The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program (FPLIRP) coverage for petroleum discharges on March 10, 1992 and June 22, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Realadyne is a Florida corporation. The current president of Realadyne is Mary J. Martin. Realadyne was the owner and operator of a facility located at 4846 4th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida (Save-A-Step Food Store #7) (the "Facility"). The Facility was registered with the Department and was assigned DER Facility No. 52-8624627. The underground petroleum storage system located at the Facility included five underground petroleum storage tanks - four 4,000 gallon tanks and one 10,000 gallon tank. The date(s) that the tanks were installed at the Facility is unknown. At all times material, the Department has delegated to Pinellas County the authority to perform certain types of inspections with regard to underground petroleum storage systems. These inspections are performed by the Pinellas County Public Health Unit ("PCPHU"). Realadyne filed three (3) individual applications for eligibility for restoration coverage under FPLIRP for the Facility for petroleum discharges reported July 30, 1990, March 10, 1992, and June 22, 1992. The applications were all denied by the Department, for reasons articulated by the Department in individual responses to each application all dated September 3, 1993. Realadyne applied for FPLIRP coverage on or about July 25, 1991. Realadyne obtained FPLIRP coverage for the Facility for the period of October 7, 1991 to October 7, 1992. The July 30, 1990 discharge is not eligible for restoration coverage since it occurred outside the FPLIRP coverage period (prior to October 7, 1991). The parties have reviewed the grounds for FPLIRP restoration coverage ineligibility. The parties stipulate and agree that the sole remaining basis for a determination of ineligibility is the following: Failure to upgrade petroleum storage system in accordance to the schedule required by Section 17-761.510(6), F.A.C. The parties also stipulate and agree that if either discharge from the Facility shall be determined eligible for FPLIRP restoration coverage, then the Facility shall be eligible for reimbursement under the restoration program. Under the aforementioned regulations, the petroleum storage system at the Facility was required to be retrofitted on or before December 31, 1989. On July 13, 1990, a PCPHU Inspector (Arthur Caden) performed a compliance inspection at the Facility. A Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form was prepared by the Inspector and a copy of the report was provided to Ms. Martin. On July 19, 1990, Ms. Martin had a phone conversation with Moghadam regarding the Facility. As noted, Moghadam's job duties included review of alternative procedure requests under Rule 17-761.850, Florida Administrative Code. As a result of the phone conversation, Martin sent correspondence to John Svec, an employee with the Department's Bureau of Waste Cleanup. The referenced letter requested the Department to grant an "alternate technical proceedings to be able to apply for FDER/FPLIRP" (the "Proceeding"). The July 19, 1990 letter signed by Martin provided in part: The above facility has not been in compliance for over a year, due to company not being able to afford or support a loan for the removal of and replacement of the tanks. By correspondence dated July 25, 1990, the PCPHU directed Petitioner to file a Discharge Notification Form (DNF) concerning a potential discharge of petroleum product. On August 1, 1990, Ms. Martin met with the PCPHU inspector concerning the results of the compliance inspection conducted on July 13, 1990. At that time, PCPHU informed Ms. Martin that "she had to . . . line/replace the old tanks which are unknown as to date of installation." On August 1, 1990, Petitioner filed a DNF with the PCHPU concerning a potential discharge of petroleum product. On or about September 12, 1990, the PCHPU sent Petitioner a Warning Letter concerning the issue of whether Petitioner intended to reline or replace the underground storage tanks. On September 25, 1990, Petitioner provided PCPHU with a copy of a contract proposal for removal and replacement of the underground storage tanks. The contract proposal was from Adams Tank and Lift dated September 4, 1990. Attached to the proposal was a "SNAP-A-GRAM" signed by Ms. Martin which provides in part: Regarding the above facility please be advised that I should be able to give you a date as to when the work will be started the first week of October. I am enclosing a copy of a proposal from Adams Tank and Lift of work to be done at this location. The work contemplated under the proposal from Adams Tank was never performed. On June 5, 1991, a PCPHU Inspector (Joyce Welch) performed a compliance inspection at the facility. A Pollutant Storage Tank Inspection Report Form was prepared by the Inspector and a copy of the report was provided to Ms. Martin. On or about July 8, 1991, the PCPHU sent Petitioner a Warning Notice concerning the DNF that Petitioner filed on July 30, 1990. On July 8, 1991, PCPHU sent Petitioner another warning letter concerning the DNF which Petitioner filed on August 1, 1990. The warning letter provided in part: On August 1, 1990, this agency received a discharge notification form with a discovery date of June 1990. The discovery was based upon the manual sampling of a monitor well. A routine compliance inspection on July 13, 1990 verified the presence of free product in well number 3. Said free products present in the groundwater confirms your site has excessively contaminated as defined in . . . Chapter 17-770. You are instructed to initiate a contamination assessment report (CAR) in accordance with . . . Chapter 17-770 within thirty days of receipt of this letter to determine the extent of contamination. On or about July 19, 1991, Ms. Martin had a phone conversation with Mr. Moghadam. The July 19 letter, which was received by the Department on or around July 22, 1991, requested that the Department grant "alternate technical proceedings to be able to apply for FDER/FPLIRP." (the "Proceeding") Petitioner requested the Proceeding in an effort to bring the Facility into compliance with applicable underground storage tank regulations. After filing the Proceeding, Petitioner applied for FPLIRP coverage on July 25, 1991. The Department never responded, in writing, to the request for the "Proceeding". On February 11, 1992, PCPHU performed another compliance inspection at the facility. On February 17, 1992, PCPHU sent Petitioner a Final Non- Compliance letter concerning the results of the inspection conducted on February 11, 1992. The above-referenced PCPHU noncompliance letter provides in part: Storage tanks do not meet storage tank standards. Please upgrade tanks to meet applicable storage tank standards. On March 10, 1992, Petitioner filed a second DNF for the Facility, based upon evidence of a discharge discovered while inspecting and repairing a portion of the storage tank system. On June 22, 1992, Petitioner began closure activities with regard to removal of the underground petroleum system. On that date, Petitioner filed a third DNF based on evidence of a discharge discovered during its closure activities. On June 23, 1992, Petitioner concluded closure activities with regard to removal of the underground petroleum storage system. Petitioner was not required to obtain the Department's approval of an alternate procedure as a condition precedent to the removal of the underground storage tanks. Removal of the tanks would have brought Petitioner into compliance with the requirements of Rule 17-761, Florida Administrative Code. On or about September 12, 1992, after the tanks were removed, PCPHU sent Petitioner a warning letter concerning the issue of whether Petitioner intended to reline or replace the underground storage tanks. The warning letter provided in part: . . . Chapter 17-61.061(1)(b)2, requires all tanks to be lined or replaced before certain dates. In the case of your facility, since the installation date is unknown, you are required to have the tanks relined or replaced by December 31, 1989. You were previously advised of this violation during an inspection by one of our staff, Arthur L. Caden, on July 13, 1990, and by letter dated July 25, 1990. You requested and obtained a meeting with our staff on August 1, 1990 at which time you were directed to submit a discharge notification form (DNF), and to advise this office whether you would reline or replace the tanks. The DNF had been filed, but staff has not been formally advised of your decision regarding the tanks. Therefore, since you have not responded formally to this office, we have no alternative than to advise you that we will proceed with an appropriate enforcement action if you ignore this letter of warning. Please be advised that the subject tanks shall be relined or replaced no later than November 30, 1992. Petitioner's request for the "proceeding" seeks an after-the-fact "exception" to the retrofit requirements of Rule 17-761.510, Florida Administrative Code. The basis for Petitioner's request for an exception is "financial inability". When Petitioner's request for a "proceeding" was filed, the Department had a policy of not proceeding with the review of any request for an alternative technical procedure if the facility submitting the request was then out of compliance with the retrofitting requirements of Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code. The request for a "proceeding" was not a viable procedure to extend the December 31, 1989 retrofitting deadline even assuming the request otherwise complied with Rule 17-761.850, Florida Administrative Code. Likewise, the Department lacked authority to extend the December 1989 retrofitting deadline. The Department received Petitioner's application for FLIRP coverage on July 29, 1991, approximately three days after the Department received Petitioner's request for the "Proceeding". 1/ On July 26, 1991, Ms. Martin executed a FLIRP affidavit on behalf of Petitioner as part of its application for coverage under FLIRP. The introductory portion of the FLIRP affidavit provides in part: In order to be eligible for the. . . restoration program, a facility owner or operator must sign this affidavit to affirm that the facility is in compliance with the Department's storage tank rules. . . and Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and that he/she has read and is familiar with these rules and statutes. The attestation portion of Petitioner's FLIRP affidavit, as executed by Ms. Martin, provides in part: The petroleum storage systems, as defined under Chapter 376.301, Florida Statutes, located at the facilities listed on the application, are now in compliance and shall maintain compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 376.303, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-761. . . including, but not limited to, those provisions: * * * (b) The installation, maintenance and repair of new and existing underground petroleum storage system; * * * (e) Notification of sale, abandonment, replacement or upgrading of petroleum storage systems. The attestation portion of Petitioner's FLIRP affidavit, as executed by Martin, also provides in part: I, Realadyne, Inc. have read Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Rule 17-761 and the facility or facilities listed on the attached application meet the requirements for the participa- tion in the Florida Petroleum liability insurance and restoration program as described in Chapter 376.3072, Florida Statutes. In executing the affidavit, Ms. Martin knew, or should have known, that the facility was not in compliance with the Department's applicable storage tank regulations. On December 4, 1991, Petitioner contacted the Department, via telecommunique, concerning its request for the "proceeding" to apply for FDER/FPLIPA. At that time, the Department informed Petitioner that the Department would not proceed with the review of the request of an alternate technical proceeding because the facility was already out of compliance with applicable retrofitting requirements. On that day, Petitioner informed the Department that it could not afford to have the underground storage tanks removed. At that time, the Department requested that Petitioner take the tank out of service, pending a decision by it as to whether the tanks would be removed and/or replaced. Also, the Department requested that Petitioner provide it with an updated storage tanks registration form reflecting that the tanks had been taken from service. Petitioner informed the Department that the underground storage tanks would be taken out of service, pending its decision whether it would remove or replace the tanks. Petitioner also agreed, at that time, to provide the Department with an updated storage tank registration form reflecting that the tanks had, in fact, been removed or taken out of service. The Department requested that the tanks be taken out of service to minimize the potential for a discharge of a petroleum product. If Petitioner had taken the underground tanks out of service as requested (and as agreed), the facility would have been in compliance with the requirements of Rule 17-761.510, Florida Administrative Code. On September 11, 1991, PCPHU sent Petitioner another warning letter concerning its failure to comply with the retrofitting requirement. The above-referenced warning notice provides in part: On July 13, 1990, agency personnel inspected your storage tank facility for compliance with Florida's tank regulations and violations were noted. Then on July 25, 1990, this office sent you a letter requesting that you provide the Division with a written explanation of your failure to comply with F.A.C. Chapter 17-61, and to proceed with certain steps. This agency has received no response from your company. On September 25, 1991, the Department contacted Petitioner, by phone, concerning the request for an alternate technical proceeding. During the course of the conversation, Petitioner indicated that it had scheduled a meeting with PCPHU concerning the removal and/or replacement of the tanks. On September 25, 1991, the Department requested that Petitioner provide it with an updated registration form reflecting that the tanks had been taken out of service. On that date, Petitioner agreed to provide the registration form reflecting that the tanks had been taken out of service. On September 30, 1991, the Department again contacted Petitioner concerning its request for an alternate proceeding. At that time, the Department again requested the updated registration form reflecting the tanks had been taken out of service. On that date, Petitioner telecopied the Department a letter and a copy of a contract proposal from UST Engineering for the relining of the underground storage tanks. The contract was dated June 28, 1991, and was signed by Martin on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner's letter dated September 30, 1991, to the Department was also signed by Martin. The above-referenced letter provides in part: "UST has assured me they will be able to complete the work before the first of the year." The document submitted by Petitioner to the Department on September 30, 1991, included a copy of a check issued by Petitioner made payable to UST Corrosion Engineering. The work contemplated under the UST contract proposal was never performed. Petitioner did not inform the Department of its decision not to have the work performed. A release of petroleum product occurred prior to removal of the petroleum storage system. Petitioner failed to comply with the retrofitting requirements set forth under Rule 17-761.510, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner continued to sell petroleum products until mid June, 1992.
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 denying Petitioner's application for restoration coverage under the Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of December, 1994. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Since 1984, the Department has been the state agency charged with the responsibility to establish rules and regulate underground pollutant storage facilities in Florida. In 1988, the Legislature added the administration of the newly enacted Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program to the Department's duties. The program was to be established on or before January 1, 1989. The Applicant is the owner of a petroleum storage system in Jacksonville, Florida. Since 1984, it has been subject to the rules regarding underground pollutant storage facilities promulgated by the Department. On September 18, 1989, an odor indicative of possible petroleum contamination was discovered at the site during the installation of monitoring wells. A Discharge Notification Form was sent to the Department by the Applicant on October 23, 1989. The form advised that there were no leaks in the system. It was suggested that the odor may have resulted from surface spill at the site over a number of years. In response to the notification, an inspection of the site was completed by the Department on December 5, 1989. The inspection revealed the following on-site violations: Registration requirements were not being met. The forms had not been updated to include the presence of monitoring wells and overfill protection at the facility. Two underground tanks had not been properly abandoned. Inventory and reconciliation records had not been properly maintained, as required by rule since 1987. This violation was reviewed, and discussed in detail with on-site representatives of the Applicant. The monitoring wells were not installed by the time deadlines set forth in the Department's rules regarding stationary tanks. Since the wells were installed in September 1989, samples had not been taken for visual signs of petroleum contamination. The purpose of the system is to allow the owner of the storage tanks to learn if there is a leak in the tanks that can be quickly controlled to limit contamination. The day after the inspection, the Applicant applied for a determination of eligibility for participation in the restoration coverage portion of the new Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Liability Program. An affidavit was signed stating that all of the Department's rules regarding stationary tanks were being complied with by the Applicant. Six days after the inspection, the Department sent the Applicant written notice of the results of the inspection. The Applicant was given time frames and instructions for correcting the listed violations that could be corrected. A contamination assessment and clean up were also required in the letter. This letter did not address the issue of eligibility for the restoration funding program because that was a matter unrelated to the inspection results. On March 7, 1990, the Department determined the facility was ineligible for participation in the restoration funding provided by the Florida Petroleum Liability and Coverage Program. The following reasons were given: Failure to properly abandon underground storage tanks, pursuant to Section 17-61.050(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to maintain inventory records, reconciliations, and significant loss/gain investigation as per Section 17-61.050(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to install monitoring system and overfill protection by the dates set forth in Section 17-61.06(2)(c)2, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to properly monitor leak detection system, pursuant to Section 17-61.050(5)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The 10,000 gallon fuel oil tank and the 3,000 gallon waste oil tank present at the facility were abandoned in March 1990. The notice issued by the Department after its inspection in December 1989, gave the Applicant sixty days after receipt of the notice to properly abandon the tanks. The Applicant substantially complied with this requirement after the written notice was received. Although the Applicant failed to maintain the inventory records, reconciliations, and significant loss/gain investigations required by the Department rules, some of these violations had been corrected prior to the Department's inspection in December 1989. Correct inventory recordkeeping was discussed during the inspection, and the need to immediately implement the proper recordkeeping practices was emphasized in the post-inspection notice of violations. All of the recordkeeping violations were not cured until August 1990. The records kept by the Applicant during the noncompliance period from 1984 to August 1990, did not provide a substantially equivalent degree of information regarding possible leak detection or prohibited discharges as the required recordkeeping procedures. Two underground stationary storage tanks on the site have been part of the Applicant's petroleum storage system since 1970 and 1975, respectively. The monitoring wells and overfill protection for these tanks should have been in place by December 31, 1987. Neither monitoring system was installed until September 1989. The Applicant began the contract negotiations for installation in September 1988. The Applicant did not demonstrate that the facility contained an alternative procedure between December 31, 1987 and September 1989, that provided a substantially equivalent degree of protection for the lands, surface waters, or groundwaters of the state as the established requirement for monitoring wells and overfill protection. In December 1989, the Department's notice advised the Applicant that the monitoring wells should be sampled monthly for visual signs of petroleum contamination. Since April 1990, the Applicant has been completing the monthly sampling in the monitoring wells as part of its leak detection system, as required by the Department's rule regarding underground stationary tanks.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for restoration coverage in the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program at the Jacksonville location. DONE and ENTERED this 28 day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 _28_ day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are addressed as follows: Rejected. Improper interpretation of law. As for the facts in the first sentence, they are accepted. See HO #8. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #9. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9 and #11. Rejected. Contract to fact. See HO #11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12 and #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Improper shifting of duty ad legal responsibility. Rejected . Improper application of law. The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #4 and #10. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #3 and #12. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Not established by evidence. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William Chadeayne, Qualified Representative 8933 Western Way, Suite 16 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Janet E. Bowman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether DNR should establish an exceptional drilling unit or units in order to prevent waste and to avoid the . . . risks . . . from . . . an excessive number of wells, Section 377.25(2), Florida Statutes (1983)? The respondents expressly declined to raise any question as to the petitioners' standing or party status.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner W. J. Jordan and apparently all the other petitioners are owners of mineral rights under the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 29 West, Santa Rosa County, Florida. T. R. Miller owns the mineral rights under the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 13 and has leased them to Smackco. Near the center of the southeast quarter of Section 13 (the existing unit) respondent Smackco drilled the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well. NOT COMMERCIALLY PRODUCTIVE Smackco drilled the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well down to the Norphlet formation and went 49 feet further, into the Norphlet sands, before giving up its efforts to extract oil from the well. Although Smackco did find a mixture containing 28 to 30 percent hydrocarbons, the hydrostatic head precluded commercial production. If the well had come in, royalties would have inured to the benefit of petitioners, T. R. Miller, and the owners of the mineral rights under the southern half of the existing unit. Although the evidence showed that extracting oil from the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well was not commercially feasible now, it did not establish that the price of oil will never rise to the point that production would make economic sense. ADDITIONAL DATA At least three other oil wells have been drilled at the Mount Carmel Prospect in Township 5 North, Range 29 West, Santa Rosa County, Florida. In keeping with applicable statutes and rules, these wells are also located at or near the center of their respective quarter sections. Except where no governmental sections are laid out (offshore or in Spanish land grants), or where all rights affected by a change are in one ownership, DNR has adhered to the concededly arbitrary use of quarter sections as drilling units. Information gained from the wells drilled at the Mt. Carmel Prospect, and from seismic tests performed there formed the basis for uncontroverted expert opinion that a sandy mass, known to geologists as the Norphlet structure, lies almost three miles below the earth's surface; and that a pool of oil floats on salt water within the Norphlet structure, as shown in the Appendix to this order. The L. W. Roberts 13-4 is on the northern edge of the pool that the geologists hypothesize. The geophysicist's testimony that the Jay fault running northwest southeast and the smaller almost perpendicular fault running off to the northeast lie approximately as depicted in the Appendix was also uncontroverted. These faults may act as walls keeping oil on one side. The faults themselves do not hold oil. THE NEXT WELL If a new well were drilled in the center of the northwest quarter of Section 16, at a point one half mile due south of the L. W. Roberts 13-4, see Appendix, it would be near the western edge of the pool of oil, if the geologists are right. (If the geologists are wrong, drilling there might mean hitting the fault zone, as happened with the Franks Pittman well.) Drilling a quarter mile north, at the center of the first proposed drilling unit, would reduce the risk of hitting the fault, and might make commercial production of a substantial amount of oil possible. DRAINAGE LIKELY Smackco's geophysicist conceded that hydrocarbons at the L. W. Roberts 13-4 and hydrocarbons under the northwest quarter of the existing unit "very possibly" will migrate to a well in the center of the proposed drilling unit, if hydrocarbons are extracted in large quantities there. A well of the kind and to the depth contemplated can be expected to drain 160 acres more or less. The geologists cannot know precisely what the situation is three miles down on the basis of the information they have at hand. They may be mistaken now about the location of oil just as they were when they recommended earlier well sites in the Mt. Carmel Prospect.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DNR deny Smackco's petition for exceptional drilling units. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: James Reddick, Esquire and Dan Stewart, Esquire Suite 5 808 Caroline Street, Southeast Milton, Florida 32570 J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esquire and Spencer Mitchem, Esquire Beggs & Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576-2950 Charles J. Hardee, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Department of Natural Resources Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303 * NOTE: Original Recommended Order has an appendix map which is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office.
The Issue Whether respondent should grant petitioner's application for eligibility for restoration coverage under the abandoned tank restoration program?
Findings Of Fact For decades the Hamilton County Road Department has stored refined petroleum products (gasoline and diesel fuel) in underground tanks at its maintenance yard off Highway 249. Testimony of Cox; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. On September 25, 1991, the three oldest storage tanks were dug up and removed from the yard. Remaining nearby were the four 5,000-plus-gallon underground tanks the County installed in the early 1980s, see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, which are still in use (or were at the time of the hearing.) After the newer tanks were put in service, Hamilton County never refilled any of the three older tanks. "Approximately three to four feet" (T.22) separate the pit which yielded the three older tanks from the "remaining [newer underground storage tank] area," id., to the northwest. In dealings with DER, Hamilton County has used the same "facility number" for both sets of tanks. Immediately after they removed the last of the old tanks, Chris Brockmeier took soil samples. Every sample he took southerly of the tanks left in the ground he found (with the use of a flame ionized detector) to contain in excess of a thousand parts of volatile hydrocarbons per million, undoubtedly a remnant of gasoline or diesel fuel. The soil samples he took from the area on the other side of the remaining tanks contained from 460 to 700 parts of volatile hydrocarbons per million. The contamination may well have come from the old, not the new, storage tanks, but the evidence did not reliably establish its source, Mr. Brockmeier's opinion notwithstanding.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER deny petitioner's application for restoration coverage for Facility No. 248518525 under the abandoned tank restoration program. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 14th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2682 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-5 and 7-15 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 6, the proof did not eliminate the possibility that leakage or spillage since the old tanks' removal also contributed. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 and 17 are treated in the section on conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6-13 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 1, the route number was different. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 5, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 and Cox's testimony suggest they were last used between 1981 and 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. McCormick, Esquire Post Office Drawer O Jasper, Florida 32052 Brigette A. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (the Department), is legally precluded in this proceeding from taking agency action to enforce the reporting and fee provisions required pursuant to Chapter 252, Part II, Florida Statutes, against Respondent, Goodson Paving, Inc., for the reporting years of 1989 through 1994, inclusive, by operation and application of Section 95.011 and Section 95.11(3)(f), Florida Statutes (statute of limitations); and, Whether the Department is legally and equitably precluded in this proceeding from taking agency action to enforce the reporting and fee provisions required pursuant to Chapter 252, Part II, Florida Statutes, against Respondent for the reporting years of 1989 through 1994, inclusive, by operation and application of Section 95.11(6), Florida Statutes (doctrine of laches).
Findings Of Fact The Florida Hazardous Materials Emergency Response and Community Right to Know Act (the Act), Part II, Chapter 252, Florida Statutes, was first passed in 1988. The purpose of Act is to provide information to response personnel in an emergency regarding the type of chemicals and substances that might be present at a facility. The outreach program conducted by the Department of disseminating information to facilities which potentially may be required to report was initiated in 1988 and continued into 1989. It included mass mailings to over 100,000 facilities; conduct of regional seminars, which were advertised in newspapers; establishment of an Internet site; publishing a how-to-comply handbook; and working with local communities and other state agencies. There are approximately 15,000 to 16,000 active facilities reporting under various sections of the Act. The Department did not contact Respondent during the outreach program. Respondent has been located at 5855 Industrial Drive, Cocoa, Florida, since April 1989. Respondent reported the following number of employees to the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security for unemployment compensation tax purposes for the last month of each year, from 1989 through 1998: 1989 24 1990 22 1991 25 1992 30 1993 31 1994 35 1995 37 1996 40 1997 44 1998 45 Respondent is in the business of site contracting and road building/construction and uses diesel fuel which it stores on-site for fueling its trucks and construction equipment. Respondent does not distribute the diesel fuel or offer it for retail sale. The site located at 5855 Industrial Drive, Cocoa, Florida, has been an asphalt plant and road construction office since approximately 1949. Respondent stores on-road diesel fuel and off-road diesel fuel at the site for self-use for completion of contracted projects. The Brevard County Fire and Rescue Department performs annual inspection of Respondent's site at 5855 Industrial Drive, Cocoa, Florida, as well as inspection of the shop, the office, and the storage tanks. Respondent has completed and filed the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection Storage Tank Registration forms and the State of Florida Environmental Protection Plant Storage Tank System Inspection Report for every year of operation since at least 1991. Respondent completed and filed the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection Storage Tank Facility Compliance Inspection Report for the year 1999 on September 8, 1999. Respondent received the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection Storage Tank Placard issued in July of 1999 with an expiration date on June 30, 2000. Respondent is in possession of the requisite State of Florida Storage Tank Third Party Liability and Corrective Action Policy Declarations with an effective date of January 1, 1999. Respondent has maintained uninterrupted insurance for the on-site tanks since 1989. Respondent pays a State of Florida Pollutant Tax on each gallon of diesel fuel purchased through its supplier, Coastal Refining and Marketing, Inc. The tax is collected by the supplier and remitted to the State of Florida. The State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection Storage Tank Facility Compliance Inspection Reports are filed with the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection in Tallahassee, Florida. The Brevard County Fire and Rescue Department is aware and informed of the chemicals and type of operation located at Respondent's site at 5855 Industrial Drive, Cocoa, Florida. The only chemicals possessed by Respondent at the site at 5855 Industrial Drive, Cocoa, Florida, are the aforementioned diesel fuel tanks, motor oil, hydraulic oil, and four one-gallon cans of paint. Respondent does not manufacture asphalt or maintain liquid asphalt at the site at 5855 Industrial Drive, Cocoa, Florida. Prior to receiving the April 2, 1999, Notice of Violation and Intent to Assess Late Fee, Respondent had not had contact with The Department. Respondent has filed the requisite monthly reports to the State of Florida Department of Revenue and has paid the requisite road and fuel tax to the State of Florida Department of Revenue since incorporation. Respondent, Goodson Paving, Inc., does have a current, valid Occupational License issued by Brevard County, Florida. Respondent's diesel fuel storage containment system is built to the code issued by Brevard County and is approved by the Brevard County Inspectors each year. Prior to receiving the April 2, 1999, Notice of Violation and Intent to Assess a Late Fee from the Department, Respondent, in the previous ten or eleven years, has had annual inspections conducted by the Brevard County Fire and Rescue Department and the other county inspectors; has paid taxes to the State of Florida Department of Revenue; and has had a valid Occupational License. Respondent was not informed of the obligation to report under Part II of Chapter 252, Florida Statutes. On April 8, 1999, Respondent received the Department's Notice of Violation and Intent to Assess a Late Fee dated April 2, 1999. Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing regarding the Department's April 2, 1999, Notice of Violation and Intent to Assess Late Fee, pursuant to Section 120.569, Florida Statutes, and implementing rules. The staff of the Department's Division of Emergency Management Compliance Planning Section who administer the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the Act of 1988 are also responsible for assisting the Division's Emergency Operations Center during activations for disasters such as hurricanes or fires. During activations, the routine hazardous materials program duties are subservient to other Division of Emergency Management duties. Respondent suffered no prejudice from the timing of the Department's April 1999 Notice of Violation and Intent to Assess a Late Fee since: (1) the annual inventory forms are required by federal law; (2) Respondent was able to complete the forms based upon available information; and (3) no interest, late fee, or other adverse financial impact will result if the annual fees are timely paid in response to the notice. Respondent is responsible for the fee obligations under the statutes and rules for the years 1989-1998, in the total amount of $832.50.
Recommendation That the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order which holds that: Respondent is responsible for reporting diesel fuel in excess of the threshold planning quantity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 11022 and Sections 252.85 and 252.87, Florida Statutes, for the years 1989-1998 inclusive; and for the fee obligations under Section 252.85, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9G-14.003(3), Florida Administrative Code, for the reporting years 1989-1998, inclusive. Respondent owes the Department annual registration fees totaling $832.50 if the reports and fees are submitted within thirty days of the Department's final order in this matter. Respondent can be assessed additional late fees if all required reports, fees, and late fees are not timely paid, in accordance with Section 252.85(4)(b)3, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 1st day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross Stafford Burnaman, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Douglas W. Baker, Esquire John H. Evans, P.A. 1702 South Washington Avenue Titusville, Florida 32780 Jim Robinson, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Reimbursement Program established under the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 for the petroleum terminal owned by Gulf Products Division of BP Oil Company at Port Everglades, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 provides for the expeditious cleanup of sites contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum products. The Reimbursement Program, found in Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, provides for reimbursement of the allowable costs of site rehabilitation contaminated as a result of a discharge related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products from a storage tank, or its integral piping or dispensing system. The Reimbursement Program does not provide for reimbursement of cleanup costs for discharges related to the transportation or disposal of petroleum or petroleum products. The site at issue in this proceeding is a terminal facility used for the storage of petroleum and petroleum product located at 1500 Southeast 26th Street, Port Everglades, Florida. This facility is referred to as Gulf Facility No. 46888 and DER Facility No. 068732278 (Gulf Terminal). The subject terminal facility is one of fourteen petroleum storage terminals located at Port Everglades, Florida. Petroleum and petroleum products come to the terminal by ship and are pumped from the ship through permanent pipelines to the large aboveground storage tanks located at the facility. The petroleum and petroleum products are stored in these large tanks until it is time for the product to be distributed to the end user. The Gulf Terminal contains eighteen storage tanks whose total capacity is 650,000 barrels of petroleum or petroleum products. These tanks vary in size, with the smallest having a capacity of 10,000 barrels and the largest having a capacity of 80,000 barrels. One barrel equals 42 gallons. The primary activity of the terminals at Port Everglades is to store petroleum or petroleum products. None of the terminals at Port Everglades, including the Gulf Terminal, refines or produces petroleum or petroleum products. Operation of this facility began in 1946. Petitioner, as the successor to the Gulf Oil Corporation, owned and operated the facility until February 1, 1985, when it sold the facility to BP Oil, Inc. As the previous owner of the facility, Petitioner performed an environmental audit which revealed petroleum hydrocarbon contamination at the site. Petitioner is responsible for the cleanup and is entitled to reimbursement of the allowable costs of the cleanup if the site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program. Any contamination of the soil and groundwater at the site was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products, water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum product or sludges which consist predominately of petroleum or petroleum product constituents. Based on hydrogeological assessment information, Petitioner determined that response action, including ground water cleanup activities, was required at the site. Petitioner hired independent contractors to conduct the response action. In 1986, Petitioner designed a recovery system for petroleum and petroleum product and a ground water treatment system at the site. Through February, 1989, the recovery system had recovered over 12,000 gallons of petroleum or petroleum products, which constitutes the recovery of between 60%- 70% of the total amount in the ground. Through November 1989, Petitioner had expended in excess of $560,000 on its response action at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner advised Respondent of its response action at the site by letter dated January 6, 1988. Petitioner submitted documentation to Respondent concerning hydrogeological assessment at the site which included field and laboratory work and investigation performed for the site from 1984 to the present. Pursuant to the requirements of SUPER Act, Petitioner notified Respondent of its intention to seek reimbursement for money spent conducting response action in accordance with Chapter 17-70, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to petroleum and petroleum product contamination at the site. Petitioner's notice to Respondent was timely and was procedurally correct. On July 13, 1989, Respondent issued its Order of Determination of Ineligibility concerning Petitioner's request for reimbursement. As stated in this order the initial basis for Respondent's denial of eligibility was: The determination is based on the fact that the contamination was not related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products. Sources of contamination at this site include tanker trucks, an oil/water separator, a holding pond, and crude oil and tank-bottom sludge disposal pit. These items are not petroleum storage systems as defined in Section 376.301 F.S. therefore (sic), this site is not eligible for reimbursement under the SUPER Act. ... Respondent clarified its Order of Ineligibility by a Notice to Amend and Clarify dated November 14, 1989, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The notice of denial provides that the site is being denied due to the fact that the disclosed sources of contamination are not petroleum storage systems. One of the criteria for being a petroleum storage system is that it be used or intended to be used for storage of petroleum or petroleum product. It is the criteria that the Department contends is not met in this case; i.e., that the discharges were not intended for storage. Section 376.3071(4), Florida Statutes, specifically limits the use of the Environmental Protection Trust Fund to incidents of inland contamination related to storage of petroleum or petroleum product. * * * The Department recently became aware that prior to 1983, contaminated water was disposed of directly from tanks at the site with no pretreatment by an oil/water separator. As with the disposal of oil and sludge to a pit, the act of intentionally disposing of contaminants to the ground is not "related to storage" as required by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. * * * Wherefore, The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation hereby requests that the Hearing Officer allow for the amendment of the notice of denial of eligibility to include the following basis for denial: Contamination at the site is related to the disposal of petroleum or petroleum product, or water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. Disposal activities including the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water and/or fuel from tanks, oil water separators and sump areas, the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water to a percolation pond, the intentional discharge and disposal of oil and sludge to a disposal pit, and the intentional discharge and disposal of fuel to the ground at the loading rack. Among the causes of contamination of the Gulf Terminal are accidental overfills of tanks and leaks from an integral pipeline. Absent any other source of contamination, the discharges that occurred at the Gulf Terminal due to these causes would be eligible for the reimbursement. Respondent has determined, however, that the following additional sources of contamination render the entire response action ineligible for reimbursement: Discharges of dissolved hydrocarbon molecules contained in water which accumulated in storage tanks; Discharges of petroleum or petroleum products at the loading rack at the terminal; and The discharge of crude oil and of crude oil tank bottoms. TANK OVERFILL During the operation of the Gulf Terminal, petroleum and petroleum products have been accidentally discharged onto the ground. In 1955, an unknown quantity of petroleum or petroleum products was accidentally discharged onto the ground in the areas of tanks 104 and 105 as a result of these tanks being over- filled. Following this massive spill, between 5,000 - 10,000 barrels of product was recovered, while an unknown quantity could not be recovered. PIPELINE LEAK Since 1955, approximately 15,000 additional barrels of petroleum or petroleum products were leaked from an underground pipeline that is integral to the storage system in an area between the loading rack and tank 101, extending toward the west to between tanks 110 and 102. This is the vicinity where the heaviest free floating petroleum contamination exists. DISCHARGE OF CONTAMINATED WATER Florida has adopted the standard code for the design of aboveground storage tanks prepared by the American Petroleum Institute (API-650). The tanks at the Gulf Terminal are in compliance with API-650. The accumulation of water in storage tanks is a problem associated with the storage of petroleum or petroleum products in the storage tanks at the Gulf Terminal and at the other terminals at Port Everglades. Water accumulates in the storage tanks from rainfall and from condensation. The records of the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Station 08063163 (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) accurately depict the rainfall levels at the terminal facility. The total annual rainfall levels are as follows: 1980, 69.67 inches; 1981, 57.9 inches; 1982, 82.92 inches; 1983 75.16 inches; 1984, 59.4 inches; 1985, 63.74 inches; 1986, 64.14 inches, 1987, 58.50 inches; 1988 40.66 inches. Because water is heavier than petroleum and petroleum products, the water accumulates at the bottom of the tanks. It is essential to the proper storage of the petroleum or petroleum products that the water be removed for at least three reasons. First, if the water is not removed, the tanks would eventually become filled with water instead of product. Second, the product contaminated by water, particularly fuel for motor vehicles and aircraft, would not meet specifications. Third, water in the tanks speeds the corrosion of the tank. In order to remove this water that accumulates at the bottom of the storage tanks, a water draw-off mechanism located at the bottom of the tank is a design feature of API-650. When water accumulates in the bottom of the tank, the water is drained out through the water draw-off mechanism. The storage tanks located at the Gulf Terminal are equipped with such a water draw-off mechanism. Throughout the existence of the facility, accumulated water in the tanks has been controlled by discharging the water through the water draw-off mechanism. From 1948 to 1980, water was drained out of the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and on to the ground. Beginning in 1980, the water was taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and piped to a catch basin where an effort was made to recover petroleum product by skimming the water before the water was discharged into the ground. Since 1985, the water taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism has been treated by an oil/water separator which effectively removes all petroleum product before the water is discharged. The purpose of the oil/water separator is to separate petroleum product from water so that the petroleum product can be returned to the storage tank and the water can be discharged. This process serves to prevent the discharge of petroleum product. Up to 1988, the discharges to the ground from the oil/water separator at the Gulf Terminal accumulated in a holding pond. In 1988, the holding pond was eliminated and the water discharges from the oil/water separator were routed to a holding tank prior to treatment by an air stripper and subsequent discharge into the canal adjacent to the property. At all times since 1983, the water drawn out of the tanks has been the subject of permits issued by Respondent which approve the use of the oil/water separator. While it is necessary for the operation of the storage tanks that water be drawn from the tanks, it is not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks for the contaminated water to be discharged onto the ground. The purpose of discharging the water was to dispose of it. There was no intent to recover the contaminated water after it was discharged. Any water coming out of a storage tank is contaminated with dissolved petroleum. It may have solids in it and floating residue or product on it. Between 1946 and 1980, when this water from the storage tanks was discharged to the ground, any contaminates in the water would be discharged along with it. Water has been drained from tanks numbered 101, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112 113, and 114 on a daily basis. The other tanks are drained after a rainfall. An average of one or two inches of water was drained off each time it rained. Following a rainfall, in excess of 30 barrels of water would be drained from the smaller tanks, while approximately 300 barrels of water would be drained from the larger tanks. The discharge of the water drawn from the storage tanks contributed to the contamination of the groundwater at the Gulf Terminal. This type contamination exists in almost all areas of the site. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the contamination to the groundwater caused by the discharge of contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks from contamination to the groundwater which resulted from other causes. Petitioner failed to establish that the contribution to this contamination to the groundwater by the discharge of the contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks was insignificant. THE LOADING RACK The loading rack at the Gulf Terminal is the apparatus by which the petroleum in the storage tanks is dispensed to tanker truck for distribution to consumers. The loading rack is a series of dispensers which operate much like at a service station except that it fuels tanker trucks rather than automobiles. The loading rack is connected by permanent integral piping to the storage tanks. The purpose of the loading rack is to load the transport trucks. Without the storage tanks at the terminal, there would be no need for a loading rack. Over the years, discharges have occurred in the loading rack, usually as the result of human error. Occasional overfills in the 10-15 gallon range have occurred while a truck was being filled. This type discharge is analogous to a spill which occurs at a service station when an automobile is being fueled and the fuel splashes back or overfills the automobile's fuel tank. The supervisor of Respondent's Reimbursement Section testified that this type discharge, absent other causes, would probably be eligible for reimbursement. This testimony conflicts with the official position taken by Respondent in this proceeding that the cleanup caused by the operation of the loading rack is ineligible for reimbursement. In other incidents, small amounts of product ranging from a teacup to less than a gallon, were occasionally discharged while a truck was being drained of one type of product so that the truck could transport another type of product. The loading rack is an integral part of the storage system because without a means of moving the product out of storage and into the distribution system, the storage tanks could not provide a meaningful function. The discharges which occurred at the loading rack during the course of both loading and unloading trucks are insignificant when compared with the other sources of contamination at the site. TANK BOTTOMS In 1956, a storage tank was emptied for the purpose of switching product from crude oil to diesel fuel. At the time the change in product was made, approximately 1000 barrels of sludge and crude oil were disposed of in a pit adjacent to tank 101. Also disposed of was the tank bottom, a hard tar residue which formed at the bottom of the tank. Oil occasionally oozes to the surface in the vicinity of the pit adjacent to tank 101, but the area around the sludge pit has not been found to be contaminated, and the tank bottom has remained a hardened mass. Each tank on the site also had a pit alongside the tank where a tank bottom was disposed. Although it was necessary to remove the sludge and the tank bottoms to be able to properly operate the storage tanks, it was not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks to dump the sludge and the tank bottoms onto the ground or into the pits. The purpose of discharging the crude oil sludge and the tank bottoms was to dispose of them. There was no intent to recover the crude oil sludge or the tank bottoms water after they were discharged. CONTAMINATION PHASES The contamination at the site exists in three phases, floating petroleum product contamination, dissolved petroleum groundwater contamination, and sludge contamination. The contamination in the form of floating petroleum was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products following the tank overfills, the pipeline leaks, and spills at the loading rack. The dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by two primary sources. First, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by floating petroleum product coming into contact with groundwater. Upon such contact, molecules from the floating petroleum would dissolve into the water, causing contamination. Second, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by the discharge of the contaminated water that had been drawn off from the storage tanks. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the dissolved groundwater contamination that was caused by accidental discharges of product from the contamination caused by the discharge of the contaminated water. Petitioner was also unable to establish that the dissolved groundwater contamination caused by the contaminated water was insignificant. The sludge contamination was caused by the discharge of crude oil and crude oil tank bottoms. CLEANUP The sludge contamination is capable of being cleaned up separately from the free floating petroleum contamination and the groundwater contamination at the site. The sludge contamination is separate and distinct from the other contamination at the site both as to the location of the contamination and as to the methods that would be employed to clean up that type of contamination. Free floating petroleum contamination is recovered by drawing down the water level in a well by use of a pump so that a cone of depression is created. The cone of depression is a funnel shaped depression that causes the surface of the underground water table to bend down towards the well in all directions. The free floating petroleum which flows on top of the underground water surface is then recovered by use of a second pump. The free floating petroleum is then pumped into a holding tank where the recovery of free floating petroleum is completed. The recovery of free floating petroleum contamination is usually more expensive to accomplish than groundwater cleanup because more equipment is required. Groundwater cleanup usually takes a longer period of time to accomplish than does free floating product cleanup. The same or a similar well used to recover the free floating petroleum can also be used for the cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The contaminated groundwater is pumped from the well into an oil/water separator where the water and dissolved petroleum is separated, water is taken off the bottom, put through an air stripper, and is returned to the ground through an infiltration unit. Respondent has previously found sites eligible for the reimbursement program even though those sites experienced discharges which alone would render a site ineligible for the reimbursement program. The basis for finding these sites eligible was that the ineligible discharges had become indistinguishable from the eligible discharges and were insignificant by comparison. Petitioner has complied with all procedural requirements for seeking eligibility contained in Section 376.3701, Florida Statutes. Respondent has not been denied access to the Gulf Terminal. Respondent has made no determination that there has been gross negligence in the maintenance of the petroleum storage system locate at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not willfully concealed the existence of a serious discharge at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not falsified any inventory records maintained with respect to the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not caused any intentional damage to the Gulf Terminal. The Gulf Terminal is not owned by the federal government. Petitioner's challenge to Respondent's order of ineligibility was filed in a timely manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that Respondent enter a final order which determines that the subject site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the free floating petroleum contamination, but that the subject site is ineligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the sludge contamination and for the cleanup of the groundwater contamination. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE 89-4521 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner in its Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 1-16, 18-25, 27-30, 33, 36-42, 44, 47-50, and 53-54 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 17, 31-32, 46, and 51-52 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being contrary to the findings made and to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 26 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 34 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as not being established by the greater weight of the evidence. The testimony cited by Petitioner in support of these proposed findings do not establish the proposed findings. The proposed findings conflict with the contents of the Report of Ground-Water Quality Assessment accepted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 35 , 43, and 45 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected to the extent the proposed findings conflict with the findings made and the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact contained in Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order and in Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5, 7-19, 23, 25-31, 33-34, 39- 52, 55-68, and 70-72 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6, 20-22, 24, 32, 35-38, and 69 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 53 and 54 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected because the testimony referred to by Respondent in support of the proposed findings relates to amounts discharged following rainfalls, not amounts discharged daily. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-14 of Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gray Early, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert W. Wells, Esquire Ignacio E. Sanchez, Esquire KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN 2400 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue In this proceeding, Florida Power Corporation (FPC) seeks approval to construct and operate 470 MW of natural gas-fired advanced design combined cycle (NGCC) generating capacity at its proposed Polk County Site. Additionally, FPC seeks a determination that the Polk County Site has the environmental resources necessary to support an ultimate capacity of 3,000 MW of combined cycle generating capacity fueled by a combination of natural gas, coal-derived gas and distillate fuel oil. Such an ultimate site capacity certification may be granted pursuant to Section 403.517, Florida Statutes and Rule 17-17.231, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Project Site and Vicinity FPC's proposed Polk County Site is located on approximately 8,200 acres in southwest Polk County, Florida, in an area dominated by phosphate mining activities. The Polk County Site is approximately 40 miles east of Tampa, 3 miles south of Bartow and 3.5 miles northwest of Fort Meade. Homeland, the nearest unincorporated community, lies about one mile to the northeast of the site boundary. The Polk County Site is bounded on the north by County Road (CR) 640 and along the southeast and south by a U.S. Agri-Chemical Corporation (USAC) mine. CR 555 runs north-south through the site. The Polk County Site is comprised of land in four different phases of mining activity: mine pits, clay settling ponds associated with phosphate mining, land which has been mined and reclaimed, and land which has yet to be mined. Approximately one-half of the Polk County Site is subject to mandatory reclamation. Land uses adjacent to the Polk County Site consist almost entirely of phosphate mining activities. One mobile home is located at the intersection of CR 640 and CR 555 approximately 2 miles from the proposed location of the principal generating facilities. General Project Description The initial generating capacity at the Polk County Site will be NGCC units. Under what has been designated as the Case A' scenario, ultimate site development will consist of 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity, for a total of 3,000 MW. Under the alternative Case C scenario, the ultimate site capacity would consist of 3,000 MW of all NGCC capacity. The Case C scenario was initially developed as the worst case scenario for the socioeconomic impact analysis (i.e., the one that would produce the least amount of economic benefit.) The combined cycle units which initially burn natural gas can be modified to burn coal gas if necessary to meet changes in fuel supply or pricing. However, under the proposed ultimate site capacity, CGCC generating capacity will be limited to a maximum of 2,000 MW out of the total of 3,000 MW. At ultimate buildout the major facilities at the Polk County Site will include the plant island, cooling pond, solid waste disposal areas, and brine pond. The plant island will be located on mining parcels SA-11, SA-13 and the northerly portion of SA-12. The plant island ultimately will contain the combined cycle power block, oil storage tanks, water and sewage treatment facilities, coal gasification facilities, coal pile and rail loop, and coal handling facilities. The cooling pond at ultimate buildout will be located in mining parcels N-16, N-15 and N-11B, with a channel through N-11C. Mining parcels N-11C, P-3, Phosphoria, Triangle Lakes and P-2, if not used as a solid waste disposal area, will be used as water crop areas to collect rainfall for supplying the cooling pond. The brine pond will receive wastewater reject from the reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment system and will be located on mining parcel SA-9. Two solid waste disposal areas (SWDA) are planned for ultimate development of the Polk County Site. The SWDAs will be mining parcel SA-8 initially and mining parcel P-2 in later phases, if necessary. Coal gasification slag will be the predominant solid waste to be disposed of in the SWDAs. Other areas included within the Polk County Site are mine parcels N- 11A, N-13, N-9B, Tiger Bay East, Tiger Bay, the northerly 80 acres of N-9, SA-10 and the southerly 225 acres of SA-12. Along with providing a buffer for the Polk County Site facilities, these parcels also will provide drainage to Camp Branch and McCullough Creek. Linear facilities associated with the initial 470 MW of generating capacity at the Polk County Site will include a 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission line upgrade, a reclaimed water pipeline, and a backup natural gas pipeline. Site Selection A comprehensive process was used to select the Polk County Site. The goal of that process was to identify a site which could accommodate 3,000 MW of generating capacity and offer characteristics including: (1) multi-unit and clean coal capability; (2) technology and fuel flexibility; (3) cost effectiveness; (4) compatibility with FPC's commitment to environmental protection; (5) ability to comply with all government regulations; and (6) consistency with state land use objectives. The site selection process included the entire State of Florida. Participants in the site selection process included a variety of FPC departments, environmental and engineering consultants, and an eight-member Environmental Advisory Group (EAG) composed of environmental, educational, and community leaders. In October, 1990, with the concurrence of the EAG, the Polk County Site was selected. The ultimate basis for the selection of the Polk County Site was the disturbed nature of the site as a result of extensive phosphate mining activities. The Polk County Site also is compatible with FPC's load center and transmission line network, and is accessible to rail and highway transportation systems. PSC Need Determination On February 25, 1992, the PSC issued Order No. 25805 determining the need for the first 470 MW of generating capacity at the Polk County Site. The PSC concluded in its order that the first two combined cycle units (470 MW) at the Polk County Site will contribute to FPC's electric system reliability and integrity. It also concluded that the first two units would enable FPC to meet winter reserve margin criteria and to withstand an outage of its largest unit at the time of system peak demand. The PSC stated that it was important for FPC to secure a site to meet future needs and that the first two units would contribute toward this goal. Basis for Ultimate Site Capacity The Site Certification Application (SCA), including the Sufficiency Responses, addressed the impacts associated with 3,000 to 3,200 MW of generating capacity under several scenarios. FPC eliminated or modified several of the scenarios by filing a Notice of Limitations which addressed the capacity and environmental effects of 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity at the Polk County Site. Throughout the SCA, Sufficiency Responses and Notice of Limitations, the capacity constraints and environmental effects were analyzed under a worst case scenario, i.e., the maximum environmental effects that could be expected at ultimate site capacity. An ultimate site capacity determination will significantly reduce the time and expense associated with processing supplemental applications for future units at the Polk County Site under the expedited statutory procedures of the Power Plant Siting Act. This will allow FPC to respond more quickly to changes in growth and demand. An ultimate site capacity determination also provides FPC the assurance that the Polk County Site has the land, air and water resources to support future coal gas-fired generating capacity. Project Schedule and Costs Construction of the initial 470 MW of NGCC generating capacity is scheduled to begin in 1994. These units will go into operation in 1998 and 1999. Based on current load forecasts, it is expected that approximately one 250 MW unit will be added every other year to the Polk County Site. Under this schedule, ultimate site development of 3,000 MW would occur about 2018. Capital investment for the Polk County Site is expected to be approximately $3.4 billion for the 1,000 MW NGCC/2000 MW CGCC Case A' scenario and approximately $1.7 billion for the all NGCC Case C scenario. Project Design Generating units for the Polk County Site will be advanced design combined cycle units firing natural gas and/or coal gas, with low sulfur fuel oil as backup. Each combined cycle unit will consist of one or two combustion turbines (CT), a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) for each CT and one or two steam turbines (ST). The first 470 MW of generating capacity will consist of two CTs firing natural gas, two HRSGs and one or two STs. At ultimate site capacity, the Polk County Site will consist of 12 CTs, 12 HRSGs, and 6 to 12 STs. A combined cycle unit is a generating system that consists of two sequential generating stages. In the first stage, the natural gas, coal gas or fuel oil is burned to operate the CT. Hot exhaust gas from the CT is passed through the HRSG to produce steam to operate the ST. The CT and steam from the HRSG can be arranged to drive individual generators or a single generator. In later phases of the Polk County Site, up to 2,000 MW of combined cycle generation may be fired on coal gas. The combined cycle units that were initially constructed to operate on natural gas can be modified to operate on coal gas. Under the Case A' scenario, two coal gasification plants would be built to produce coal gas for the combined cycle units. Associated with the coal gasification phase of the project will be the expansion of the plant island to accommodate the storage and handling of coal. Coal will be transported onsite by railroad. A rail loop for coal trains will be constructed on the plant island. It will be sized to accommodate a 100-car coal train. The coal storage area and limestone stockout will be located within the coal loop. Limestone is used in the coal gasification process as a fluxing agent to improve the viscosity of the coal slag, a by-product of the coal gasification process. The coal storage area, including the coal piles and emergency coal stockout system, will be lined with an impervious liner, and runoff from the coal storage area will be recycled to the coal gasification plants. The cooling pond for the Polk County Site will be located north and east of the plant island. Water from the cooling pond will be used for producing steam and condenser cooling. The cooling pond will be constructed initially in mining parcel N-16 and then in parcels N-15 and N-11B for later phases. These areas are mined-out pits which are surrounded by earthen dams. These dams will be upgraded where required to provide stability equivalent to the requirements of Chapter 17-672, Florida Administrative Code, for phosphate dams. Soil and Foundation Stability To evaluate the existing soil conditions at the Polk County Site, more than 165 test borings were made. The plant island is an existing mine pit which has been partially filled with sand tailings from phosphate mining operations. Underlying the sand is the Hawthorn formation which is often used as the base for deep load bearing foundations. Foundations for the heavier loads of power plant facilities will require pile foundations or similar types of deep foundations that will extend into the Hawthorn formation. The potential for sinkhole development at the Polk County Site was investigated by reviewing historic sinkhole records, aerial photographs, well drillers' logs, and by drilling three deep borings at the site. The investigation demonstrated that the potential for sinkhole development at the Polk County Site is low and acceptable for this type of construction. Construction Activities Construction of the Polk County Site will be phased over an approximately 25-year period beginning in 1994. The development of the Polk County Site is expected to take place in seven phases. Changes in the scope or sequence of the individual phases may occur depending on capacity needs over time. During Phase I, the initial earthwork and dewatering activities required for the construction of the plant island and cooling pond will take place. The initial cooling pond and plant island area will be dewatered and fill will be placed in SA-11 and SA-13 for the initial power plant construction. Water from the dewatering activities will be conserved by storage in mining parcels SA-8, SA-9, SA-10, N-15 and the northerly part of SA-12, except for quantities used in IMC's recirculation system. Clay consolidation will commence for other parcels, such as N-11A, N-11B, N-11C, N-13 and N-9B. Phosphate mining and related operations will still function in parcels P-2, P-3, Phosphoria, Triangle Lakes, and N-9. The initial vertical power plant construction for the first 470 MW of generating capacity will take place in Phase II. Water stored in Phase I, along with reclaimed water from the City of Bartow, will be used to fill the cooling pond in parcel N-16. Any excess reclaimed water from the City of Bartow, if necessary, will be stored in the eastern portion of N-16. Mining parcels SA-10, the southerly part of SA-12, and a portion of the offsite Estech Silver City plant site will be configured for drainage enhancement to McCullough Creek. Mining parcel SA-8 will be prepared to receive solid waste and parcel SA-9 will be prepared to receive wastewater from the RO system and neutralization basin. Wildlife habitat creation and enhancement will begin in parcels N-9B and N-13. Phase III of the Polk County Site represents the operation of the power plant from 235 MW to 1,500 MW, currently projected as NGCC capacity. The plant island, which will contain the generating units, will be located on mining parcels SA-11 and SA-13. The cooling pond will be located in N-16 and will receive reclaimed water from the City of Bartow and water crop from mining parcels P-3, Phosphoria, P-2, Triangle Lakes, N-15, N-11B, N-11C, the northerly end of SA-12 and the east end of N-16. Phase IV will encompass the development of the Polk County Site from 1,500 MW to 2,000 MW, currently projected as NGCC capacity. In conjunction with the additional generating units onsite, the cooling pond in N-16 will be enlarged to 1,219 acres. Other portions of the Polk County Site would remain the same as in Phase III. During Phase V, coal gasification is projected to be introduced to the Polk County Site. Generating capacity will be increased to 2,250 MW of which 1,000 MW are projected to be NGCC and the remaining 1,250 MW will be CGCC. To accommodate the coal gasification facilities, the northerly portion of SA-12 would be filled. The balance of the site would remain as described in Phase IV. During Phase VI, the generating capacity at the Polk County Site is projected to increase from 2,250 MW to 3,000 MW. This generating capacity will be a combination of 1,000 MW on NGCC and 2,000 MW on CGCC. During this phase, the cooling pond will be enlarged to 2,260 acres and will include parcels N-16, N-15 and N-11B, and a channel through N-11C. Earthwork will be required in N-15 and N-11B to repair and improve dams, and add slope protection on the dam inner faces and seeding on the exterior faces. Phase VII will be the final phase of the Polk County Site. During this phase, if the solid waste disposal area in mining parcel SA-8 were to become full it would be closed and mining parcel P-2 would be prepared to receive solid waste from the power plant operations. Parcels P-3 and Phosphoria will be available for mitigation, if necessary, as a result of activities in parcel P-2. This phase might not occur if coal slag is successfully recycled. Fuel Supply Fuel for the initial 470 MW of combined cycle generation will consist primarily of natural gas, with light distillate fuel oil as backup. Natural gas will be delivered by pipeline to the Polk County Site at a rate of 3.75 million cubic feet per hour. FPC currently plans to receive natural gas from the proposed Sunshine Pipeline for which certification is being sought in a separate proceeding. The Application for the Sunshine Pipeline was filed with DEP in August 1993. The other source for natural gas will be the backup natural gas pipeline which is being certified in this proceeding as an associated linear facility. Fuel oil will be delivered to the site by tanker truck, and enough fuel oil will be stored onsite for three days of operation for each combined cycle unit. At ultimate development, three 4-million gallon oil tanks will be located on the Polk County Site. All fuel handling and storage facilities, including unloading areas, pump areas, piping system, storage tanks, and tank containment areas will meet the requirements of DEP Chapter 17-762, Florida Administrative Code, and applicable National Fire Prevention Association Codes. At ultimate site development, the combined cycle units would use both natural gas and coal gas as primary fuels, and fuel oil as a backup fuel. As with the initial phase of operation, natural gas will be supplied by pipeline. At 1,000 MW of NGCC capacity, six to eight million cubic feet per hour of natural gas will be required. Coal for the coal gasification units will be delivered by railroad. For 2,000 MW of CGCC generating capacity, approximately 15,000 to 20,000 tons of coal a day will be required. Linear Facilities The initial 470 MW of NGCC generation includes three associated linear facilities: a 230-kV transmission line upgrade, a reclaimed water pipeline, and a backup natural gas pipeline. 230-kV Transmission Line The 230-kV transmission line will be routed from the existing FPC Barcola Substation within the Polk County Site to the FPC Ft. Meade Substation adjacent to CR 630. The transmission line corridor is approximately 1,000 feet wide within the Polk County Site boundary and narrows to 500 feet as the corridor leaves the site. The transmission line corridor follows several linear facilities including an existing transmission line right-of-way, CR 555 and CR 630. Land uses along the corridor are primarily phosphate mining, agricultural and industrial. Wetlands within the transmission line corridor are minimal and are associated primarily with roadside ditches. Where the transmission line crosses McCullough Creek, the creek will be spanned. The 230-kV transmission line will be constructed using single shaft tubular steel poles with a double circuit configuration for two 230-kV circuits. The transmission line structures will range in height from 110 feet to 145 feet. The conductor for the transmission line is a 1590 ACSR conductor that is approximately 1.54 inches in diameter. Conductor span lengths between structures will range from 500 to 900 feet. The transmission line will be constructed in six phases. During the first phase, the right-of-way will be cleared. Clearing in upland areas will be done using mowers and other power equipment. Clearing in wetlands, if necessary, will be accomplished by restrictive clearing techniques. After the right-of-way has been cleared, existing structures which will be replaced with new transmission line structures will be removed by unbolting them from their foundations and removing the structures with a crane. Foundations for new transmission line structures will be vibrated into the ground using a vibratory hammer or placed into an augured hole and backfilled. After the foundations are in place, new structures will be assembled on the foundations using a crane. Insulation and pole hardware will be mounted on the structures after erection. In the fifth phase of construction, conductors will be placed on a structure by pulling the conductors through a stringing block attached to the structure. During the final phase of construction, the structures will be grounded and any construction debris will be removed from the right-of-way. The construction of the 230-kV transmission line is estimated to require approximately 17 weeks. Construction of the transmission line will meet or exceed standards of the National Electrical Safety Code; FPC transmission design standards; Chapter 17- 814, Florida Administrative Code; and the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide, where applicable. Electric and magnetic fields from the 230-kV transmission line will comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 17-814, Florida Administrative Code. Audible noise from the transmission line should occur only during rainy weather and will not exceed 39.1 dBA at the edge of the right-of-way. Since the transmission line is not located near many residences, interference to television and AM radio reception should be minimal. If interference does occur, it can be identified easily and corrected on an individual basis. Backup Natural Gas Pipeline The backup natural gas pipeline will originate at the Florida Gas Transmission pipeline in Hillsborough County at CR 39. The backup pipeline corridor runs generally east for 18 miles until it enters the Polk County Site at the western boundary of the plant island. The pipeline corridor is 1,000 feet wide and it generally follows linear facilities such as Jameson Road, a Tampa Electric Company transmission line, the CSX Railroad, Durrance Road, and Agricola Road. Several subalternate corridors are proposed in Polk County where the backup natural gas pipeline crosses phosphate mining land. The subalternate corridors, all of which are proposed for certification, are necessary to maintain flexibility in routing the backup natural gas pipeline around active mining operations. The uses of land crossed by the backup natural gas pipeline corridor consist primarily of phosphate mining and some agriculture. There are only two areas of residential land use along the corridor, one along Jameson Road in Hillsborough County, and the other near Bradley Junction along Old Highway 37 in Polk County. Ecological areas crossed by the natural gas pipeline corridor include a portion of Hookers Prairie in Polk County, some isolated wetlands associated with phosphate mining activities, and the South Prong Alafia River near CR 39 in Hillsborough County. The backup natural gas pipeline will consist of a metering facility, a scraper trap for pipeline cleaning, a maximum 30-inch buried pipeline made of high strength steel, a pressure regulating station, a cathodic protection system for corrosion control, and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to monitor and operate the pipeline. The pipe to be used for the natural gas pipeline will be manufactured in accordance with standards specified in 49 CFR 192 and the industrial standards referenced therein. Pipe thickness will vary depending on the population of the area crossed. External corrosion control for the pipe will be provided by an external coating around the pipe and a cathodic protection system designed to prevent electrochemical corrosion of the pipe. Pipeline sections will be hydrostatically tested before leaving the factory to 125 percent of the design pressure. Activities associated with the construction of the backup natural gas pipeline will include survey and staking of the right-of-way, right-of-way preparation, stringing of the pipe, bending, lineup welding and nondestructive testing, ditching, lowering in of pipeline sections, backfilling, tying in pipeline sections, testing and right-of-way restoration. Construction of the pipeline will take place typically within a 75 foot-wide right-of-way. A wider right-of-way may be required where specialized construction activities, such as jack and bore methods, are used. After construction, the natural gas pipeline will have a permanent 50-foot right-of-way. Where the pipeline crosses federal and state highways or water courses, directional drilling or jack and bore construction methods will be used to minimize disturbance. Where the pipeline crosses the South Prong Alafia River, directional drilling will be used to locate the pipeline underneath the river bed. Pipeline welding will be done by highly skilled personnel who have been qualified in accordance with 49 CFR 192. Pipeline welds will be visually inspected and a percentage of the welds will be x-rayed for analysis. Once the pipeline is constructed, buried and tie-in welds completed, the pipeline will be hydrostatically tested. Hydrostatic testing will use water with a minimum test pressure of 125 percent of maximum operating pressure. Water for hydrostatic testing will be pumped from and returned to the Polk County Site cooling pond. Construction of the pipeline will comply with Title 49 CFR Part 192, Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipelines: Minimum Federal Safety Standards; Chapter 25-12, Florida Administrative Code; Safety of Gas Transportation by Pipeline; and the FDOT Utility Accommodation Guide. After construction of the backup natural gas pipeline, the right-of- way will be restored and a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way will be maintained. Line markers will be located along the pipeline at regular intervals and warning signs will be posted where the pipeline crosses roads, railroads, or stream crossings. The estimated cost for the pipeline construction is $611,100 per mile, or $11.2 million for the 18.2 mile pipeline route. Reclaimed Water Pipeline The reclaimed water pipeline will run from the City of Bartow to the cooling pond near the eastern side of the Polk County Site. The reclaimed water pipeline corridor follows the CSX Railroad and U.S. Highway 17/98 south from the southerly Bartow city limit turning west toward the Polk County Site just south of Homeland. Land uses along the corridor include phosphate mining, commercial sites, rural residences and recreation. The corridor does not cross any environmentally sensitive habitats. The reclaimed water pipeline consists of a buried pipe, 24 to 36 inches in diameter, butterfly valves about every mile along the pipeline, and a flow meter. Pumping of reclaimed water will be provided by the Bartow Sewage Treatment Plant. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline is similar to that of the natural gas pipeline and includes the following activities: survey and staking of the right-of-way, right-of-way preparation, ditching or trenching construction, stringing of the pipe and pipe installation, back filling, hydrostatic testing, and right-of-way restoration. Where the pipeline crosses state or federal highways or railroads, the pipe will be installed by using jack and bore construction. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline is estimated to cost $500,000 per mile or $5,000,000 for the total length of the pipeline. Construction of the reclaimed water pipeline will comply with the standards in Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code, the Florida Department of Transportation Utility Accommodation Guide, and the EPA Guidelines for Water Reuse Manual. The pipeline will be hydrostatically tested prior to operation. Corrosion control of the pipeline will depend on the material used for the pipeline and the soil conditions. If a polyethylene or a polyvinylchloride material is used, no corrosion control will be necessary. If ductile iron is used, the soil will be tested for corrosive properties and, if necessary, the pipeline will be protected from corrosion with a poly wrap material. Solid Waste Disposal Various types of solid waste will be generated by the operation of the Polk County Site. Depending upon the type of solid waste, disposal may be made in the onsite solid waste disposal areas or it may be disposed of offsite. Waste inlet air filters from the combustion turbines and general waste, such as office waste, yard waste and circulating water system screenings, will be recycled or disposed of offsite at the Polk County North Central Landfill. Solid waste from the well water pretreatment and blowdown pretreatment will be disposed of onsite in the solid waste disposal area to be constructed in mining parcel SA-8. Sulfur, a by-product of coal gasification, will be of marketable grade and will be stored in a molten state onsite and delivered to buyers by rail car or tanker truck. Slag, a by-product of coal gasification, will be the largest volume of solid waste generated at the Polk County Site. Slag is potentially marketable and FPC will make efforts to recycle this by-product as construction aggregate. If slag is not marketable, it will be disposed of in the onsite solid waste disposal areas initially in mining parcel SA-8 and later, if necessary, in parcel P-2. Low volume spent acidic and basic solutions produced in the regeneration of demineralizer resin bed ion exchanges during operation of the facility will be treated in an elementary neutralization unit to render them non-hazardous. Other potentially hazardous waste will be tested and if determined hazardous will be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws. Onsite disposal of slag, and well water and blowdown pretreatment solids will be made in the solid waste disposal areas to be constructed in parcels SA-8 and later, if necessary, P-2. These parcels are clay lined impoundments that have clays generally 20 to 40 feet thick. Prior to disposal of any solid waste in a clay settling area, that area will be drained and the clays consolidated. The clays will be probed and if the clay thickness is less than 10 feet it will be refurbished or patched with a synthetic liner. Additionally, a geotextile net will be installed to provide tensile strength to the upper layer of clay. Perimeter leachate collection piping will be installed. Leachate in the interior of the solid waste disposal areas will be monitored and collected by the use of well points to maintain the leachate head at no greater than 4 feet. The solid waste disposal area in parcel SA-8 will be closed by installing a two-foot thick soil cover which will be seeded and graded to provide water crop to parcel N-16. At closure, the leachate level will be pumped down to minimize the residual leachate head. The clay which lines the base of the solid waste disposal areas decreases in permeability as it consolidates and the solids content of the clay increases. In the first 20 to 50 years of consolidation, the hydraulic gradient of the clay is reversed and water will drain upward. Analysis of the clay shows that it would take 60 to 100 years for leachate to seep through the clay liner. After closure and capping of the solid waste disposal area occurs and the leachate residual head is pumped out, leachate is not expected to break through the liner. Based on the design of the solid waste disposal areas and the analysis of the clay, the solid waste disposal areas in parcels SA-8, and later P-2, should provide equivalent or superior protection to that of a Class I landfill under Chapter 17-7.01, Florida Administrative Code. Industrial Wastewater The Polk County Site is designed to be a zero discharge facility. There will be no offsite surface water discharge of contaminated stormwater or cooling pond blowdown. Cooling pond blowdown will be treated first by a lime/soda ash softening pretreatment system. A portion of the softened effluent will be routed to the cooling pond and a portion will be treated further by reverse osmosis (RO). High quality water from the RO system will be reused in the power plant as process water. The reject wastewater from the RO system will be sent to the brine pond for evaporation. In later stages of the Polk County Site operation, the RO reject wastewater will be concentrated prior to disposal in the brine pond. The brine pond will be constructed in parcel SA-9, a waste clay settling pond. Parcel SA-9 has thick waste clay deposits which will act as a liner. A synthetic liner will be placed along the interior perimeter of the brine pond out to a point where the clay is at least 10 feet thick. The synthetic liner will prevent seepage of the brine through the embankment of the brine pond and will provide added protection near the perimeter of the brine pond where the clay liner is thinner. Groundwater Impacts/Zone of Discharge The brine pond and solid waste disposal areas will be located in waste clay settling ponds with thick clay liners. They will be constructed to minimize, if not eliminate, seepage of brine and leachate to groundwater. If brine or leachate should seep through the clay liner, dispersion and dilution will reduce chemical concentrations so that neither primary nor secondary groundwater quality standards will be exceeded at the boundary of the zone of discharge. A zone of discharge has been established for the solid waste disposal area in parcel SA-8, the brine pond in parcel SA-9, and the cooling pond in parcels N-11B, N-15 and N-16. The zone of discharge will extend horizontally 100 feet out from the outside toe of the earthen dam along a consolidated boundary surrounding these facilities and vertically downward to the top of the Tampa member of the Hawthorn Group. A groundwater monitoring plan will be implemented to monitor compliance with groundwater standards at the boundary of the zone of discharge. Surficial Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts The Polk County Site is located along the divide between the Peace River Drainage Basin and the Alafia River Drainage Basin. Water bodies near the site include McCullough Creek, Camp Branch, Six Mile Creek, Barber Branch, and South Prong Alafia River. Mining has disrupted or eliminated natural drainage patterns from the Polk County Site to these water bodies. Currently the only drainage from the Polk County Site to these water bodies is through federally permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfalls to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch. To assess the impact to the surficial hydrology of the Polk County Site and surrounding water bodies, the baseline condition was assumed to be the surficial hydrology which would be present under current mandatory reclamation plans for the mining parcels onsite and offsite. The baseline for non-mandatory parcels was assumed to be the minimum reclamation standards under the DEP/Bureau of Mine Reclamation (BOMR) (formerly within the Department of Natural Resources) Old Lands Program and the baseline for non-mandatory offsite parcels was considered to be the existing condition. The one water body onsite for which the baseline condition presently exists is Tiger Bay, which has been reclaimed and released. The baseline condition for the Polk County Site ultimately would include elimination of seepage from N-16 to Tiger Bay and removal of the NPDES outfall weir from Tiger Bay to Camp Branch. These conditions will result in a lowering of the water table in Tiger Bay and the drying out of wetlands in that area. Under current reclamation plans, water bodies also will be created in parcels SA-12 and SA-11. Other than the reclaimed Tiger Bay and Tiger Bay East, DEP, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and Polk County have not claimed jurisdiction over any of the water bodies onsite within areas in which phosphate mining activities have been or will be conducted. The major construction activities which may impact offsite surface water bodies are the dewatering activities associated with the initial phase of construction. During this period, parcels SA-11, SA-13 and N-16 will be dewatered to allow earth-moving activities to take place. Dewatering effluent will be stored onsite, reused in IMC's recirculation system, or discharged in the event of above-average rainfall. After the earthwork is complete, the water will be returned to N-16. Based on this construction scenario, no adverse impact to offsite surface water bodies is expected from the construction activities associated with the Polk County Site. The Polk County Site has been designed to function as a "zero discharge" facility. No surface water will be withdrawn from or discharged to any offsite surface water body as a result of plant operations. Certain non- industrial areas within the Polk County Site will be designed, however, to provide offsite drainage to enhance flows to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch. Flow to McCullough Creek will be enhanced by drainage from parcel SA-10, an offsite portion of the Estech Silver City Plant Site, and the southerly portion of parcel SA-12. Drainage from parcels N-11A, N-13, N-9B, Tiger Bay East and Tiger Bay will enhance flows to Camp Branch. Additionally, FPC has agreed to explore the possibility of restoring drainage to Six Mile Creek if onsite water cropping produces more water than FPC needs for power plant operations and if such drainage can be accomplished without additional permits. The net effect of the drainage enhancement plans will be to equal or improve flows to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch over the baseline condition for the site. There are several types of surface water systems to be developed on the Polk County Site. Surface water runoff from the plant island, other than that from the coal and limestone storage areas, will be routed to the site runoff pond and then used in the cooling pond as makeup water. Surface water runoff from the coal and limestone storage areas, as well as runoff from the active solid waste disposal area, will be routed to a lined recycle basin and will be used as process makeup water for the coal gasification plant. Surface water runoff from mining parcels N-11C, Triangle Lakes, N-11B and N-15 prior to its use as part of the cooling pond, P-3, Phosphoria, P-2 prior to its use as a solid waste disposal area, and SA-8 after it has been closed as a solid waste disposal area, will be directed to the cooling pond as makeup water. All of the surface water management systems will meet the requirements of the SWFWMD Management and Storage of Surface Water rules. Subsurface Hydrology and Impacts from Water Withdrawal The Polk County Site will use a cooling pond for process water and for cooling water for the combined cycle units and the coal gasification facilities. For the initial 940 MW of generating capacity, makeup water for the cooling pond will come from onsite water cropping and reclaimed water from the City of Bartow. FPC has negotiated an agreement with the City of Bartow for 3.5 or more million gallons per day (mgd) of reclaimed water from its wastewater treatment facility. At ultimate site capacity, the Polk County Site will require up to 23.6 mgd from a combination of offsite sources and groundwater for the operation of the power plant. FPC has agreed with the SWFWMD to obtain at least 6.1 mgd from reclaimed water and other offsite non-potable water sources, including the City of Bartow, for use as makeup water for the cooling pond. The additional 17.5 mgd of water may be withdrawn from the Upper Floridan Aquifer if additional sources of reclaimed water are not available. FPC has identified substantial amounts of reclaimed water that may be available. A limited quantity of potable water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will be needed to supply drinking water and other potable water needs for power plant employees. Well water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer will be treated, filtered and chlorinated in an onsite potable water treatment system prior to consumption. At ultimate site development, potable water consumption is estimated to average 19,000 gallons per day, with a peak consumption of 36,000 gallons per day. As an alternative, FPC may connect with the City of Bartow or the City of Fort Meade potable water system. The subsurface hydrology of the Polk County Site consists of three aquifer systems. The uppermost system is the surficial aquifer which is located in the upper 20 to 30 feet of soil. Due to mining operations, the surficial aquifer has been removed from the site except beneath highway rights-of-way and portions of some dams. Below the surficial aquifer lies the intermediate aquifer which is comprised of an upper confining layer approximately 120 feet thick, a middle water bearing unit about 60 feet thick, and a lower confining unit about 80 to 100 feet thick. This aquifer system provides potable water to some small quantity users in the area. Below the intermediate aquifer is the Floridan Aquifer, which consists of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, a discontinuous intermediate confining unit, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Upper Floridan Aquifer provides a larger source of potable water for the area. The Lower Floridan Aquifer is characterized by poorer quality water and has not been used generally for water supply. The principal impact to groundwater from construction of the Polk County Site will be from the dewatering activities in parcels N-16, SA-11 and SA-13. This impact, if not mitigated, could result in the lowering of groundwater levels in the surficial aquifer in adjacent wetlands. During construction, recharge trenches will be constructed in certain locations near wetlands. Modeling analysis demonstrates that the recharge trenches will adequately mitigate any offsite groundwater impacts that otherwise would be caused by construction dewatering. The principal groundwater impact from the operation of the Polk County Site will be the withdrawal of water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer for process water and cooling pond makeup. Water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is the lowest quality of groundwater that can be used for the Polk County Site while maintaining the cooling pond as a zero discharge facility. The withdrawal of 17.5 mgd from the Upper Floridan Aquifer at ultimate site development will not adversely impact offsite legal users of groundwater and will comply with the SWFWMD consumptive use criteria for groundwater withdrawal. Ecological Resources The baseline for the ecological resources at the Polk County Site was established as the site condition that would exist following (i) mandatory reclamation under reclamation plans approved by the DEP/BOMR, and (ii) non- mandatory reclamation normally carried out by the mining companies. In the cases of Tiger Bay, which has been reclaimed and released by DEP/BOMR, and Tiger Bay East, which has revegetated naturally without reclamation, the ecological baseline was represented by the current condition of these parcels. This baseline methodology was proposed by FPC in a Plan of Study which was accepted by DEP in a Binding Written Agreement. The predominant land cover that would occur under the baseline condition at the Polk County Site would be agriculture. Approximately 70 percent of the Polk County Site, or approximately 5,678 acres, would be developed as crop land, citrus or pasture. The remaining 30 percent of the site would be reclaimed as non-agricultural uplands, wetlands and open water bodies. Tiger Bay already has been reclaimed and released by DEP/BOMR and Tiger Bay East has revegetated naturally. These two parcels represent one-fourth (524 acres) of the natural habitat under the ecological baseline condition. The quality of the baseline land cover and vegetation was established by surveying several onsite and offsite areas which have been reclaimed and released. Baseline aquatic resources at the Polk County Site consist of Tiger Bay and the aquatic resources which would have been developed under existing reclamation plans. This baseline would include open water bodies and forested wetlands in parcels SA- 11 and SA-12, and forested and herbaceous wetlands in parcel N-16. Both Estech and IMC have exceeded their mine-wide wetlands mitigation obligations even without those wetlands. The quality of the baseline open water bodies on the Polk County Site was evaluated by surveying parcel N- 16, which currently consists of open water habitat. The quality of wetlands was determined by surveying Tiger Bay, which contains wetlands that have been reclaimed and released. The baseline aquatic resources were found to have significant fluctuations of dissolved oxygen, and were characterized by encroachment of cattail, water hyacinth and other nuisance species. All of the aquatic areas sampled as representative of baseline conditions showed significant eutrophication. No DEP or SWFWMD jurisdictional wetlands currently exist onsite, within areas in which phosphate mining activities have been or will be conducted, except in the reclaimed Tiger Bay and Tiger Bay East. Baseline evaluation of threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern (listed species) was conducted by collecting information regarding regional habitat descriptions; plant species lists and ecological reports for the area; lists and ecological reports of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians common to the area; species checklists; reports of sightings or abundance estimates; interspecific relationships and food chains of important species; location of rare, threatened or endangered species or critical habitat for these species in the region; and occurrence of potential preexisting stresses. Information from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and approved mine reclamation plans was reviewed. Visits were made to nearby reclaimed sites by land and low-flying helicopters. No listed plant species were found at the site or offsite study areas. Existing reclamation plans, and consequently the ecological baseline condition, do not require the planting of such species. Listed animal species which were observed at the Polk County Site and are expected under the baseline conditions include the American alligator, woodstork, southeastern kestrel, osprey, little blue heron, snowy egret and tricolored heron. The baseline conditions would provide suitable feeding habitat for these species, but only limited areas of suitable nesting habitat. Both the current condition of the site and baseline condition provide feeding habitat for the American bald eagle, however, the nesting potential for this species will be greater after the implementation of the baseline condition. Impacts to the baseline ecological resources from the construction and operation of the Polk County Site will be more than compensated by habitat creation and enhancement programs proposed by FPC. The primary impacts to the baseline ecological resources will occur when power plant facilities, such as the plant island, cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal area are constructed, eliminating these parcels from the baseline ecological resources. Without development of the Polk County Site, these parcels would represent approximately 2,268 acres of viable lakes and upland and wetland habitats. FPC has proposed a total of 3,713 acres of viable wildlife habitat as part of the ultimate development of the Polk County Site. Accordingly, the available wildlife habitat after construction of the Polk County Site represents a net increase of 1,445 acres over the baseline ecological resource conditions. This increase in habitat, particularly in the buffer area, will be a net benefit for protected species. In providing more wildlife habitat than baseline conditions, FPC has agreed to certain enhancement activities that will specifically offset any impact to baseline ecological resources. These enhancement programs include habitat and wetland creation in parcels N-9B and N-13; habitat creation and offsite drainage enhancement in parcel SA-10; implementation of a wildlife habitat management plan and exotic vegetation control in parcels SA-10, N-9B and N-13; drainage enhancement to McCullough Creek and Camp Branch; and funding the acquisition of a 425 acre offsite area to serve as part of a wildlife corridor. Air Pollution Control Polk County has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEP as an attainment area for all six criteria air pollutants. Federal and state Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations provide that the project will be subject to "new source review." This review generally requires that the project comply with all applicable state and federal emission limiting standards, including New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) be applied to control emissions of PSD pollutants emitted in excess of applicable PSD significant emission rates. The project will limit emission rates to levels far below NSPS requirements. For the initial 470 MW phase of the Project, BACT must be applied for the following pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulates (PM and PM10), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), beryllium, inorganic arsenic, and benzene. For the ultimate site capacity, BACT is required for each of these pollutants, and sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4), mercury, and lead as well. BACT is defined in DEP Rule 17-212.200(16), Florida Administrative Code, as: An emission limitation, including a visible emission standard, based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant emitted which the Department, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts, and other costs, determines is achievable through application of production processes and available methods, systems and techniques (including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques) for control of each such pollutant. The primary purpose of a BACT analysis is to minimize the allowable increases in air pollutants and thereby increase the potential for future economic growth without significantly degrading air quality. Such an analysis is intended to insure that the air emissions control systems for the project reflect the latest control technologies used in a particular industry and is to take into consideration existing and future air quality in the vicinity of the project. The BACT analysis for the project therefore evaluated technical, economic, and environmental considerations of available control technologies and examined BACT determinations for other similar facilities across the United States. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, BACT for SO2 emissions from the CTs is the use of natural gas as the primary fuel and the use of low sulfur oil for a limited number of hours per year. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, BACT for CO, VOCs, PM, beryllium, arsenic, and benzene emissions from the CTs is efficient design and operation of the CTs, the inherent quality of natural gas (the primary fuel), and a limitation on the annual use of fuel oil. For the first 470 MW of combined cycle units, BACT for NOx emissions from the CTs is the use of advanced dry low NOx combustors capable of achieving emissions of 12 parts per million by volume dry (ppmvd) at 15 percent oxygen when burning natural gas, water/steam injection to achieve 42 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen when burning fuel oil, and limited annual fuel oil use. For the first 470 MW of NGCC units, the DEP staff initially proposed BACT for NOx emissions from the CTs as 9 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen when burning natural gas, using dry low NOx combustor technology. However, after careful consideration, it was determined that, because of the lack of proven technology to achieve such emission rate, it would be more appropriate to establish BACT at 73 lb/hour/CT (24-hour average, based on 12 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen and 59o F) using dry low NOx combustor technology and to require FPC to make every practicable effort to achieve the lowest possible NOx emission rate with those CTs when firing natural gas. FPC also is required to conduct an engineering study to determine the lowest emission rate consistently achievable with a reasonable operating margin taking into account long-term performance expectations and assuming good operating and maintenance practices. Based on the results of that study, DEP may adjust the NOx emission limit downward, but not lower than 55 lb/hour/CT (24-hour average, based on 9 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen and 59o F.). For the 99 MBtu/hour auxiliary boiler that is part of the initial phase of the project, BACT for NOx emissions is low NOx burners, limited annual fuel oil use, and limited hours of annual operation. BACT for NOx emissions from the 1300 kW diesel generator is combustion timing retardation with limited hours of annual operation. For the 99 MBtu/hour auxiliary boiler and the diesel generator as part of the initial phase of the project, BACT for CO, VOC, SO2, PM, benzene, beryllium, and arsenic emissions consists of good combustion controls, the inherent quality of the fuels burned, the use of low-sulfur fuel oil, and limited hours of operation. For the fuel oil storage tank as part of the initial phase of the project, BACT is submerged filling of the tank. For the coal gasification and other facilities to be built during later phases of the project, a preliminary BACT review was undertaken by FPC to support the demonstration that the Polk County Site has the ultimate capacity and resources available to support the full phased project. Air Quality Impact Analysis Air emissions from the project also must comply with Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria pollutants and Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments for three pollutants. Polk County and the contiguous counties are classified as Class II areas for PSD purposes; the nearest Class I area is the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, located approximately 120 km. from the Site. An air quality analysis, undertaken in accordance with monitoring and computer modeling procedures approved in advance by EPA and DEP, demonstrated that the project at ultimate capacity utilizing worst-case assumptions will comply with all state and federal ambient air quality standards as well as PSD Class I and II increments. For nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, air quality modeling was based on conservative assumptions, including background concentrations based upon the highest long- term and second highest short-term measured values (established through an onsite one-year air quality monitoring program and regional data), existing major sources at their maximum emissions, the estimated maximum emissions from certain other proposed projects, and the impacts of the proposed FPC project at ultimate site capacity. For other pollutants, detailed analyses were not performed because offsite impacts were predicted to be insignificant. Impacts of the project's estimated emissions of certain hazardous air pollutants (antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, benzene, boron, cadmium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, formaldehyde, magnesium, manganese, nickel, selenium, vanadium, and zinc) at ultimate capacity were compared to the DEP draft no-threat levels under DEP's draft "Air Toxics Permitting Strategy." All pollutants except arsenic were projected to be below the corresponding draft no- threat level. Because of the conservatism of DEP's draft no-threat levels, it was concluded that arsenic impacts would not pose a significant health risk to the population in the surrounding area. Impacts on vegetation, soils, and wildlife in both the site area and the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, the nearest PSD Class I area, will be minimal. Visibility in the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area will not be impaired significantly by the project's emissions. Air quality impacts from commercial, industrial, and residential growth induced by the project are expected to be small and well-distributed throughout the area. Impacts from the initial phase of the Project (470 MW) will comply with all State and federal ambient air quality standards as well as PSD Class I and II increments. The impacts from the initial phase of the Project are also well below the draft no-threat levels. The initial phase of the Project will not significantly impair visibility in the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area, and the impact on vegetation, soils, and wildlife in both the site area and the vicinity of the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area will be minimal. The air quality impacts due to commercial, industrial, and residential growth from the initial phase of the Project will be small, and are not expected to impact air quality. Land Use Planning/Socioeconomic Impacts of Construction and Operation The proposed site is an appropriate location for the Polk County Site project. The Polk County Site has adequate access to highway and rail networks, including CR 555, a major collector road, and the CSX railroad. The Polk County Site is located away from major residential areas in a location already heavily disturbed by mining activity. The site is located in reasonable proximity to major metropolitan areas that can supply an adequate work force for construction. Development of the Polk County Site in a mined-out phosphate area is a beneficial use of land and will provide an economic benefit for Polk County. The Polk County Site also is close to existing facilities, such as existing transmission line corridors and reclaimed water facilities, which will benefit the operation of the site while minimizing the impact of the project. The linear facilities associated with the Polk County Site are sited in appropriate locations. The 230-kV transmission line upgrade, reclaimed water pipeline and backup natural gas pipeline corridors: (i) are located adjacent to other linear facilities, such as existing roads and transmission lines, (ii) avoid major residential areas, and (iii) minimally disrupt existing land uses. The Polk County Site is compatible with the State Comprehensive Plan, the CFRPC Regional Policy Plan, and will meet the requirements of the Polk County Conditional Use Permit. The portion of the backup natural gas pipeline located in Hillsborough County is consistent with the Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan and the policies of the TBRPC Regional Policy Plan. Construction of the Polk County Site will occur over an approximately 25-year period beginning in 1994. If the Polk County Site is developed only for NGCC capacity, construction employment will average 153 jobs per year with a peak employment of 350. The average annual payroll for construction of the Polk County Site on all NGCC is expected to be $7.1 million per year. If 1,000 MW of NGCC and 2,000 MW of CGCC units are built at the Polk County Site, peak construction employment will be 1,000 with an average annual construction employment of 315 over the approximate 25-year period. Average annual payroll under this scenario would be $14.6 million per year. Indirect jobs created as a result of buildout of the Polk County Site will average 231 jobs for all NGCC and 477 jobs if 2,000 MW of CGCC is added to the Polk County Site. After completion of the construction of the Polk County Site at ultimate capacity, 110 permanent direct jobs will be created if the site uses all NGCC and 410 jobs will be created if coal gasification is added to the Polk County Site. The operation of the Polk County Site will have a multiplier effect on the Polk County economy. The all NGCC scenario will create 272 indirect jobs and the Case A' scenario with CGCC will create 1,013 indirect jobs. After buildout, property taxes generated by the Polk County Site are estimated to be $24.3 million per year for the all NGCC scenario and $37.4 million per year if CGCC capacity is constructed at the site. Noise Impacts The ambient noise, or baseline noise condition at the Polk County Site was measured in five locations. These measurements show that the baseline noise condition for the site ranges between 30 dBA and 65 dBA at the nearest residential location. The higher noise levels are caused by truck traffic associated with the phosphate mining industry. Noise impacts from construction will be loudest during initial site preparation and steel erection stages. Earth moving equipment will produce noise levels of 45 to 50 dBA at the nearest residence in Homeland. During final phases of construction, steam blowout activity to clean steam lines will produce short duration noise levels of 69 dBA at the nearest residence. This activity will take place only during daylight hours. Noise levels from the operation of the Polk County Site were calculated using a computer program specifically designed for assessing noise impacts associated with power plant operation. The highest predicted continuous noise level will be 41 dBA at several houses 2.9 miles south of the site and 47 dBA at the nearest church. Noise impacts from fuel delivery trucks and coal trains will not significantly increase the noise levels over existing conditions. The continuous noise level from the operation of the Polk County Site at the nearest residence or church will be below the 55 dBA level recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Traffic Traffic analyses were made for impacts to highway traffic which will result from the construction and operation of the Polk County Site. These analyses included impacts at rail crossings caused by the delivery of coal to the Polk County Site under the Case A' scenario. A highway traffic analysis was made to determine if the existing roadway network in the vicinity of the Polk County Site would operate at acceptable levels of service based upon increased volumes of traffic associated with the construction and operation employment at the Polk County Site. Methodologies for evaluating traffic impact complied with Polk County, FDOT and CFRPC criteria. County roads were evaluated using Polk County criteria and state roads were evaluated using both Polk County and FDOT criteria. Traffic volumes were evaluated for peak construction traffic in 2010 and full plant operations, estimated in 2018. The traffic evaluation included analysis of existing traffic conditions, increased traffic volume associated with growth in the area not associated with the Polk County Site, and increased traffic associated with construction and operation employment at the Polk County Site. During peak construction employment under the Case A' scenario, 1,000 employees are expected at the Polk County Site. Under this scenario, the expected trip generation of the Polk County Site is expected to be 1,792 trips per day, with a morning peak of 717 trips and an afternoon peak of 717 trips. Based on this analysis, all roadways are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with currently planned improvements to the roadways. Intersection levels of service were found acceptable for 7 out of 11 intersections. FPC has recommended improvements to four intersections at U.S. 98 and SR 60A, SR 60 and CR 555, SR 37 and CR 640, and CR 555 and CR 640 at specified traffic levels. Peak operation employment under the Case A' scenario is expected to be 410 employees in 2018. Based upon this employment figure, the expected trip generation of the Polk County Site is 964 trips per day with a morning peak of 195 trips and an afternoon peak of 154 trips. At peak operation employment, all roadways evaluated were found to operate at acceptable levels of service. All intersections, except the intersection at SR 60 and CR 555, were found to operate at acceptable levels. FPC has recommended a protected/permissive westbound left turn lane at this intersection. With FPC's recommended improvements, which have been incorporated as conditions of certification, and those improvements currently planned by FDOT, the existing roadway network will meet Polk County and FDOT approved levels of service at peak employment during the construction and operation of the Polk County Site to its ultimate capacity. In addition to the highway traffic impact analysis, FPC evaluated the impact on rail/highway crossings from the transportation of coal by rail under the Case A' scenario. It was assumed that all coal for the Polk County Site will be delivered by rail over existing CSX transportation lines. It is expected that at full operation two 90-car trains per day will be required for the delivery of coal, resulting in four train trips per day. It was also assumed that trains will travel at speeds averaging 35 to 45 miles per hour. Evaluation of the impacts at rail crossings found an increase of .5 second per vehicle per day at urban rail crossings and .3 second per vehicle per day at rural rail crossings. Based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, the total delay at rail crossing intersections caused by the increased train traffic to and from the Polk County Site will not cause a significant delay and the rail crossing intersections will maintain level of service A. Archaeological and Historic Sites The Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, has stated that because of the location of the Polk County Site, it is unlikely that any significant archaeological or historical sites will be affected. Mandatory Reclamation of Mining Parcels The Polk County Site is comprised of phosphate mining parcels, portions of which are subject to mandatory reclamation under the jurisdiction of DEP/BOMR. The mandatory mining parcels are currently owned by Estech, IMC, and USAC. FPC has entered into stipulations with each mining company agreeing to reclamation of the mandatory mining parcels in accordance with the conditions of certification proposed by DEP/BOMR. In those conditions, DEP has proposed to incorporate the reclamation conceptual plan modifications included in Appendix 10.9 of the SCA into the certification proceeding for the Polk County Site and has redesignated those conceptual plan modifications as EST-SC-CPH and IMC-NP- FPC. The portions of the site which will be developed by FPC will be released from mandatory reclamation requirements when FPC purchases the Polk County Site. Variances FPC has requested variances from certain reclamation standards set forth in Rule 16C-16.0051, Florida Administrative Code, which will be necessary until the affected mining parcels on the Polk County Site are released from reclamation. FPC has requested a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(5)(a), which requires artificial water bodies to have an annual zone of fluctuation, and Rule 16C-16.0051(5)(b), which requires submerged vegetation and fish bedding in artificially-created water bodies. The criteria in these rules are inappropriate for a cooling pond, because it is an industrial wastewater treatment facility which cannot be efficiently or safely operated with fluctuating water levels and aquatic vegetation zones. With regard to the construction of dams for the cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal areas, FPC will need a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(2)(a), which requires a 4:1 slope for dam embankments and Rule 16C-16.0051(9)(b) and (c), which requires vegetation of upland areas, which may include dam embankments. Dams for the cooling pond, brine pond and solid waste disposal areas will have steeper slopes and the interiors of the dams will be concrete blanket revetments, synthetic liners or solid waste consistent with the industrial purposes for which these facilities have been constructed. Access to these areas will be controlled to prevent any potential safety hazard. Finally, FPC will need a variance from Rule 16C-16.0051(11)(b)(4), which requires reclamation to be completed within two years after mining operations are completed. Construction of the Polk County Site requires extensive dewatering and earthwork which cannot be completed within this timeframe. Applications for variances from mining reclamation criteria were included in Appendix 10.9 of the SCA and have been incorporated into the certification proceeding for the Polk County Site. DEP has redesignated these variance applications as EST-SC-FPC-V and IMC-NP-FPC-V. These variances are appropriate and should be granted. Agency Positions and Stipulations The Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and Polk County have recommended certification for the construction and operation of the initial 470 MW of natural gas combined cycle generating capacity and have recommended the determination that the Polk County Site has the ultimate capacity for 3,000 MW of natural gas and coal gas combined cycle generating capacity, subject to appropriate conditions of certification. No other state, regional or local agency that is a party to the certification proceeding has recommended denial of the certification for the construction of the initial 470 MW of generating capacity or determination of ultimate site capacity. Several agencies which expressed initial concern regarding certification of the Polk County Site have resolved those concerns with FPC and have entered into stipulations with FPC as discussed below. The Florida Department of Transportation, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Department of Community Affairs have entered into stipulations with FPC recommending certification of the Polk County Site and a determination that the Polk County Site has the ultimate site capacity to support 3,000 MW of NGCC and CGCC generating capacity subject to proposed conditions of certification. Hillsborough County, the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, and the Tampa Port Authority have entered into a stipulation and agreement with FPC recommending certification of the backup natural gas pipeline corridor subject to proposed conditions of certification. FPC and the agency parties have agreed on a set of conditions of certification for the Polk County Site. Those conditions are attached as Appendix A to this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Florida Power Corporation be granted certification pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location, construction and operation of 470 MW of combined cycle generating capacity as proposed in the Site Certification Application and in accordance with the attached Conditions of Certification. Florida Power Corporation's Polk County Site be certified for an ultimate site capacity of 3,000 MW fueled by coal gas, natural gas, and fuel oil subject to supplemental application review pursuant to 403.517, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-17.231, Florida Administrative Code, and the attached Conditions of Certification. A zone of discharge be granted in accordance with the attached Conditions of Certification. The conceptual plan modifications (EST-SC-CPH and IMC-NP-FPC) for the mandatory phosphate mining reclamation plans be granted subject to the attached Conditions of Certification. The variances from reclamation standards (EST-SC-FPC-V and IMC-NP-FPC- V) as described herein be granted subject to the attached Conditions of Certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 3rd day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5308EPP RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION * * NOTE: 114 page Recommended Conditions of Certification plus attachments is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary P. Sams Richard W. Moore Attorneys at Law Hopping Boyd Green & Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Representing Applicant Pamela I. Smith Corporate Counsel Florida Power Corporation Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733-4042 Richard Donelan Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road, Room 654 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Representing DER Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Office of Siting Coordination Division of Air Resources Mgmt. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Lucky T. Osho Karen Brodeen Assistant General Counsels Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Representing DCA Michael Palecki, Chief Bureau of Electric & Gas Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Representing PSC M. B. Adelson, Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing DNR Carolyn S. Holifield, Chief Chief, Administrative Law Section Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Representing DOT Doug Leonard, Executive Director Ralph Artigliere, Attorney at Law Central Florida Regional Planning Council 409 East Davidson Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Representing CFRPC Julia Greene, Executive Director Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Representing Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council John J. Dingfelder Assistant County Attorney Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601-1110 Representing Hillsborough County Mark Carpanini Attorney at Law Office of County Attorney Post Office Box 60 Bartow, Florida 33830-0060 Representing Polk County Martin D. Hernandez Richard Tschantz Assistant General Counsels Southwest Florida Water Management District 2370 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Representing SWFWMD James Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Representing GFWFC Sara M. Fotopulos Chief Counsel Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 1900 Ninth Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Representing EPCHC Joseph L. Valenti, Director Tampa Port Authority Post Office Box 2192 Tampa, Florida 33601 Representing Tampa Port Authority Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Don E. Duden, Acting Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Representing the Trustees Honorable Lawton Chiles Governor State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether proposed amendments to Rules 17-761.200, 17-761.500 and 17- 761.510, Florida Administrative Code, are arbitrary and capricious, and therefore, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority? Whether the economic impact statement accompanying the proposed amendments to Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code, was adequate? Whether the Department of Environmental Regulation properly considered the impacts of the proposed amendments to Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code, on small and minority business pursuant to Sections 120.54(2)(a) and (3)(b), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is responsible for, among other things, regulating underground petroleum storage tank systems in the State of Florida. Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. FPMA is a voluntary, nonprofit trade association comprised of 190 voting members who sell and distribute petroleum products on a wholesale and retail basis in Florida. FPMA also includes nonvoting associate members who provide equipment and technical services to FPMA members. FPMA's members include entities which are "small businesses" (approximately 18 to 20%) within the meaning of Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes, and/or who sell petroleum products to customers that store petroleum products and constitute "small businesses." A substantial number of FPMA's members also include owners and operators of petroleum storage facilities with bare steel tanks and/or with storage tanks that currently are not equipped with secondary containment. A substantial number of FPMA's members operate in rural areas. FPMA's purposes include providing representation before the Florida Legislature and agencies. Background and History. The Water Quality Assurance Act, Chapter 83-310, Laws of Florida, was enacted by the Legislature in 1983. This Act gave the Department the authority to promulgate rules regulating the construction, maintenance, installation and removal of underground storage tanks. Section 376.303(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Act also preempted local regulation of the prevention and removal of pollutant discharges unless a local ordinance had been adopted prior to September 1, 1984, or the local effort is approved by the Department. Section 376.317, Florida Statutes. Dade County, Florida, had adopted an Underground Storage Facilities Ordinance, Ordinance 83-108. Ordinance 83-108 imposed storage tank requirements depending on the location in Dade County relative to identified wellfield protection areas and zones of influence around potable well supplies. Ordinance 83-108 requires replacement of underground petroleum storage tanks by certain dates depending on when existing tanks were installed. The Ordinance also takes into account whether a tank is made of corrosion resistant materials. See proposed finding of fact 3 of the Petitioner's Proposed Final Order for some of the specific requirements of Ordinance 83-108. Dade County Ordinance 91-33 amended the requirements of Ordinance 83- 108. Ordinance 91-33 requires secondary containment for new underground petroleum storage tanks installed in Dade County 180 days after the effective date of Ordinance 91-33 but does not require the replacement of existing single- walled tanks not located in a zone of influence or which are on property served by a public utility. Broward County, Florida, adopted Chapter 27-10, in May, 1984, regulating underground storage tanks. Chapter 27-10 contains less stringent requirements than those required by the rules at issue in this proceeding. See proposed finding of fact 5 of the Petitioner's Proposed Final Order for some of the specific requirements of Chapter 27-10. In May, 1984, the Department promulgated Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. These rules regulated underground (and aboveground) storage tanks on a statewide basis, with two exceptions (Dade and Broward Counties). Rule 17-61.060(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, required that new underground storage tanks and piping be constructed of corrosion-resistant materials, and be installed with overfill protection and monitoring systems. This Rule also prohibited the use of new bare steel tanks and integral piping containing motor vehicle fuels. Rule 17-61.060(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, required that existing underground storage tanks be retrofitted with monitoring systems and overfill protection beginning December 31, 1986, and ending December 31, 1989, depending on the age of the tank. Rule 17-61.060(2)(c) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, also required that existing bare steel underground tanks and piping be replaced with corrosion-resistant systems on a schedule beginning December 31, 1989, and ending December 31, 1998, depending on the age of the tank. As an alternative, bare steel tanks could be retrofitted with internal lining or cathodic protection, and bare piping could be retrofitted with cathodic protection. Rule 17-61.060(2)(b)-(c) and (3), Florida Administrative Code. In adopting Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, the Department exempted facilities which did not receive, store, or use more than 1,000 gallons in any calendar month or more than 10,000 gallons in any calendar year. Rule 17-61.040(1), Florida Administrative Code. In adopting this exemption the Department indicated that "[v]ery small users are considered to pose a smaller risk and are not anticipated to contribute as significantly to contamination of groundwater across the state." The Department also indicated that the businesses being exempted included agricultural businesses, small businesses and other commercial activities and governmental installations. Finally, the Department indicated that it had developed the retrofitting schedules to allow for the exhaustion of the useful life of existing systems. In October, 1985, Alachua County, Florida, filed a petition with the Department for approval of its local storage tank ordinances, Ordinances 85-7 and 85-13. Alachua County required secondary containment for underground storage systems. The Department approved the ordinances conditioned upon Alachua County amending them to take into account concerns the Department expressed concerning the ordinances. In particular, the Department questioned whether Alachua County should require secondary containment for all of the County without taking into account the differences in the groundwater throughout the County. The Department also questioned the schedule for requiring secondary containment. For more specific complaints raised by the Department see proposed finding of fact 8 of the Petitioner's Proposed Final Order. Alachua County subsequently adopted a new storage tank ordinance, Ordinance 87-10. Ordinance 87-10 required secondary containment for new facilities and extended the retrofit schedule for existing facilities. The extended schedule took into account to hydrogeology of the location of the storage tank and the proximity to public water supply wells. Existing corrosion-resistent tanks were allowed twenty years from installation if overfill protection and leak detection were installed. Congress banned the installation of most new bare steel storage tanks. They were banned by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter referred to as the "EPA"), was ordered to adopt regulations governing underground storage tanks. On September 28, 1988, the EPA promulgated 40 CFR 280. These regulations required, among other things, that: new underground storage tanks be constructed of corrosion-resistant materials; existing bare steel tanks must be upgraded by December 22, 1990; and, existing tanks may be replaced by corrosion- resistant materials, may be internally lined or protected by cathodic protection. The EPA also promulgated 40 CFR 281, authorizing the approval by the EPA of state storage tank programs which are no less stringent that the EPA's requirements. On June 8, 1990, the Environmental Regulation Commission adopted Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code. These rules, which were adopted to bring Florida's storage tank program into compliance with the regulations adopted by the EPA in 1988, imposed new construction requirements on underground storage systems. In light of the fact that some of the requirements of Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code, were more stringent than those imposed by the EPA, the Governor and Cabinet were required by Section 403.804, Florida Statutes, to approve the rules. On October 9, 1990, the Governor and Cabinet considered the new rules. ManaSota-88, Inc., appeared at the meeting and requested that the Governor and Cabinet limit the definition of secondary containment to double- walled tanks and piping, and to move up the date requiring secondary containment for the installation of new and replacement tanks from December 31, 1998, to December, 1990. The Governor and Cabinet approved Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Existing Rules"), and "recommended" that the Environmental Regulation Commission "review" ManaSota-88, Inc.'s, recommendations. On January 10, 1991, the Department held a public workshop before the Environmental Regulation Commission to receive public comment on several alternative changes to the Existing Rules developed as a result of ManaSota-88, Inc.'s, suggestions to the Governor and Cabinet. New information concerning the environmental or technological necessity of amending the Existing Rules was not provided at the workshop. On February 8, 1991, the Department caused notice of rule making to be published in Volume 17, Number 16, Florida Administrative Code, amending the Existing Rules (the proposed amendments will hereinafter be referred to as the "Proposed Amendments"). On March 1, 1991, FPMA filed a Petition to Determine Invalidity of Proposed Rules challenging the validity of the Proposed Amendments. On March 14, 1991, the Environmental Regulation Commission, following a public hearing, adopted the Proposed Amendments with certain changes not relevant to this proceeding. Members of the FPMA testified at the public hearing. The Requirements of the Existing Rules and the Changes Thereto of the Proposed Amendments. Generally, the Existing Rules require owners and operators of underground vehicular fuel storage tanks to upgrade their underground storage tank systems to include secondary containment according to a schedule which takes into account the date of installation of an existing storage tank or whether the tank is a new storage tank. "Secondary containment" under the Existing Rules is defined as a system used to improve release detection and release prevention and includes double-walled tanks, double-walled integral piping systems or a single-walled tank or integral piping system protected by an outside liner. For petroleum storage systems, secondary containment consists of a primary container composed of fiberglass or steel. The primary container is surrounded by an outer wall or liner. New Underground Storage Tanks. Under the Existing Rules new underground storage tanks (other than those used to store hazardous substances) installed between December 10, 1990, and December 31, 1998, may be single-walled tanks if they are corrosion- resistant. A storage tank is considered to be corrosion-resistant under the Existing Rules if it is a single-walled fiberglass tank, a tank with an internal lining or a tank with cathodic protection. New underground storage tanks installed after December 31, 1998, must be constructed with secondary containment under the Existing Rules. Under the Existing Rules, any new underground storage tank installed as a replacement for an underground storage tank during the existing life of the tank could be a single-walled tank if it was corrosion-resistant. The Existing Rules also provide that new storage tanks may not be installed within 50 feet of an existing potable water supply well. Secondary containment must be installed for any new, upgraded or replacement tank located within 300 feet of an existing private, public or noncommunity water supply system. These requirements were not changed by the Proposed Amendments. Under the Proposed Amendments, all new underground storage tanks installed after December 31, 1991, must be installed with secondary containment. New tanks that are corrosion resistant are not allowed under the Proposed Amendments. Replacement tanks under the Proposed Amendments also must be installed with secondary containment. Existing Underground Storage Tanks. Existing single-walled underground storage tanks must be replaced with secondary containment under the Existing Rules by certain dates, which depend on whether the existing tank has corrosion protection. The replacement dates recognize the useful life of the existing tanks being replaced. Under the Existing Rules, an existing underground storage tank was to be upgraded with an internal lining if the integrity of the tank is assured, it is tightness tested and it otherwise meets applicable standards. As an alternative, an existing tank was to be upgraded with cathodic protection if the structural integrity of the tank is certified after inspection and the tank is tightness tested. Finally, an existing tank could be upgraded with a combination of internal lining and cathodic protection. Cathodic protection is a device that utilizes an electrochemical process to protect the external surface of a metal tank against corrosion. Depending on the useful life of an existing underground storage tank, the Existing Rules require that existing tanks that were corrosion resistant or internally lined be replaced with secondary containment by December 31, 2012, 2015 or 2018. Existing underground storage tanks which are upgraded with cathodic protection must be replaced with secondary containment under the Existing Rules by December 31, 1989. Pursuant to the Proposed Amendments, existing steel tanks that have not been lined or that do not have cathodic protection prior to December 31, 1991, must be replaced with secondary containment by December 31, 1992, 1995 or 1998, depending on the age of the tank. Existing underground storage tanks that are made of corrosion resistent materials, that have been lined or that were initially installed with cathodic protection prior to December 31, 1991, must be replaced with secondary containment by December 31, 2009, under the Proposed Amendments. Existing tanks with field-installed cathodic protection must be replaced with secondary containment, depending on the age of the tank, by December 31, 1992, 1995 or 1998, under the Proposed Amendments. Under the Existing Rules and the Proposed Amendments, underground petroleum storage tanks are ultimately required to be installed with secondary containment. The Existing Rules allow the use of alternative forms of protection (corrosion resistant single-walled tanks, liners and/or cathodic protection) during a period of time beginning on the effective date of the Existing Rules and ending December 31, 2018. The Proposed Amendments substantially speed up the time schedule for secondary containment. The alternative forms of protection allowed under the Existing Rules may still be used, but only if installed before December 31, 1991. Justification for the Proposed Amendments. Petroleum storage systems, including underground storage tanks, can and do leak petroleum for a number of reasons, including failure of tanks and lines. There are 2,295 permitted petroleum storage facilities in Dade County. Of these facilities, approximately 1,614, or just over 70%, have petroleum contamination. The Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management conducted a study of the cause of the petroleum contamination at 50 randomly selected permitted petroleum storage facilities. Based upon a review of these 50 sites, the source of contamination at 13 of the sites (26%) was discernible. The source of contamination at the other 37 sites could not be determined. Of the 13 sites for which the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management was able to determine the source of contamination, tank failures were identified as the source of contamination at 10 of the sites (20% of the total sites reviewed) and lines were the source of contamination at the other 3 sites. Five of the tank failures involved bare steel tanks, one involved a fiberglass coated steel tank, two were fiberglass tanks and one was a fiberglass tank with a liner. None of the 13 tank failures were attributable to double-walled steel or double-walled fiberglass tanks. There are in excess of 10,000 petroleum contamination sites located throughout the State of Florida that have been reported to the Department. These sites have been ranked by the Department based on fire and explosion hazards and the proximity of the contamination sites to drinking water wells. Some of the contamination sites reported to the Department for cleanup have been caused by leaking underground petroleum storage tanks. The Department's petroleum contamination cleanup standards are based on whether groundwater is considered to be of G-II quality. A G-II classification for groundwater includes all groundwater in aquifers suitable for potable water use. Such aquifers are considered to have a total dissolved solids content of less than 10,000 mg/1. Groundwater in Florida of G-II quality includes groundwater in both the surficial aquifers and the Floridan aquifer. The Department considers the quality of water in any aquifer that will produce water as having potential resource value regardless of whether it is currently used for potable drinking water. Therefore, contamination in such aquifers must be cleaned up to G-II quality. Petroleum contamination in Florida has affected every aquifer of G-II quality in the State. Ninety-two percent of Florida's drinking water is provided by groundwater. The Inland Protection Trust Fund was created in October, 1986, to provide funds for the cleanup of petroleum contamination (benzine) sites in Florida. Since that time, the Department has spent approximately $1,600,000.00 for the restoration and replacement of petroleum contaminated potable drinking water. Since October, 1986, 225 water supply wells (public and private) in Florida have been contaminated with benzine to the extent that action was necessary to correct the contamination. Eight of the 225 wells were used for municipal water. These 8 wells have been restored or replaced. Approximately 44 potable drinking water wells serving mobile homes, restaurants and service stations, (or noncommunity public water systems), and 143 private wells have been contaminated with petroleum and have been restored or replaced. Use of secondary containment systems of storing petroleum allows monitoring of the interstitial space between the primary container and the secondary external barrier of the storage tank. Interstitial monitoring methods include: (a) placing a probe inside the space which detects and responds to the product stored or vapors therefrom; (b) filling the space with liquid and monitoring the level of the liquid; and (c) creating and monitoring a vacuum in the space, which allows monitoring of both walls. There is a high probability that the use of secondary containment will facilitate the detection of petroleum leaks in a storage tank before the petroleum escapes the secondary containment into the environment. Interstitial monitoring in a secondary containment system greatly reduces the number of factors which can interfere with petroleum leak detection. For example, interstitial monitoring provides an opportunity to distinguish new leaks from existing contamination. Secondary containment represents the best underground petroleum storage tank technology currently available. Leak detection for a single-walled tank provides detection of a leak of petroleum contamination after the contamination has entered the environment. Double-walled secondary containment tanks are stronger than single- walled tanks. Therefore, double-walled tanks are less prone to flex and, consequently, are less prone to crack than a single-walled tank. Each wall of a double-walled tank provides protection from physical damage for the other wall not provided in single-walled tanks. Cathodic protection provides protection from external corrosion of metal storage tanks. It does not, however, provide leak detection in the manner that secondary containment does. Cathodic protection systems are generally not warranted because their effectiveness depends on the operation and maintenance of the system by the tank owner. Internal linings are used for either preventive maintenance or to repair existing underground storage systems. Internal linings do not prevent external corrosion unless cathodic protection is also provided. Internal linings provide a barrier to petroleum release. Internal linings extend the life of a storage tank system for at least 10 years. If the tank is also cathodically protected, the life of the tank is warranted for 20 years. Internal linings do not provide leak detection in the manner that secondary containment does. The Proposed Amendments Represent a Change in Policy. The record of the process of developing and adopting the Existing Rules indicates that the alternative forms of protection (use of corrosion- resistent tanks, internal linings and cathodic protection) included in the Existing Rules afford some protection to Florida's groundwater from petroleum contamination. In proposing the Existing Rules the Department supported the provisions of the Existing Rules concerning the use of alternative forms of protection and the schedules for implementing the use of secondary containment contained therein. At the time that the Existing Rules were presented to the Governor and Cabinet, the Department did not recommend that secondary containment be required in the manner that it has now provided for under the Proposed Amendments. In adopting the Proposed Amendments, the Department has not developed or obtained any additional information in support of the Proposed Amendments. Nor did ManaSota 88, Inc., provide any such information. The reason why the Department initiated the process of adopting the Proposed Amendments was that the Governor and Cabinet directed the Department to consider whether changes to the Existing Rules were needed. The foregoing findings of fact do not support a finding that the Proposed Amendments are arbitrary and capricious. At best, the record of the process of developing and adopting the Existing Rules and the requirements of the Existing Rules prove that a policy decision was made by the Department that the requirements of the Existing Rules were an acceptable method of dealing with petroleum contamination from underground storage tanks in Florida. The fact that the policy decision evidenced in the Existing Rules was made, however, does not prove that a policy decision to require the use of other methods of protection, i.e., secondary containment, is arbitrary and capricious. The record of the adoption of the Existing Rules does raise some question as to the propriety of adopting the more stringent requirements of the Proposed Amendments. That record, however, also adds support to the policy decision to adopt the more stringent requirements. First, although the Department accepted the use of alternative forms of protection when the Existing Rules were adopted, it still evidenced a policy decision that secondary containment is the preferred method of protecting Florida's waters. Additionally, the acceptance by the Governor and Cabinet of the policy decision evidenced in the Existing Rules was conditioned on a reconsideration of the use of the alternative forms of protection (at least for new tanks) which evidenced a willingness on the part of the Governor and Cabinet to make policy decisions which would more stringently protect Florida's waters. Although it is true that the Alachua, Broward and Dade County ordinances and the EPA's regulations are less stringent than the Proposed Amendments, these laws also support the use of secondary containment as the preferred method of protecting the environment from contamination from underground petroleum storage tanks. The evidence proved that there a range of methods available to provide varying degrees of protection to Florida's waters. The use of corrosion- resistant tanks, internal linings and/or cathodic protection provides better protection to Florida's waters than bare steel underground storage tanks. Therefore, these methods of protection are within the range of acceptable methods of protecting Florida's waters. The evidence also proved, however, that secondary containment is not only within the range of acceptable methods of providing protection to Florida's waters, but that it is the best method currently available. The evidence failed to prove that the policy decision of the Department evidenced in the Proposed Amendments is not within the range of reasonable methods of dealing with petroleum contamination of Florida's waters authorized and required by the Florida Legislature. Therefore, the decision to require the use of secondary containment of the Proposed Amendments is not arbitrary and capricious. The Economic Impact Statement and the Economic and Environmental Impact Statement. The Department, as required by Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, prepared an economic impact statement (hereafter referred to as the "EIS"), for the Proposed Amendments. The EIS was prepared by Clyde Diao, the Department's expert in environmental economics. The Department, as required by Section 403.804(2), Florida Statutes, also prepared an Economic and Environmental Impact Statement (hereinafter referred to as the "EEIS"). The EEIS consisted of a study of the economic impact of the Proposed Amendments and included the costs and benefits to the public of the Proposed Amendments. Dr. Diao also prepared the EEIS. The EIS and EEIS contain identical information, except that the EEIS also contains an analysis of the environmental impact of the Proposed Amendments. The following findings of fact only refer the EIS. To the extent relevant to this proceeding, the findings of fact concerning the EIS also apply to the EEIS except to the extent indicated otherwise. It is estimated in the EIS that the additional costs the Department may incur as a result of adopting the Proposed Amendments are expected to be minimal. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this estimate impaired the fairness of the proceedings adopting the Proposed Amendments or the correctness of the Proposed Amendments. The following conclusions were included in the EIS concerning the impact of the Proposed Amendments on the installation of new underground storage tanks: It is recognized that the Proposed Amendments require that new tanks installed after December 31, 1991, have secondary containment instead of requiring secondary containment for new tanks installed after December 31, 1998, as provided under the Existing Rules. It is projected that even if new tanks were not required to have secondary containment until after December 1998, "investors intending to install underground storage tanks would most likely prefer to install secondary containment right away because it is more economical in the long run." In making this projection the Department recognized that "the immediate economic impact of having secondary containment might be greater than installing tanks with no secondary containment, . . ." but concluded that "long-run cost would likely be lower." In concluding that the long-run cost would be lower, the Department considered the difference in the cost of installing a tank with secondary containment with the cost of installing single-walled fiberglass tanks and steel tanks with cathodic protection. The Department estimated that the additional cost would be "in the range of 13.5% to 46.8% depending upon the type of tank used. . . ." It is pointed out that this additional cost, however, will "be a onetime expense to the facilities since they don't have to replace the double- walled tanks anymore." The Department, in concluding that the long-run cost would be lower, also relied upon its conclusion that insurance and monitoring cost associated with tanks installed with secondary containment would be lower in the long-run. The EIS indicates that the cost of insurance for a double-walled tank or a tank with a liner beneath it is about $200.00 per year as compared with $560.00 per year for a tank with no secondary containment. The EIS also indicates that the cost of groundwater monitoring wells or vapor monitoring devices of approximately $8,500.00 will be avoided by using tanks with secondary containment which will be required to have an interstitial monitoring device which cost approximately $1,000.00. Finally, the Department took into account the additional cost of ultimately replacing new underground storage tanks installed without secondary containment which will be incurred under the Existing Rules or the Proposed Amendments if secondary containment is not provided immediately in reaching its conclusion that it will be cheaper in the long-run to install new tanks with secondary containment. The Department included a cost comparison of the long-run cost of installing tanks with and without secondary containment in Annex I and Annex II to the EIS. Finally, the Department made the following finding in the EIS concerning the installation of new tanks: The only problem with requiring secondary containment by the end of 1991 instead of 1998 is that it gives the new underground storage tank owners a shorter period of time to generate the funds to install secondary containment. Smaller firms with lower financial leverage might have difficulty obtaining additional funds necessary to cover the incremental costs. This new requirement could have adverse effects on smaller gas stations that are already planned to be constructed in rural or remote areas where the market is very limited. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that these estimates impaired the fairness of the proceedings adopting the Proposed Amendments or the correctness of the Proposed Amendments. The Department did not make any specific findings in the EIS concerning the additional cost for new tanks which will be incurred in the short-term because of the acceleration of the date for which secondary containment will be required under the Proposed Amendments. See however, finding of fact 70.b., and 75.c., supra. The following conclusions were included in the EIS concerning the impact of the Proposed Amendments on existing tanks: The Department recognizes that "[t]he proposed requirements for existing underground storage tanks could have adverse economic impacts on some facilities, especially those with no corrosion protection and which were installed in 1981-1984 period." In reaching this conclusion, the Department recognized that owners of these tanks would not be able to "recoup their investments before the economic life of the tanks is reached." The Department's conclusion concerning the inability of facilities to recoup the useful life of existing underground storage tanks reasonably applies to almost all existing tanks. The Department recognized that approximately 731 of the owners of existing tanks (2,193 total tanks) constructed during the periods 1970-1975 and 1976-1980 will have to install secondary containment by 1992, and approximately 926 of such owners (2,778 total tanks) will have to install secondary containment by 1995, under the Proposed Amendments instead of the years 2012 and 2015, respectively, under the Existing Rules. These dates are extended to the year 2009 if corrosion protection is installed by December 31, 1991. The EIS indicates that the cost of adding corrosion protection is $2,500.00 to $4,000.00 per tank ($7,500.00 to $12,000.00 for a three tank facility). The EIS indicates that existing tank owners who do not install corrosion protection before December 31, 1991, "might experience economic hardship." The EIS estimates that, for "a typical facility with three tanks having a capacity of 10,000 gallons per tank, the replacement cost could be very high ranging from $101,500 to $107,000." This cost is compared to the $4,500.00 cost of adding internal lining or cathodic protection to an existing tank. The total cost of providing secondary containment for existing retailers is estimated to "range from $75 million to $79 million in 1992 and $94 million to $100 million in 1995." The EIS indicates the total cost could be higher if inflation is taken into account. Based upon these findings, the Department indicates in the EIS that "this could have some adverse economic impacts on some facilities which are currently struggling to survive under present economic conditions but are hoping to improve their business operations in the future." The Department recognizes that large suppliers will not experience the same difficulties as smaller facilities because of existing resources and the ability to pass on the additional costs to individual dealers. The Department also recognizes in the EIS that: smaller firms (gas stations) which are the recipient of this price hike could experience heavy financial strain. Since they operate in a highly competitive industry, they cannot just pass on any increase in the price of their products to the consumers without losing a certain part of their market share. Existing small gas stations without corrosion protection operating in rural areas where the market is small, might really be hurt financially by adoption of the proposed revisions. . . . The Department did not specifically address the costs of, or specify the total cost expected to be incurred for, replacing existing tanks with secondary containment in 1998, including those with field installed cathodic protection. Nor did the EIS specifically address cost which may be incurred by non-retail facilities in complying with the Proposed Amendments. The discussion in the EIS of some of the cost associated with existing tanks are more equivocal than the discussions of those costs in some of the internal documents utilized by the Department. The uses of "could" and "might" as opposed to "will" and "likely" did not impair the fairness of the proceedings adopting the Proposed Amendments or the correctness of the Proposed Amendments. The following conclusions were included in the EIS concerning the impact on competition and employment of the Proposed Amendments: The EIS indicates that the Proposed Amendments "might have some impacts on competition among existing underground storage tank owners and operators." In particular, the EIS indicates that some facilities "would have to either partly operate or shutdown their business for a while until the construction is done." During the time that facilities are partly operating or shutdown the Department projects that other facilities would have a competitive advantage and that employment would be adversely impacted. The EIS also indicates that smaller gas stations would be competitively disadvantaged by larger facilities because of their limited capitalization. The EIS concludes that "[s]ome [smaller facilities] may encounter difficulty in complying with secondary containment requirements." The EIS also indicates that competition will be enhanced between sellers/manufacturers of secondary containment materials at a much earlier date because the demand for such materials would increase much earlier. This same conclusion is reached with regard to businesses providing installation services associated with secondary containment. The EIS does not specifically address some of the costs which smaller facilities may be expected to occur as a result of the competitive advantage larger facilities will probably have in the short-run as a result of the Proposed Amendments. The EIS does not specifically discuss the competitive disadvantage to facilities which must replace tanks in 1995 or 1998. The EIS does not discuss the effect on competition between providers and installers of cathodic protection, single-walled corrosion resistant tanks or tank liners. The following conclusions were included in the EIS concerning the economic and environmental benefits of the Proposed Amendments: The Department indicates that "the new requirements would enhance protection of human health as well as to ground water resources of the State." Recognizing that it is difficult to quantify the economic benefits of the Proposed Amendments, the EIS indicates that "it can be strongly argued that the benefits would outweigh the costs in the long-run." It is concluded that the Proposed Amendments will prevent health hazards and groundwater contamination instead of relying on remedial solutions. The Department estimates that it is more economical to the public and to facility owners and operators to prevent contamination than to clean up contamination. It is estimated that the average cost of cleanup is approximately $200,000.00 per site. The Department also estimates that there are 56,018 underground storage tanks in Florida. Of these tanks, it is estimated that 10,500 are leaking underground fuel tanks, some of which are causing groundwater contamination. The Department has also estimated that 2,500 to 2,600 potable wells in Florida have been contaminated by petroleum storage systems. Because the groundwater level in Florida is very close to the surface, the Department indicates that discharge from a leaking tank will easily travel into the groundwater. The Department concludes that the Proposed Amendments will increase the protection of groundwater from potential contamination. The evidence failed to prove what the exact number of potable wells in Florida that have been contaminated by petroleum leaks. The evidence also failed to prove how many of the known petroleum contamination sites are attributable to underground storage tank leaks as opposed to other sources of leaks, i.e., overfill or pipe leaks. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that the conclusions of the Department concerning the benefits of the Proposed Amendments are not reasonable or are so misstated as to be unreliable. The conclusions reached by the Department in the EIS concerning the benefits of the Proposed Amendments are consistent with the Legislatures intent set out in Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. The Department never conducts an econometric study in preparation of economic impact statements for proposed rules. Nor did the Department prepare such a detailed study in preparing the EIS in this case. As a consequence, there were a number of items of cost or amounts of cost which the Department did not specifically include in the EIS. Taking all of the facts concerning the EIS as a whole, based upon the conclusion that most of the economic impacts of the Proposed Amendments are fairly obvious and based upon the expression of Legislative intent found in Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, it is concluded that the evidence failed to prove that the EIS was so inadequate as to have impaired the fairness of the process or the correctness of the Proposed Amendments. Consideration of Small Businesses. In preparing the EIS, the Department assumed that a "small business" was any business with a net worth of $1,000,000.00 or less and which employed 25 or fewer employees. Small businesses in the petroleum industry often buy products from larger companies and are in competition with larger companies. It is recognized by the Department in several places in the EIS that small businesses will be adversely affected by the Proposed Amendments: It is recognized that small businesses will have difficulty raising capital and/or obtaining financing for the installation of secondary containment under the shorter time schedules of the Proposed Amendments; It is recognized that small businesses will have difficulty passing the cost of complying with the Proposed Amendments they incur on to consumers like larger facilities will likely be able to do; It is recognized that small businesses will be at a competitive disadvantage with larger facilities which are better able to obtain the funds necessary to pay the cost of complying with the Proposed Amendments; and It is recognized that rural facilities, which generally tend to be smaller facilities, will be adversely effected by the Proposed Amendments. The EIS does not specifically identify the number of small businesses which will be affected by the Proposed Amendments or the amount of additional cost small businesses can expect to incur. Although the majority of the cost which will be incurred by small businesses in complying with the Proposed Amendments will be the same as those for larger businesses, the effect on competition of small businesses will be greater. Therefore, the effect of the Proposed Rules will have somewhat of a disproportionate impact on small businesses. This impact, despite the Department's assertion in this case that there will be no disproportionate impact, is recognized in the EIS. As required by Section 120.54(2)(a), Florida Statutes, a number of options concerning secondary containment requirements with varying impacts on small businesses were considered at the Environmental Regulation Commission meeting of January 10, 1991. The express purpose of this meeting was to consider such options. The options specifically addressed during the meeting are set out in proposed findings of fact 98 and 99 of the Department's Recommended Final Order. Among the options obviously considered, are those which are contained in the Existing Rules which FPMA has argued should not be changed. Testimony was presented by representatives of the FPMA and others before the Environmental Regulation Commission at the January 10, 1991, meeting and at the March 14, 1991 public workshop concerning the impact of the Proposed Amendments on small businesses. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the adverse impact on small businesses will be so great that the Department should have tiered the Proposed Amendments to reduce the impact on small businesses. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that small businesses do not contribute significantly to the problem the Proposed Amendments are designed to regulate. The Proposed Amendments do allow some flexibility by providing that facilities that provide the alternative forms of protection prior to December 31, 1991, need not provide secondary containment until after December 31, 1992, 1995, 1998 or 2009. Not all facilities will be able to take advantage of this flexibility because not all facilities can meet the December 31, 1991, deadline. The Department of Commerce's Review of the Proposed Amendments. The Department mailed a copy of the Proposed Amendments to the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Business Assistance, on February 8, 1991. A copy of the Proposed Amendments was logged into the Small and Minority Business Advocate's Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Advocate's Office") on February 12, 1991. Between February 12, 1991, and February 15, 1991, Jonathan Elimimian, an economic legislative analyst in the Advocate's Office, received a copy of the Proposed Amendments from the Bureau of Business Assistance. The evidence failed to prove what happened to the copy of the Proposed Amendments logged into the Advocate's office on February 12, 1991. Dr. Elimimian reviewed the Proposed Amendments and prepared two analyses. In his first analysis, he concluded that the economic impact on small and minority business "is very significant" and that: [m]ost importantly the existing small and minority businesses already operating underground storage tank systems will close their door to business because of economic hardships that might result form the proposed revised rule. To make the situation worst [sic] for small and minority businesses, the scheduled replacement of underground storage tanks shifted from the year 2012 to 12/31/95 makes it further difficult for small and minority underground storage tank owners to raise capital to carry out the expense involved in the changes and still be able to remain competitive or survive. The economic impact is direct and is not productive to small and minority businesses in the field. These findings are not inconsistent or different from the conclusions reached by the Department in the EIS. The findings of Dr. Elimimian were not provided to the Department. Nor was any other correspondence sent to the Department by the Advocate's Office. Instead, as was the practice of the Advocate's Office prior to the employment of the current Small and Minority Business Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the "Advocate"), Dr. Elimimian's review was simply filed in the Advocate Office's files. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department failed to follow any of the procedural requirements of Section 120.54(3)(b), Florida Statutes, concerning the Advocate's Office. In light of the fact that the Advocate did not provide the Department with any comments, the Department did not fail to consider the Advocate's comments or take any action required under Section 120.54(3)(b), Florida Statutes. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether the Advocate had any "evidence and argument . . . [or] alternatives regarding the impact of the rule on small business" concerning the Proposed Amendments. The weight of the evidence also failed to prove that the Advocate had any "evidence and argument . . . [or] alternatives regarding the impact of the rule on small business" which was not considered by the Department, the Environmental Regulation Commission or the Governor and Cabinet. Therefore, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the fairness of the proceedings adopting the Proposed Amendments or the correctness of the Proposed Amendments were impaired by the Advocate's failure to comment of the Proposed Amendments pursuant to Section 120.54(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
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
