient to confirm the presence of EDB or its distribution. LFR reported in its Interim Site Assessment that no significant soil contamination was found near the dispenser island. Groundwater samples from MW-3D, a deep monitoring well near MW-S3, showed no EDB, lead, or 1,2-dichlorothane. Bland opined that, if the detection of EDB in the shallow well was reliable, EDB would have been detected in the deep well, too, because EDB is a “sinker.” EDB is persistent in groundwater, so when it is not detected when a well is re-sampled, reasonable doubt arises about the detection in the first sample. Of all the wells sampled in 1999 that showed EDB, only MW-10D was re-sampled in 2003. When the well was re-sampled, there was no EDB. CJC contends that EDB was not found in the re-sampling of MW-10D because of the soil removal in 2000, but the Department contends that the soil removal would not have affected the presence of EDB in MW-10D, because the well is significantly down-gradient of the area of soil removal. It was undisputed that the presence of 1,2- dichoroethane in MW-S3 was not reliably determined. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the contamination reported in the dispenser area is the source of contamination which persists at the facility. The reported contamination only affected the top six feet of soil. The soil removal to a depth of 14 feet in that area in 2000 should have fully remediated the reported contamination. The data upon which CJC relies in claiming eligibility under FPLRIP or PCPP for a second discharge are, at best, incomplete and ambiguous. CJC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. CJC also failed to prove that the reported contamination in the dispenser is associated with a discharge that still exists to be remediated with state assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that CJC is ineligible to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program for the discharge reported to the Department on December 1, 1995, and that CJC has not demonstrated eligibility to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program for any other discharges. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2008.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the Florida Equal Access To Justice Act?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Stipulated Facts: The action in this case was initiated by the Department, a state agency. The Department was not a nominal party. ASI has incurred attorney's fees and costs in amount of $13,178.00 in defending the administrative proceeding brought against it in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alpha Septic Industries, Inc., Case No. 91-0044. There is no dispute as to the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs. The attorney's fees and costs are as follows: James F. McCollum 62.4 hrs at $150/hr= $ 9,360 Gary R. Gossett 22.7 hrs at $100/hr= $ 2,270 Para Legal 7.4 hrs at $ 40/hr= $ 296 Costs $ 1,252 Total $13,178 There are no special circumstances which would make an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust. ASI is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida, whose principal office is in Sebring, Florida and at all times material to this proceeding had not more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of not more than $2 million. ASI is a "small business party" as that term is defined in Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The appellant court in Alpha Septic Industries, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 91-03249, 2nd District Court of Appeal, reversed the final order entered by the Department in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alpha Septic Industries, Inc., Case No. 91-0044, against ASI. That order was not appealed by the Department. ASI is a "prevailing small business party" as that term is defined in Section 57.111(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The action was commenced by the filing of an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Paul Poore d/b/a Alpha Septic Industries, Inc. on April 4, 1990. By an agreement reached during a hearing before a circuit judge, the original Administrative Complaint was amended on November 15, 1990 to delete Mr. Paul Poore from the Administrative Complaint. Facts Not Stipulated: Both the initial Administrative Complaint and the Amended Administrative Complaint allege that ASI violated Section 381.031(1)(g) Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.055(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, in that a septic tank manufactured by ASI, and serving 3727 Thunderbird Hill Circle, Sebring, Florida, was measured by the Department and found to be below the minimum thickness required by Rule 10D-6.055(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The complaint further alleges that the Department's measurements had been taken in three different places and found to be 0.162", 0.147" and 0.157" which were below the 0.187" minimum thickness required by the rule. The initial Administrative Complaint was signed by Kevin Sherin, M. D., Director, HRS-Highlands County Public Health Unit, the governmental entity charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Florida septic tank regulations. Dr. Sherin has the authority to authorize the filing of an Administrative Complaint and the responsibility of assuring that the complaint is valid. When Dr. Sherin authorized and signed the initial Administrative Complaint he was aware of the following facts: A complaint had been filed by Curtis Haberline, President, Thunderbird Homeowner's Association, on September 12, 1989, alleging that a fiberglass septic tank installed at 3727 Thunderbird Hill Circle, Sebring, Florida had "caved inwards". The 1050 gallon fiberglass septic tank had been installed by Dan Young, licensed septic tank contractor. Young recalled that all of the fiberglass septic tanks installed in Thunderbird Hill Village I, where this particular septic tank was installed, had been purchased and picked up from ASI. During the installation of the septic tank, Edward Dixon, Inspector, HRS-Highlands County Public Health Unit was on the site and inspected the septic tank installed by Young. The installation was approved on May 24, 1984. The tank was not measured for wall thickness at the time of the installation. Dixon did not recollect noticing any readily visible thin spots in the tank when he inspected it during installation. In response to the complaint, Edward Dixon visited the site on September 14, 1990 and inspected the septic tank then in place and the area surrounding the septic tank. Dixon drilled and removed a plug approximately one inch in diameter from a randomly selected area (not in the "caved-in part) on top of the septic tank. After Dixon removed the plug, he measured the tank's wall thickness around the drilled plug site with a micrometer. The tank wall thickness around the drill plug site measured between 0.140" and 0.150". The plug was taken to James B. Fisher. Neither Edward Dixon nor James B. Fisher, who was an employee of HRS- Highlands County Public Health Unit and also inspected the septic tank after the complaint was filed, recollect seeing any information on the tank that identified the manufacturer or the date of manufacture. However, there was no reason to suspect that the tank had been replaced since the life expectancy of a fiberglass tank is much longer than six years. Fisher measured the plug at three different locations with a micrometer. Those three measured thicknesses of the plug were 0.147", 0.157" and 0.162". The micrometer used by Fisher had been checked for accuracy, and found to be accurate within 0.0002". Three sixteenths of an inch is equal to 0.1875". The "caved in" portion of the tank appeared to have resulted from being impacted by a heavy weight, i.e., heavy equipment. The tank was not cracked and it did not appear that the "caving-in" had resulted from the tank being below specifications on wall thickness. There was no evidence that heat, light or caustic chemicals had affected the condition of the tank, i.e. wall thickness. ASI was on the State of Florida list of approved septic tank manufacturers. On October 10, 1989, ASI was advised of the complaint and requested to correct the alleged deficiency. ASI declined to take any action.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's decision to reject the galvanized pipe replacement bid of Petitioner as non- responsive was erroneous, an abuse of discretion, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Expertech Network Installation, Inc., is a division of Bell Canada. Petitioner is a construction and engineering division of the parent company. It was set up to expand the parent's operations into the United States about nine years ago. Petitioner has steadily replaced its Canadian employees with U.S. employees over those years. The City is a governmental entity established under the laws of the State of Florida. By contract with the DOAH, the City has agreed to utilize Administrative Law Judges to hear, inter alia, bid protests involving the City. On May 7, 2007, the City issued Invitation to Bid No. ITB-PW060607-88. The Invitation to Bid sought bids for replacement of approximately 38,000 linear feet of two-inch galvanized pipe and associated appurtenances with 38,000 feet of four and six-inch DR18 PVC piping and associated appurtenances. The replacement would include approximately 385 service connections with Sch-80 PVC piping, all within the area known as Section 4 of the City. In addition, the scope of work included relocation of approximately 460 linear feet of eight-inch PVC water main pipe and associated appurtenances with 600 linear feet of eight-inch DR18 PVC piping and appurtenances along State Road 78. A total specification package and complete set of drawings for the aforementioned work was prepared by the City's consulting engineer, TetraTech-HAI (hereinafter "Ttech"). The specifications and drawings by Ttech were made a part of the Invitation to Bid. A pre-bid conference was held on May 16, 2007. At that conference, several issues were discussed, resulting in issuance of an Addendum to the Invitation to Bid. The Addendum was issued the same day as the conference and included the following paragraph: Will the City allow directional drilling on the galvanized pipe replacement project? No. All references to directional drillingon the galvanized pipe replacement projectare to be modified to jack & bore. All water main piping proposed to cross driveways shall be installed via jack & bore or open cut methods. Water main piping proposed to cross roadways, including long side services, shall be installed by jack & bore methods. Directional drilling is acceptable for the roadway crossings on the SR 78 Water Main Replacement portions only. Please see the enclosed revised Measurement and Payment section of the specifications (01025) and revised bid schedule. (Emphasis in original document.) The Addendum also extended the due dates for bids by one week, to June 13, 2007. No protest was filed with the City with respect to the terms, conditions or specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid and the Addendum. On Wednesday, June 13, 2007, the City opened the bids. Petitioner's bid was the low bid for the project. Its bid included a price of $1,816,224, as compared to the second lowest bidder, Guymann (whose bid came in at $1,987,561).1 The bids were then reviewed by Ttech for conformity to the Invitation to Bid. On July 31, 2007, Ttech notified the City that it was recommending approval of the Guymann bid despite Petitioner being the low bidder. The justification for that recommendation was as follows: The lowest apparent bidder on the project was Expertech Network Installation, Inc. (Expertech) with a total bid of $1,816,224.00. [Ttech] reviewed Expertech's bid package and found that the required list of at least five completed projects of the type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement project was not included in the package. [Ttech] contacted Expertech concerning the incomplete bid package and requested that Expertech provided the required list of at least five projects completed by Expertech of similar type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement project. The list provided by Expertech did not include any completed projects of the type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement. On August 7, 2007, the City issued its Notice of Intent to Award, stating that the procurement division of the City would recommend award of the bid to Guymann as the most responsive, responsible bidder meeting the terms, conditions, and specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest; its Formal Written Protest was timely filed on August 24, 2007, along with the required bond. There are three methods of drilling utilized for laying pipe in the ground: directional drilling, open cut drilling, and jack & bore drilling. A brief discussion of each is necessary in order to understand the dispute in this matter. Directional drilling is done utilizing a machine that is guided underground using steel rods. A person above ground with a sounding device directs the steel rods from one point to another. Directional boring is used when trenching or excavating is not practical. Directional boring minimizes environmental disruption. Jack & bore drilling (or auger drilling) is similar to directional drilling in that it has an entrance pit, and then the pipe is manually jacked along the desired path while simultaneously excavating the soil. It is often used in projects that have to go under existing roads or driveways. Open cut drilling is the old, traditional method of digging a trench in the ground and laying the pipe in the open cut. The Invitation to Bid, at page 10 of 53, included a request for each bidder to provide evidence of its experience with similar projects. Paragraph 5 asked for a list "of the last five projects of this type your organization has completed."2 Paragraph 6 asked for a list "of projects of this type that your organization is currently engaged in." The lists of projects were to be completed as set forth in a table attached to the Invitation to Bid. The table is recreated below: PROJECT YOUR CONTRACTOR REQUIRED ACTUAL NAME, TITLE CONTRACT OR SUB COMPLETION COMPLETION ADDRESS & AMOUNT DATE DATE & LOCATION PHONE # In its Bid, Petitioner provided a document entitled "Bidders Qualifications" in response to paragraph 5. The document was not on the table provided and was not entirely responsive to the information requested (i.e., it did not indicate whether Petitioner was contractor or subcontractor; there were no completion dates, and there were no contact persons). Nonetheless, the list contained eight completed projects. Those projects included two water main projects; the other six completed projects were telecommunication projects. While both types of projects would include drilling, there are distinct differences between the two. For example, water and wastewater projects require pressure testing, bacterial testing, and permitting that telecommunication projects do not. Petitioner's list also included projects that involved directional drilling. Since directional drilling was specifically prohibited in the galvanized pipe replacement project, those projects would not be deemed substantially similar in type.3 During the initial review of the bids, Ttech had specifically asked Petitioner to provide the required list of five completed projects of a similar type. In response, Petitioner submitted a list of four projects, which were listed as "Currently in Progress." Again, the projects were submitted on a form other than the table provided in the Invitation to Bid. When Ttech followed up with the project contacts, it found that there had been no open cut drilling on two of them; the other two had not yet begun. However, by the date of final hearing the projects were substantially complete. After Petitioner had submitted its list of projects, a meeting was called at the City. Petitioner was represented at the meeting along with City personnel and a representative from Ttech. Notes from that meeting, though inconclusive, seem to indicate that the requirement for five completed jobs of a similar nature was discussed. It is unclear whether Petitioner's representative was still at the meeting when this was discussed. However, it does not appear that anyone from the City or Ttech sent Petitioner a written request to provide evidence of additional work performed. Nor is there any evidence that the City or Ttech had an obligation to do so. At any rate, Petitioner did not submit any evidence of similar projects other than those discussed above. There were notes made by attendees of the meeting. None of the notes submitted into evidence was conclusive as to all issues that were discussed at that time. However, in notes relating to a telephone conversation five days later, Ttech's representative noted discussing with Petitioner the need to provide evidence of five similar projects, which means that at the time of the June 9, 2007, meeting, Ttech was still attempting to get the required list of projects from Petitioner. The projects submitted by Petitioner include directional drill excavation projects, which involved at least some open cuts (i.e., to make tie-ins at each end of the directional drill section). None of those projects was substantially similar in type to the proposed project, but did include some open cut work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the City of Cape Coral upholding its rejection of Petitioner's bid for the galvanized pipe replacement project. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 November, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether the challenged two working day notice provision of existing Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged by law with regulation of the liquefied petroleum (LP) gas industry. Sections 570.07(16)(k), 570.07(23), 527.055, and 527.06, Florida Statutes. Petitioner bears the name "1st Propane of Bushnell," a registered fictitious name of Par-Gas, Inc. Petitioner is a Category I liquefied petroleum gas distributor, licensed and regulated by the Department. There are approximately 460 licensed LP gas dealers in Florida. Florida’s licensed LP gas dealers include one-man operations, mom and pop family-owned businesses, regional marketers and national multi-state marketers. LP gas operations in Florida are unique compared to other states, in that Florida has many small volume users. The Department issues the Category I LP gas dealer license only to entities, not to individuals. The license permits the licensee gas company to transport LP gas, fill LP gas containers, sell LP gas containers, and to service, install, or repair appliances or equipment that use LP gas. Most LP gas dealers own the LP gas tank or cylinder installed at the customer location. Accordingly, when the dealer delivers LP gas to its customer, it is filling or refilling its own container; unless the customer owns the container, then the dealer fills the customer’s container. LP is a by-product of the oil refining process. The most common LP gas in Florida is propane. LP gas has a boiling point of minus 44 degrees Fahrenheit. The very cold LP gas is stored in the container under pressure of approximately 145 pounds per square inch (PSI).1 LP gas expands approximately 270 times as it changes from a liquid to a vapor. LP gas vapor is one and one-half times heavier than air. Because LP gas is heavier than air, when released into the air, LP gas vapor drops, pools and accumulates in low areas. It will not disperse in areas where there is no wind movement. A spark from static electricity, electric motors, automobile fan motors, exhaust pipes, catalytic converters, air conditioning compressors or lit cigarettes will ignite LP gas, causing explosion or fire. LP gas is more volatile than natural gas. Unlike natural gas which is delivered to the customer by pipe, LP gas is typically stored at residential, commercial or school installations in a pressurized container. Two kinds of LP gas containers are tanks and cylinders. Other LP gas system components include the regulator, valves, interior and exterior piping, meter, and appliances. The National Fire Protection Association, Standard 58, LP Gas Code 2001 Edition, ("NFPA 58") makes the container owner responsible for ensuring his containers are suitable and qualified for service. LP gas tanks are typically horizontal and much larger than LP gas cylinders. Tanks used in residential and commercial applications, generally range in size up to 1,000 gallons. Tanks are deemed permanent installations. Cylinders are generally upright and have a specified lifetime, after which they must be re-qualified by the owner. Cylinders are deemed temporary or portable installations. LP gas cylinders and tanks are both “liquefied petroleum gas equipment” within the meaning of Chapter 527, Florida Statutes. Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, governs LP gas container disconnections in Florida. The genesis of Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, dates back to the 1940’s and 1950’s and a State Regulation2 that allowed only the LP gas tank owner, or those authorized by him, to disconnect a tank from a customer’s system. In 1958, Florida’s Attorney General, Richard Ervin, became concerned that the Regulation could be applied in an anti-competitive manner, but in 1959, the Regulation was amended to allow one gas company to disconnect another company’s tank whether or not it was authorized, provided advance notice was given to the gas company owning the tank. In the 1970’s this “advance notice” concept was continued and again adopted, this time in an administrative rule promulgated under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. In 1990, The Department of Insurance (“DOI”) promulgated Rule 4B-1.008, Florida Administrative Code, under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.3 In 1994, DOI’s Rule 4B-1.008, Florida Administrative Code, was properly transferred to the Department without changes. The Department properly filed Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, for adoption without changes as required by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 1S-1, Florida Administrative Code, effective March 15, 1994. When the Rule was initially adopted in 1990, David Rogers wrote a letter4 to DOI on behalf of The Florida Propane Gas Association (“The Association”) recommending rule language which became Rule 4B-1.008, Florida Administrative Code. The same language lives on in challenged Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Association specifically recommended the Rule language “in the interest of safety to the propane industry and consumers” and because the Rule allowed “orderly disconnects to be made in a safe manner.” As stipulated by the parties at final hearing, Rogers’ October 31, 1990, letter is the Association’s past and present position on Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code. Other states have tank disconnect rules similar to Florida’s Rule, and other states have modeled their disconnect rules after Florida’s Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code. No company has ever challenged Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, except Petitioner. Petitioner challenges only the two working day notice requirement of Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, alleging it is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. Petitioner alleges that the “Department has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority because Section 527.06, Florida Statutes, does not specifically include nor contemplate or require notice to cylinder, tank and system owners prior to a disconnection;” that the existing rule enlarges, modifies and contravenes the specific provisions of Sections 527.06 and 527.07, Florida Statutes, in that neither statutory provision requires or authorizes a 48-hour/two working day pre-disconnection notice to an LP gas tank or system owner”; that the existing rule is arbitrary and capricious in that the pre-disconnection notice requirement has no relation or connection to any health, safety or welfare concerns; and that the Rule does not promote the health, safety or welfare of the public and, therefore, cannot be supported by competent substantial evidence. Petitioner also alleges that application of the two working day notice requirement has an anti-competitive effect on the LP gas market. Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, pertains to disconnecting LP gas containers. No statute prohibits a person or gas company from disconnecting another gas company’s LP gas container. However, Section 527.07, Florida Statutes, prohibits a person or gas company from filling, refilling, using, or delivering another gas company’s LP gas container without authorization from the gas company that owns the container. Section 527.07, Florida Statutes, reads: No person, other than the owner and those authorized by the owner, shall sell, fill, refill, deliver, permit to be delivered, or use in any manner any liquefied petroleum gas container or receptacle for any gas or compound, or for any other purpose. Section 527.07, Florida Statutes, is one of the statutes implemented by Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, the other being Section 527.06, Florida Statutes. As a practical matter, when a gas customer wants to change LP gas companies, his new choice of companies cannot use his existing gas company’s LP gas container unless authorized by the existing company, which owns the installed container. So, if the customer does not own his own container5 and authorization to use the existing company’s container is not obtained, the existing container will have to be disconnected so the new company can install its own container. Section 527.07, Florida Statutes. When one gas company disconnects another gas company’s container in order to install its own container, it is called a “switch-out” or “changeover.” Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, determines when the disconnect notification must occur. When disconnected, a LP gas container is either empty (out-of-gas)6 or it contains LP gas. If the tank is empty, the tank owner must be notified within 24 hours after the empty tank has been disconnected. See Rule 5F-11.047(2), Florida Administrative Code. Thus, no advance notice is required when the customer is out-of-gas. However, if the existing container contains gas (hereinafter referred to as a “gas-filled container”),7 Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires the new, incoming gas company to give two working days advance notice to the existing gas company/tank owner that it intends to disconnect the existing container after two working days. Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, reads: No person, firm or corporation, other than the owner and those authorized by the owner, shall connect or disconnect any cylinder, tank, or system containing liquefied petroleum gas, except in an out- of-gas situation, unless due and sufficient notice has been given by any person, firm or corporation to the owners of any cylinder or tank, prior to disconnecting or connecting such cylinder, tank, or system. Due and sufficient notice shall be received by the owners at least two (2)working days prior to installing the cylinder, tank, or system of said person, firm, or corporation, and shall be evidenced by a signed receipt. Acceptable evidence of receipt of notification shall be a signed certified mail receipt, signed receipt of hand delivery or facsimile transmission receipt. If after two working days the cylinder, tank, or system has not been disconnected by the owner, the said person, firm or corporation may then disconnect downstream of the system regulator or meter. It shall be mandatory that the person, firm or corporation who so disconnects any such cylinder or tank, whether empty or full, upon the premises of a consumer, does so in a manner that renders the cylinder or tank tight with valves turned off, the cylinder or tank service valve plugged with brass or steel fittings, and all other cylinder, tank or system openings properly plugged. In addition, any cylinder, tank, or system disconnected must be done so in a manner that is in compliance with the requirements of NFPA 58. (Emphasis supplied). The advance notice requirement only applies to gas-filled containers. After receiving two working days notice, the existing company/tank owner has several options: 1) The tank owner/company can disconnect and remove its gas-filled container from the property within the two working days; 2) swap containers with the incoming company, exchanging the existing container with a similar container delivered to its storage yard by the incoming company; 3) sell the existing gas-filled container to the incoming company or the consumer; 4) coordinate a switch-out with the incoming company; or 5) if it knows and trusts the safety training of the incoming company’s personnel, it can authorize the incoming company to disconnect its tank and put it in an agreed-upon safe location at the customer property until it can be picked up in a reasonable time. Disconnecting a gas-filled container is an inherently dangerous activity even though the person doing the disconnect has been properly trained. If the existing gas-filled container is sold or swapped to the incoming gas company, the inherently dangerous disconnect is not required. By contrast, after a gas- filled container is disconnected it must be temporarily stored on the customer property if it is not immediately removed. As established by testimony of the Department’s safety expert even trained persons sometimes store gas-filled containers on customer property in an unsafe and improper manner. Even LP gas companies’ employees are known to violate the two working day notice requirement leaving another company’s gas-filled container, unplugged, unprotected hazardous, unsafe condition on the consumer’s property. The two working day notice requirement of Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides sufficient time for the two gas companies to work out the switch-out or terms of transfer. Less than two working days' notice would not be sufficient to promote the safe handling of LP gas and proper installation of LP gas equipment. The Department presented the testimony of a Suburban Propane (“Suburban”) employee, Tom Ross. Ross is Suburban’s Florida regional manager. Suburban is a multi-state marketer and is the third largest propane company in Florida. Suburban’s 29 Florida locations are licensed by the Department and serve 80,000 customers. Suburban has twice as many LP gas containers in the field in Florida as any other region due largely to the fact that Florida has a lot of small volume users. Ross testified that training of personnel to perform disconnect varies, some companies providing better training than others. Suburban prefers to disconnect its own gas-filled tanks primarily because it knows the training its employees have received, and has no idea what kind of training a competitor company’s personnel may have received. Ross testified that as it relates to Suburban, Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, promotes the safe handling of propane gas. The two working day notice requirement gives Suburban the opportunity to evaluate the safety/liability of the situation and the potential safety/liability involved in moving the tank. Safety/liability issues related to the disconnect and removal of the gas-filled tank may make it advantageous for the existing tank owner to negotiate a tank swap with the company taking over the account. In that circumstance, no disconnect is required. The Department presented the testimony of Mike Ivestor. Ivestor is the operations manager of Quality Propane in Havana, Florida, a small mom-and-pop, independent LP gas company. Ivestor knows his own employees have been properly trained, but he cannot be sure how well all his competitors train their employees. Ivestor has a good relationship with most, but not all, competitors in his market. There are some LP gas companies Ivestor would not want to disconnect his company’s tanks. In the past, competitor gas companies have disconnected Quality Propane tanks and left them on a customer's property in unsafe condition. Two working days allows Ivestor sufficient time to coordinate with the incoming gas company a time to disconnect his tank so as to not interfere with the new installation or disrupting service to the customer. If Ivestor knows the incoming company, he may authorize it to disconnect his gas-filled container and temporarily store it in an agreed-upon place at the customer property which Ivestor knows is safe. Ivestor is concerned about his company’s liability when he has no control over who, when, or how his gas-filled tank is disconnected and set aside. Petitioner and the Department stipulated that if one gas company disconnects another company’s gas-filled container and relocates it on the customer’s property, it creates liability for the owner of the container. Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, is a safety rule, not a rule that regulates competitiveness. Further, the two working days' notice promotes proper installation and transporting of LP gas equipment. Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, states that it implements Section 527.06, Florida Statutes. The Florida Legislature provided in Section 527.06(1), Florida Statutes, that: The department may adopt rules necessary to effectuate any of the statutory duties of the department in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare and to promote the safe handling of liquefied petroleum gas and proper installation, storing, selling, utilizing, transporting, servicing, testing, repairing, and maintaining of liquefied petroleum gas equipment and systems. The department shall adopt rules reasonably necessary to assure the competence of persons to safely engage in the business of liquefied petroleum gas, including, but not limited to, the licensure, testing, and qualifying of such persons for the protection of the health, welfare, and safety of the public and persons using such materials. These rules shall be in substantial conformity with generally accepted standards of safety concerning the same subject matter and shall not extend, modify, or conflict with any laws of this state or the reasonable implications of such laws.” The Florida Legislature also provided in Section 527.06(2), Florida Statutes that: (2) The department shall promulgate and enforce rules setting forth minimum general standards covering the design, construction, location, installation, and operation of equipment for storing; handling; transporting by tank truck, tank trailer, or pipeline; and utilizing liquefied petroleum gases and specifying the odorization of such gases and the degree thereof. The rules shall be such as are reasonably necessary for the protection of the health, welfare, and safety of the public and persons using such materials and shall be in substantial conformity with the generally accepted standards of safety concerning the same subject matter. Petitioner and the Department each presented testimony of Vicki O’Neil in their respective case-in-chief. Ms. O’Neil has been Bureau Chief of the Bureau of LP Gas Inspection since August 1994. She oversees Bureau licensing, training, investigations, examinations, and the marketing assessment program. Ms. O’Neil testified that the Department’s interpretation of Section 527.06(1), Florida Statutes, is that the Department may take reasonable steps necessary to ensure the public’s safety through the rule-making process, and that the safe handling of LP gas is in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. This has been the Department’s interpretation of Section 527.06, Florida Statutes, since 1994 when responsibility for LP gas regulation was transferred from the DOI to the Department, along with Ms. O’Neil. As established by Ms. O’Neil's testimony, the Department’s policy is that proper installation, storing, selling, utilizing, transporting, servicing, testing, repairing, and maintaining of LP gas equipment and systems is in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare and that Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, is an exercise of the Department’s power and duty to promote those public interests. The Department’s policy is that Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, is a safety rule necessary to promote the safe handling of LP gas. Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, is a safety rule, which is in substantial conformity with the published standards of the National Fire Protection Association and is also in substantial conformity with generally accepted standards of safety. As a result of the two working day notice requirement, the incoming and outgoing LP gas companies can dialogue about the proposed disconnection, repairs, safety, or hazardous conditions that might exist. The dialogue may also result in the two companies swapping tanks; thus, the inherently dangerous process of disconnecting the tank is avoided altogether. In light of recent terrorist events in this country, law enforcement has taken a heightened interest in LP gas and gas-filled LP gas containers. Security bulletins from various federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Transportation, show the potential for terrorist groups to target commercial LP gas tanks and hazardous material storage facilities. There is a potential for theft of even small quantities of these materials for the purpose of making weapons of mass destruction. Each Category I LP gas dealer must have one “master qualifier” at each business location. Each Category I LP gas dealer must also have one “qualifier” for each 10 employees performing LP gas work. A gas company employee does not have to be a qualifier or a master qualifier to connect or disconnect LP gas containers for the company. Any gas company employee can disconnect gas-filled containers if he or she has been trained by the gas company to do so. These employees are not required to receive training or testing from the Department. The gas company must only document employee training in their company files. The Department generally does not know if a company employee is actually performing disconnects correctly or not, nor whether the employee has ever been disciplined by the employer for safety violations. The quality of employee training varies from company to company. For this reason, some LP gas companies prefer to have their own trained employees disconnect their tanks. Even though companies train their employees, some have been known to leave disconnected gas-filled containers in unsafe, hazardous condition on a customer’s property. As established by testimony of Ernest Barany, an employee of the Department within the Department’s Bureau of LP Gas Inspection for seven years and current supervisor of the Department’s LP gas inspectors, the Rule’s two working day notice requirement applies to LP gas containers in residential and commercial locations, LP gas dispensers, and containers installed in school facilities. Further, the two working day notice requirement of the Rule promotes public safety and the safe handling of LP gas. The two working day notice requirement of the Rule promotes the proper installation, storage, selling, and transporting of LP gas equipment. A customer’s existing gas company usually has superior knowledge of safety conditions at the LP gas installation because it installed the container and/or the entire LP gas system; has been delivering LP gas into the container; has maintained and/or repaired the system; and knows about any "red-tag" situations that exist on the LP gas system. In the LP gas industry, a red tag is a warning of an unsafe or hazardous condition in a LP gas system. The red tag is a paper tag hung by a wire from the tank cover or an appliance or other system component to warn all persons who see it that there is a problem or unsafe condition in the system. A gas company/tank owner will red-tag its LP gas container, appliance, or other system component when a temporary repair has been made or when the gas company knows of a defect in the system. A common temporary repair requiring a red tag is when the on-and-off valve leaks gas that can be detected at the threads between the handle and the body of the valve. The leak can be temporarily stopped by fully opening the valve and then with hand pressure turning the valve counterclockwise a little harder. A red tag would then be put on the tank saying "don’t refill until a permanent repair is made." Next, when the tank goes empty the repair can either be made on site or by changing the container on a scheduled basis. Customers sometimes remove a red tag after it is placed on the system by the current gas company. If the red tag is removed, the new, incoming LP gas company coming to disconnect the gas-filled container would not be aware that the system has a problem, defect, or temporary repair unless the existing gas company/tank owner has informed them. Accidents have occurred because customers have removed red tags without the knowledge of the gas company. The two working day notice requirement allows the existing company to address safety matters that are unknown to the incoming company, thus promoting a safe transfer of gas service. A switch-out or changeover requires more that just safely disconnecting the gas-filled container. If a gas company does not disconnect and remove its own gas-filled container, the gas-filled container must be disconnected and temporarily stored on the consumer’s property by the new incoming company. A disconnected gas-filled container is more dangerous than a disconnected empty container. Gas-filled containers temporarily stored on the customer’s property present a variety of safety concerns. If a gas-filled cylinder is disconnected and stored on its side at the customer location, liquid propane coming into contact with the safety valve can cause the valve to fail and leak. A gas filled cylinder can fall over creating a hazardous situation if it is punctured, or falls, and begins to roll or hits a person or vehicle. Failure to comply with Rule 5F-11.047(1), has resulted in at least one fatality in Florida because the tank was stored improperly on the customer property. Sometimes there is no safe place to temporarily store a gas-filled container on the customer property. In metropolitan markets there are unique safety concerns requiring that a gas-filled container be removed immediately upon disconnection. In some metropolitan areas there are limited property lines on residential tanks, underground tanks, commercial tanks that are stacked up behind strip malls with no place to move them, and tanks that are installed around schools or parks that could be tampered with by children. Without advance notice the tank owner cannot address these safe/liability concerns and responsibility for mishaps fall squarely on him. The two working day notice requirement gives the tank owner time to review customer records, evaluate the situation, and coordinate the disconnection and removal of its gas-filled tank. Sometimes the terrain makes safe temporary storage impossible or immediate removal of the tank required. In flood plain areas, local ordinances require the container to be chained or bolted down or bracketed to a wall. Vehicular traffic conditions at some locations require that a gas-filled container be protected behind a barrier. If the location requires that the new container be installed behind the existing barrier, the disconnected gas-filled container may end up stored in an un-barricaded area. The gas company that owns the existing installed container, has an investment in it, has serviced the customer location, and often will know whether or not there is a safe place to temporarily store the disconnected gas-filled container on the property. Two days' advance notice allows the existing gas company time to assess the safety situation unique to a customer location, thus promoting a safe transfer of gas service. Some LP gas containers are buried underground and must be excavated so the incoming gas company can install its own container underground. A crane, back-hoe, or other special equipment may be required to unearth and move the tank. The existing tank owner may also have to locate existing utilities and obtain governmental authorization or permits to excavate the tank. Some localities require the tank owner to notify local fire or building officials or apply for permits to move the container. If the tank is buried, other buried utilities on the property must be located before excavation. A gas-filled container sometimes must have the gas pumped out of it before the tank can be transported on Florida roads. This usually requires special equipment and two different kinds of trucks. The existing tank owner also has to schedule his employees to do the work. The Rule gives the tank owner the time to work out the logistics and scheduling of equipment to draw the gas out of the tank before it can be transported from the consumer’s property. In 1958, Florida’s tank disconnect rule was called LP Gas Regulation 11, of the Fire Marshall’s rules. LP Gas Regulation 11, Circa 1958 reads: No person, firm or corporation, other than the owner and those authorized by the owner so to do, shall connect or disconnect or transport or carry any means of conveyance whatsoever, any cylinder or tank containing Liquefied Petroleum Gas, whether in the liquid or vapor state. Thus, in 1958 all disconnects were prohibited unless authorized by the tank owner. A tank owner could monopolize a customer’s LP gas system by simply withholding authorization for the disconnect. The Insurance Commissioner at the time asked for an opinion from the Attorney General because he was troubled that a natural gas supplier was disconnecting LP gas containers without authorization from the owner. Voicing public safety concerns, the Attorney General opined that: Serious problems of public safety are involved in the disconnecting of L.P. gas cylinders and tanks and the above rule has its legitimate purpose in insuring public safety. I am of the opinion that this regulation can be legitimately enforced against the private utility in question, however, it must be applied in terms of public safety and not in such a manner as will unreasonably restrict competition. Acknowledging the serious public safety concerns related to LP gas tank disconnections, Attorney General Ervin also saw the potential evil of construing Regulation 11 to prohibit tank disconnections “under any circumstances.” “Advanced reasonable notice” was the cure. Attorney General Ervin opined: Said rule should not be construed to prohibit the private utility from disconnecting the L.P. gas tanks and cylinder under any circumstances. If after reasonable notice to the LP gas dealer said dealer does not disconnect his cylinders or tanks, the private utility should be permitted to disconnect them if it does so in a manner which leaves the tanks or cylinders in a safe condition. If the private utility should persist in failing to give reasonable notice and in leaving the tanks and cylinders in an unsafe condition, the State Fire Marshal may hold a hearing . . . and issue a cease and desist order. Subsequent to the Attorney General’s July 3, 1958, Opinion, on February 27, 1959, Regulation 11 was amended after Public Hearing. The revised, adopted Regulation 11 provided for “due and sufficient” notice to the tank owner prior to disconnecting his tank. Thus, in similar fashion to Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, if the notified tank owner did not disconnect his tank after a reasonable time, the tank could be disconnected by the company desiring to install its own tank.
Findings Of Fact Friends of Lloyd, Inc. is a Florida non-profit corporation formed for the purpose of protecting Jefferson County from harmful development. The Council of Neighborhood Associations of Tallahassee/Leon County (CONA) is a non- profit Florida corporation whose members are the neighborhood associations in Leon county; members of those associations reside in 42 Leon County neighborhoods dispersed throughout Leon County. CONA's purposes and goals include protection of the quality of life and environment in Leon County. The Thomasville Road Association's members are principally residents of Leon County. The Association was formed to promote responsible growth management in northern Leon County. None of the Petitioners are owners or "developers" of a Development of Regional Impact within the terms or scope of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Rather, Petitioners are members of non-profit organizations interested in the environment and growth management of Leon County. The Department of Community Affairs (the "Department") is the state land planning agency with the power and duty to administer and enforce Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Sections 380.031(18), and 380.032(1), Florida Statutes (1987). Texaco is a business entity that proposes to develop a "tank farm" near the community of Lloyd in Jefferson County, Florida. The Texaco tank farm is a "petroleum storage facility" as that term is used in Rule 28-24.021, F.A.C. Colonial is a business entity that proposes to develop a petroleum pipeline that will connect to the Texaco tank farm. The pipeline is designed to carry and contain petroleum products For purposes of standing, the parties have stipulated that certain environmental hazards can reasonably be expected to occur as a result of the existence of the pipeline/tank farm. No competent evidence was submitted regarding those hazards. As a result of the stipulation, Petitioners have each established injury-in-fact so that they are "adversely affected" by the challenged rule to an extent sufficient to confer upon them standing to maintain this action under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. On September 7, 1989, one of the Petitioners sent Respondent a letter suggesting that the proposed tank farm development to be built in Jefferson County should be required to undergo review as a DRI. Enclosed with the letter was a proposed circuit court complaint pursuant to Section 403.412(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioner expressed its intention of filing this circuit court action, but first provided Respondent a copy of the proposed complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.412, Florida Statutes. In two letters dated September 8 and 25, 1989, Petitioner supplied additional information to Respondent concerning the tank farm project and contended that in making its determination as to whether the development must undergo DRI review, Respondent should consider the storage capacity of both the tank farm and the pipeline. On October 9, 1989, Respondent answered Petitioner's first letter, and stated that the proposed project was not required to undergo DRI review because the total storage capacity of the tanks was only seventy-eight percent (78%) of the threshold set out in Chapter 28-24, F.A.C. On October 13, 1989, Respondent answered Petitioner's second and third letters, stating that with respect to the pipeline, it has been long standing departmental policy to interpret "storage facilities" as meaning only the tanks, not the pipeline, when determining whether petroleum storage facilities meet the DRI thresholds set out in Chapter 28-24. The proposed tank farm would have nine tanks with a total capacity of 155,964 barrels, which is, as Respondent determined in its letters, approximately seventy-eight percent (78%) of the applicable DRI threshold for "petroleum storage facilities" set forth in Chapter 28-24, F.A.C. The proposed pipeline's capacity over its approximate forty-five mile length from Bainbridge, Georgia to the tank farm is approximately 34,000 barrels. The proposed pipeline's volume flow capacity from the Florida/Georgia state line to the site of the prosed tank farm is approximately 13,500 barrels over approximately 18 miles. If the pipeline's volume capacity from Bainbridge, Georgia is added to the tank farm's volume capacity, the resulting project would be approximately ninety-five percent (95%) of the applicable DRI threshold in Chapter 28-24. If the pipeline's volume capacity from the state line is added to the tank farm's volume capacity, the resulting project would be approximately eighty-five percent (85%) of the threshold. In either instance, the project would exceed the eighty percent (80%) threshold that may require it to undergo DRI review although the project would be Presumed not to be a DRI under the Statute. The Department does not require developments outside Chapter 28-24's enumeration to undergo DRI review. The Department has never treated petroleum Pipelines as "petroleum storage facilities," or as otherwise subject to DRI review. On Several occasions, the Department has applied the petroleum storage facility guideline and standard to petroleum tank farms without determining whether a pipeline was attached to the tank farm. On one prior occasion, the Department has explicitly stated that Petroleum Pipelines are not subject to DRI review. The Petitioners contend that Department's Position that pipelines are not "petroleum storage facilities" is an invalid policy because it has not been adopted as a rule. There is no dispute the Department's Position on this issue has not been promulgated as a rule. If a facility were represented to be a Petroleum pipeline, but was actually designed as and operating as a petroleum storage facility, the Department would apply the Petroleum storage facility DRI guideline and standard to that facility.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should correct a health violation and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule and statute, as alleged in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 22, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves an allegation that Respondent, Steve DeLuca, violated an agency regulation and statute by making repairs to a drainfield on property located at 1444 East New York Avenue, Deland, Florida, without obtaining the necessary permits from the Volusia County Department of Health (Health Department). That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner, Department of Health (Department). Respondent denies the charge and, as clarified for the first time at hearing, contends that the repairs were minor in nature and thus did not require a permit, no authorization was given to the excavation firm which performed the repairs, and the Citation was not issued to the actual owner of the property. On October 29, 1999, William N. VanderLugt (Vanderlugt), a Health Department environmental specialist, received a complaint regarding a septic tank repair being undertaken at 1430 East New York Avenue, Deland, Florida. During the course of inspecting that property, Vanderlugt observed excavation activities on the drainfield located next door at 1444 East New York Avenue. More specifically, Vanderlugt observed an area in the back yard approximately 6 feet by 20 feet in size which had been recently excavated and a large pile of sand nearby. In the excavated site, he saw a rock bed of the size commonly used in drainfields, "clean" and "newly installed" rocks, and a "black paper" covering a part of the rocks. Therefore, he concluded that the excavating firm had just installed a new rock drainfield. This type of activity constitutes a repair to an existing drainfield and requires that such work be performed by a licensed septic tank contractor. It also requires that appropriate permits be obtained from the Health Department. Although Respondent contended that the work was merely to correct a "minor structural flaw" which would not require a permit, Vanderlugt's testimony is more persuasive on this issue, and it is found that a more substantial repair to the drainfield was made. Further inquiry by Vanderlugt revealed that no permits had been obtained for the repair of a drainfield from the Health Department by the excavating company, Collier Enterprises. After a brief conversation with a Collier Enterprises employee, the substance of which is hearsay in nature and cannot be used, Vanderlugt visited the offices of Delco Oil Company and spoke with Respondent, who is employed by that firm. In doing so, Vanderlugt was under the impression that Respondent owned the property in question. During his brief conversation with Repondent, Vanderlugt pointed out that he had to issue a citation because no permit had been obtained for the work at the property in question. DeLuca responded with words to the effect that "they [Collier Enterprises] broke a pipe and they fixed what they broke." Apparently, there was no discussion as to whether Respondent or someone else actually owned the property. Vanderlugt returned to the property in question and performed a second inspection on November 3, 1999. Because no permits had been obtained by that date, and the drainfield site had been covered, a recommendation for a citation was prepared by Vanderlugt. A Citation for Violation was later issued by the Department on December 22, 1999, alleging that Respondent had failed to obtain permits before making a drainfield repair. The Citation was delivered to Respondent at Delco Oil Company. Because Collier Enterprises was not licensed to perform the work, it was given a first violation "warning" letter by the Health Department, as required by a Department rule. During later meetings with Respondent and others, Vanderlugt learned that the actual owner of the property in question was Deluca Properties, Inc., and not Steve DeLuca. For some reason, however, the Department declined to amend its citation and charge the actual owner with the alleged violation. Although Petitioner asserted at hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order that Respondent is the owner's registered agent, there is no competent evidence of record to support this assertion. According to the general manager of Delco Oil Company, which is apparently owned by Steve Deluca and others, no permission was given to the excavating company to make any repairs. Indeed, Deluca Properties, Inc. has a licensed septic tank contractor who makes all septic tank repairs, when needed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Christopher R. Ditslear, Esquire Post Office Box 41 Deland, Florida 32721-0041 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Did the site in question fail to meet monitoring and retrofitting requirements within the schedules established under Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, and thereby not be eligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program?
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 was enacted as Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, and codified primarily in Section 376. 071, Florida Statutes. It provides for the expeditious cleanup of property contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum product. As part of the SUPER Act, the legislature created the program which is of direct relevance in this litigation. The EDI Program, Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes,, provides for state cleanups of sites contaminated as a result of a discharge from a petroleum storage system. Petitioner now owns and operates a facility at Route 1, Box 167 Jay, Florida. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The facility contains two underground petroleum storage tanks which were installed on or before 1970. (T8, 9). Monitoring wells were installed for the tanks in December, 1988. (T7). Monitoring wells are pipes which are installed in the ground around a tank excavation to allow for detection of leaks from the tanks. (T8).
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the site owned by Petitioner be determined to be ineligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program, pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-15SO (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Mr. Thomas L. MCNAUGHTON MCNAUGHTON's Store Route 1 Jay, FL 32565 Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Are test results skewed by the use of sample bottles containing residue from earlier samples?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services took unleaded gasoline samples from the Union Service Station No. 166191 located on US Highway 29 North in Century, Florida. The petroleum products provided this station were supplied by Northrop Oil Company, Inc., whose president is James W. Ash. The Department analyzed the samples taken in its mobile laboratory. The unleaded gasoline samples were found to have an elevated End Point, i.e. the maximum boiling point allowed by the rules of the Department for unleaded gasoline, which is 437 degrees Fahrenheit. Sample No. 1 had an End Point of 482 degrees Fahrenheit, and Sample No. 2 had an End Point of 464 degrees Fahrenheit. 4 The elevated End Point means that the samples contained contaminants in excess of the amounts permitted by the Department's rules. A Stop Sale Notice was issued by the Department. A bond of $1,000 was paid by Petitioner in lieu of confiscation of the remaining unleaded gasoline and as a precedent for the formal hearing. Petitioner requested and received a formal hearing. It was agreed that the contaminant did not contain lead and was most probably diesel fuel or kerosene. Mr. Ash testified concerning deliveries to the station in question and other deliveries made by the same truck. On the Monday the samples were taken, the gasoline transport delivered unleaded gasoline to Davis' Grocery, the Union Service Station, and Ross', in that order. The Department also tested the unleaded gasoline at Davis' and Ross' but found no contaminants in their unleaded gasoline tanks. On the preceding Friday, the truck delivered unleaded gasoline to the Union Service Station and two Alabama stations. The Alabama authorities checked the unleaded gasoline at those stations and found no contaminants; however, Mr. Ash did not know how much additional gasoline had been delivered to those stations before their testing. The Union Service Station in question keeps its unleaded gasoline tanks locked, and its diesel fuel tank is located on the opposite side of the station. Petitioner uses separate trucks to deliver diesel fuel and gasoline and does not mix loads. It would have been highly unlikely that the diesel truck driver and the station's operators would have permitted the introduction of diesel fuel into the unleaded gasoline storage tanks. The percentage of contaminant necessary to raise the End Point the amount it was raised in this instance would have been three to five percent of the total volume. The sample bottles used by the Department are approximately the size of a quart milk bottle. The inspector separates the bottles he uses to take diesel fuel samples from those he uses to take gasoline samples. He stores the bottles upside dawn. This was the procedure he followed in taking the samples involved in this case. Tests conducted by the Department to determine the effects of residue in sample bottles indicated that the residue from earlier samples is an insignificant factor in elevating the End Point test results. An inverted sample bottle could not retain the three-to-five percent of the bottle's total volume necessary to raise the test, results of the samples in question approximately 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The contaminant was not introduced into the samples from the bottles used to take the samples. The Department calculated that 570 gallons of contaminated unleaded gasoline were sold at $1.40 per gallon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends release of the contaminated fuel in question and return of the $1,000 bond by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services upon payment by Petitioner to the Department of $722.84. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James W. Ash, President Northrop Oil Company, Inc. c/o Union Service Station US Highway 29 North Century, Florida 32535 Leslie McLeod, Jr., Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
