The Issue The issues in this case concern the question of whether implementation of the consent agreement threatens the substantial interests of Petitioners in the surface waters and ground water resources at and around Seaboard's used oil facility located off Route 314A in Oklawaha, Marion County, Florida. Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, gave public notice of its intent to implement a consent agreement with Respondent. The other Petitioners opposed the agreement asserting that the waters of the State were threatened by the agreement and requested a final hearing.
Findings Of Fact On March 7, 1988, Seaboard's used oil facility located off Route 314A in Oklawaha, Marion County, Florida, on Little Lake Bryant was inspected by a DER representative. At the time of the inspection pools of used oil were observed on the ground. Four 4,000 gallon above-ground tanks were being used to store used oil. Additionally, several old tank-truck bodies were used to store petroleum produces. These tanks did not have an impervious containment area to prevent used oil from spilling directly onto the ground and to prevent free runoff of precipitation. An underground tank (made from a septic tank) was being used to temporarily store water contaminated with used oil, which was gravity drained from the bottom of the used oil transport trucks. No impervious containment existed around the opening of the underground tank to prevent any spillage during transfer from directly reaching the ground. The underground tank was plugged and has no connection to a drain field. This tank is located in a flood plain. A 2,000 gallon above-ground tank and a 3,000 gallon above-ground tank were used to store water contaminated with used oil from the pumped underground tank. DER, in response to the March 7, 1988 inspection and subsequent site visits, negotiated a consent agreement with Seaboard. The consent agreement was executed on March 30, 1989 by Seaboard and filed with DER's Clerk on April 12, 1989. A copy of the consent agreement may be found as DER's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. The consent agreement specifies corrective actions to be taken by Seaboard, subject to DER approval, in order to address the problems identified at Seaboard's used oil facility. Paragraph 10 of the consent agreement addresses protection against spills directly reaching the ground. Impervious containment is required by the agreement for all above-ground used oil storage tanks but not the old truck bodies. Impervious containment is required for product transfer areas where transport trucks, pumps and hoses would operate, but not in the vicinity of the old truck bodies. A concrete containment dike surrounding the above-ground tanks is required to control drainage of rain, snow, sleet, fog, etc., but not around the truck bodies. (DER's Exhibit 1). The concrete pads already poured by Respondent are not impervious and the sides of these containment areas are not high enough to contain a major tank failure. Paragraph 11 of the consent agreement addresses operation of the underground tank in order to prevent leaks. Seaboard is required to provide protection against spillage during product transfer between transport trucks and the underground tank and provide for cleanup of spilled material. Nothing addresses the problems of the tank lying in a flood plain. (DER's Exhibit 1). Paragraph 12 of the consent agreement requires Seaboard to implement "Preliminary Contamination Assessment Actions". These actions provide the framework for determining if the problems identified at Seaboard's used oil facility have resulted in contamination of the soil, surface waters and ground water. The actions required are subject to prior DER approval. The actions represent standard conduct in these and similar types of cases. (DER's Exhibit 1). If the surveys and tests required by the agreement indicate soil, sediment, surface water or ground water contamination, DER can pursue any or all of the following: (1) institute an administrative proceeding requiring further assessment and cleanup; (2) institute a civil action in circuit court; or (3) perform the necessary corrective actions at the facility and recover the costs of such actions from Respondent, Seaboard. (DER's Exhibit 1). Notice was given of DER's proposed consent agreement with Seaboard by publication in the Ocala Star Banner of August 10, 1989. The Petitioners live around Little Lake Bryant, Oklawaha, Florida, where Seaboard's used oil facility is located. The Petitioners timely filed the petitions leading to the present hearing. The Petitioners are Helen V. Pierce, Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Pierce, Mr. and Mrs. Maurice Warner, Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Painter, Sr., Mr. and Mrs. William E. Hartman, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Hallman, Mr. Robert J. Painter, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Weinheimer, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Allan Gwin, Mr. and Mrs. Edwin Jones, and Mr. and Mrs. Daryl N. Driscoll. Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Weinheimer and Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Pierce, Petitioners in this case, did not attend the hearing. The other Petitioners attended the hearing. Introduction of waste oil into the waters of Little Lake Bryant would endanger the waters of the lake around which all of the Petitioners live. They use this lake for recreational purposes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the DER enter a Final Order approving a consent agreement incorporating the following four recommendations: installation of impervious areas with high enough walls to retard a spill under all tanks; removal of the underground tank from the flood plain; installation of monitoring wells in sufficient quantity in new and old areas; and frequent inspection. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Otis Ted Holly Route 4, Box 851 Silver Springs, FL 32688 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Elbert Gray Route 1, Box 1293A Oklawaha, FL 32679 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact During a routine inspection on March 30, 1983, a sample diesel fuel taken from Respondent's place of business in Clearwater, Florida, was tested and was found to have a flash point of 660F. Normal flash point for diesel fuel is 1000F. A Stop Sale Notice was issued March 30, 1983, and sales from this tank were stopped. On March 31, 1983, Respondent posted a $1,000 bond in lieu of having the fuel confiscated. Before the Stop Sale Notice, 1,282 gallons of contaminated diesel fuel had been sold from this tank at a price of $1.099 per gallon.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a gasoline station located at 4625 U.S. 27 North, Davenport, Florida. The site was constructed in late 1986 and opened in early 1987. The underground tanks storing the gasoline are connected by pipes running underground to the pumps from which the gasoline is dispensed. A small portion of the underground supply pipe is accessible from the surface through a manhole. The excavated area exposing the pipe and what appears to be a valve are separated from the surrounding soil by a large, cylindrical corrugated pipe laid perpendicular to and above the underground supply pump. The leak in question was caused when the lower edge of the corrugated pipe cut into the underground supply pipe for the premium gasoline. The cut was caused by the cumulative effect of vehicular traffic driving over the manhole cover, placing pressure on the corrugated pipe, and eventually forcing the edge of the corrugated pipe to rupture the underground supply pipe with which it was in contact. Petitioner owns and operates a large number of gasoline stations. This incident is the first time that a corrugated pipe has cut into an underground supply pipe. The use of the corrugated pipe is not at issue in the present case. Pursuant to company policy, station employees complete a daily recap each day and forward the recap document to Petitioner. Part of the recap document is devoted to "gas inventory." The daily recap, which covers the preceding 24 hours, requires that an employee determine the amount of gasoline in each underground storage tank, adjust the figure for amounts sold and delivered, and then compare the figure to the amount determined to have been in the tank 24 hours earlier. This reconciliation is normally completed by mid- to late-morning each day. A station employee "sticks" each tank to determine how much gasoline it contains. The procedure requires that the employee insert a pole into the bottom of an underground tank. By observing the length of the pole dampened by gasoline, the employee can calculate approximately the amount of gasoline in the tank. Although stick reading results in an approximation, the results are fairly accurate, leaving at most, in the case of this 12,000-gallon tank, a margin of error of 50 gallons. "Sticking" normally takes place daily between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. On the morning of March 6, 1988, which was a Sunday, the employee sticking the tank calculated that the premium tank held 5419 gallons. There had been no deliveries during the preceding 24 hours. During the same period, the station had sold 914 gallons of premium gasoline. However, the last sticking 24 hours earlier had disclosed 7989 gallons. A total of 1656 gallons were thus unaccounted for. The recap document requires that the station notify Respondent's "Dist. Mgr. immediately if shortage of 500 gallons or more appears." The employee failed to do so. On the morning of March 7, 1988, the employee sticking the premium tank calculated that it held 2147 gallons. During the preceding 24 hours, there had been no deliveries and 826 gallons of premium gasoline had been sold. Consequently, 2446 gallons were missing, for a total of 4102 gallons over the past two stickings. As soon as the reconciliation was completed, the employee contacted Respondent's management, which ordered that the pump be shut down during the afternoon of March 7, 1988. Comparing the sales of premium gasoline for the 24- hour period ending March 8 with those ending March 7, which are comparable because the sale of regular gasoline on those two days is almost identical, the station sold about 39% of a normal day's sales of premium gasoline. Reflecting the shutdown of the premium pumps on March 7, the employee sticking the tank on the morning of March 8, 1988, found 593 gallons. During the preceding 24 hours, there had been no deliveries and sales of 321 gallons of premium had been sold, leaving 1233 gallons unaccounted for. The total over the three stickings was 5335 gallons lost. The station had previously not experienced losses even approaching this magnitude. The daily recap for the 24-hour period ending on March 5, 1988, showed no significant loss. Although fluctuations in volume may occur shortly after deliveries due to temperature differentials, such fluctuations could not reasonably have accounted for these vast discrepancies. Theft, measurement errors, and recording errors may also account for variations in readings, but not of the magnitude and repetition involved in this case. Between the time of the reconciliation on the morning of March 6 and the system shutdown on the afternoon of March 7, the system continued operating and, thus, leaking for 28-30 hours. Given that 2446 gallons were lost during the 24-hour period ending on March 7 and 1233 gallons lost during about 9 hours on March 8, at least 100 gallons per hour were escaping from the pipe during these last 28-30 hours, for a total of between 2800 and 3000 gallons. For reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the actions and omissions of the station employees following the reconciliation of inventory figures on March 6 constituted gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. These actions and omissions were in the scope of employment. During the relevant period of time, none of Respondent's employees performed monthly checks of the monitoring wells to determine the presence of leaks. This failure was due to ignorance and was not wilful. This failure in no way contributed to the leak or to any delay in discovering the leak. During the relevant period of time, the monitoring wells had not been properly grouted to prevent introduction of surficial contamination. However, this failure was unknown to Petitioner, which had hired a contractor to construct the wells and reasonably had relied on the contractor to grout properly the monitoring wells. The improper grouting in no way contributed to the leak or to any delay in discovering the leak. During the relevant period of time, Petitioner was not performing weekly or five-day averages of inventory records concerning gasoline. The failure to perform these reconciliations in no way contributed to the leak or to any delay in discovering the leak. Following the discovery of the leak, Petitioner notified Respondent on March 8. Petitioner requested approval to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program by filing a Notification Application dated March 29, 1988. On July 14, 1988, Respondent completed the Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form and Early Detection Incentive Program Compliance Verification Checklist. These documents indicate that Respondent was not monitoring monthly its monitoring wells, failed to grout properly its monitoring wells, was not performing the weekly or five-day averages of inventory (although it was taking daily inventory and reconciling opening and closing inventories), and did not immediately investigate the 1600-gallon shortage disclosed on the morning of March 6, 1988. By letter dated September 30, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner that its site was ineligible for state-administered cleanup under the Early Detection Incentive Program. The letter cited as reasons the wilful failure to perform monthly checks of the monitoring well, the failure to immediately investigate discrepancies in inventory records while the system continued to operate after initial discovery of the 1600-gallon loss, and the improper construction of the monitoring well with respect to the improper grouting. The letter concludes that these items constitute gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system, which precludes participation in the program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1561 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-4: adopted. 5-6: adopted in substance. 7-16: adopted. 17: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 18-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21: to the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Petitioner was performing the five-day or weekly averaging, rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. However, in view of the findings and conclusions contained in the Recommended Order, rejected as unnecessary. 22-26: adopted. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent 1-4: rejected as conclusions of law. 5-6: adopted. 7-16: rejected as subordinate. 17: rejected as an inference unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 18-26: adopted. 27: rejected as irrelevant. 28-29 and 31: rejected as legal argument. 30: adopted. 32: adopted. 33: adopted except that the system was shut down at some point into the day of the second sticking showing a significant shortage. 34-38: adopted or adopted in substance. 39: rejected as speculation. 40: rejected as irrelevant. 41-42: adopted. 43: rejected as irrelevant. 44-45: rejected as subordinate. 46: adopted. 47-49: rejected as subordinate. 50: adopted. 51-53: rejected as vague with respect to reference to "Racetrac." 54: adopted. 55: rejected as cumulative. 56-57: rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Steven M. Mills Decker & Hallman Suite 1200 Marquis II Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue Atlanta, GA 30303 Michael P. Donaldson Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue This cause arose upon the Department of Environmental Regulation's proposed denial of eligibility for participation in the Early Detection Incentive (EDI) program to Petitioner, Flash Foods, Inc. The EDI Program was established in the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 and is codified in Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. The EDI Program provides for state sponsored cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of a discharge from a petroleum storage system.
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 was enacted as Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, and codified primarily in Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. It provides for the expeditious cleanup of property contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum product. The EDI Program, Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes, was created as part of the SUPER Act. The EDI Program provides for state cleanup of sites contaminated as a result of discharge from a petroleum storage system. The legislature provided that some contamination sites would not be eligible for the EDI Program. In Section 376.3071(9)(b)3., Florida Statutes, the Legislature provided that: Upon discovery by the Department that the owner or operator of a petroleum storage system has been grossly negligent in the maintenance of such petroleum storage system ...the site at which such system is located shall be ineligible for participation in the incentive program and the owner shall be liable for all costs due to discharges from petroleum storage systems at that site, any other provisions of Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, to the contrary notwithstanding. For the purposes of this paragraph, willful failure to maintain inventory and reconciliation records, willful failure to make monthly monitoring system checks where such systems are in place and failure to meet monitoring and retrofitting requirements within the Florida Administrative Code, or violation of similar rules adopted by the Department of Natural Resources under this Chapter, shall be construed to be gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system. (emphasis applied) In late 1984 Flash Foods bought property located at 10143 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner operated its Flash Foods Store #112 at that location. Store #112 sold motor fuels to the general public. The fuel was stored in underground storage tanks. Specifically, the store site consisted of a building containing the fast food store and eight storage underground tanks located in two tank excavations. Six tanks are located to the west of the building in a single excavation. Two tanks are located to the east of the building in a single excavation. The six tanks to the west of the building were of unknown age. Tanks for which an installation date is unknown are treated as tanks installed before 1970, and were required to be retrofitted with monitoring wells by December 31, 1986. The two tanks to the east of the building were installed in 1974. The tanks installed in 1974 were required to be retrofitted with monitoring wells by December 31, 1987. At some time prior to December 31, 1986, inventory records revealed that two of the tanks in the site's western excavation were leaking. Those tanks were taken out of service at that time. The remaining six tanks were kept in service. At about the same time, Flash Foods decided to take all the remaining tanks out of service and replace them as soon as possible. The company felt that the six tanks which had been kept in service were likely to develop leaks. Additionally, Petitioner decided not to install monitoring wells and retrofit the six storage tanks. The decision was based on the fact that the tanks would be taken out of service as soon as possible and it made no fiscal sense to install very expensive wells and complete very expensive retrofitting. The four tanks in the western excavation and the two tanks in the eastern excavation which had been kept in service were removed in May, 1988. In 1987, Flash Foods installed two piezometers or test wells at the site. These piezometers are not monitoring wells as that term is used in Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. They are temporary in nature, and do not comply with what is recognized as a permanent monitoring well. One piezometer was placed near each excavation. In order to meet the monitoring and retrofitting requirements of Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, a series of four monitoring wells was required for each excavation. The monitoring wells were required to be placed either at the corners or the midpoint of the excavation. Clearly Petitioner did not meet the Department's requirements for the number of monitoring wells or the placement of those wells. After taking water samples the presence of contamination at the site was conf confirmed. The two test wells did not show any further ground contamination. The piezometers were then covered over with soil and no further test samples were taken from the wells. From December 31, 1986, the date retrofitting of the tanks in the western excavation was to have occurred, until 17 months later when the tanks were removed, Flash Foods continued to measure the tanks' inventory. From December 31 1987, the date retrofitting of the tanks in the eastern excavation was to have occurred, until 5 months later when the tanks were removed, Flash Foods continued to measure the tanks' inventory. The inventories did not reveal any further leakage from the remaining tanks. Inventory is measured by placing a stick into the tank and measuring the inches of product in the tank. In most cases, accuracy to a quarter of an inch is the best that can be achieved through stick measurement. A quarter of an inch translates to a differential of from 25 to 40 gallons. Inventory record keeping can detect catastrophic leaks from tanks, but is ineffective for small leaks. For that reason, inventory record keeping by itself is not an allowable method of leak detection pursuant to Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. Monitoring wells are also required so that small leaks can be detected. Inventory record keeping, therefore, does not excuse the failure of a site to install monitoring wells in accordance with Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. Monitoring wells are required at sites which have experienced discharge in order to detect subsequent discharges at the site. Rapid detection of discharges is necessary to allow contamination to be restricted to the site, to determine whether the contents of a tank need to be removed and to determine the cleanup measures which may be required at the site. If monitoring wells are sampled monthly and the results recorded so that thicknesses are provided, information regarding the existence of a subsequent discharge would be available. Due to the lack of a monitoring system for leak detection, it is not possible to know if subsequent discharges occurred at this site from the tanks at the site. Failure to detect a leaking tank will result in greater contamination concentrations, larger plume size and greater costs of cleanup. Under the Early Detection Incentive Program, greater costs of cleanup will be passed along to the state. The Department has consistently, as a matter of agency practice, denied eligibility to sites at which monitoring retrofit requirements have not been met.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Flash Foods, Inc. be determined to be ineligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 5,B and 6 of Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 4, and 7 of Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1-27 of Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraph 28 are cumulative and subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Jones, III, Esquire Post Office Box 2149 Waycross, Georgia 31502 D. Gary Early, Esquire State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact On March 22, 1977 during a routine inspection of various service stations in Vero Beach, a sample of No. 2 diesel fuel was taken from the pump at English Brothers Truck Stop. Upon analysis at the mobile laboratory the sample was found to be below the minimum flash point for No. 2 diesel fuel and the inspector returned to the station the same day and issued a stop sale notice. (Exhibit 3). Three additional samples were taken, and when analyzed they too were found to be below minimum flash point for this type fuel. Upon receipt of the stop sale notice the station manager notified Respondent. After the fuel had been analyzed at the state laboratory Respondent was notified that since the retail value of the contaminated fuel exceeded $1,000 it could pay $1,000 in lieu of having the fuel confiscated. Respondent owns the fuel at English Brothers Truck Stop until such time as the fuel is removed through the pump for sale. Upon receipt of the notice of the contaminated fuel, which was in one 4,000 gallon tank, Respondent immediately sent three employees to remove the contaminated fuel and clean the tank. Thereafter Respondent attempted to locate the source of the contamination but without success. Since the flash point was lower than allowed for diesel fuel the most likely source of contamination was gasoline which is a higher priced fuel than diesel. Standards used by the Petitioner in determining the required characteristics of fuels are those prescribed by the ASTM. Respondent distributes some 750,000 gallons of diesel fuel per month and this is the first report of contamination of its fuel in the eight and one half years Respondent has been in business.
The Issue The issues are (1) whether Respondent violated Chapters 381, 386, and 489, Florida Statutes; and if so, (2) whether Respondent is subject to an administrative fine; and if so, (3) what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was registered with Respondent as a septic tank contractor, under the authorized name of LA Ford Septic Tank. As of March 1, 1995, single compartment septic tanks must be used in series or in conjunction with a outlet filter which has been approved by Respondent. An outlet filter is designed to prevent solid wastes from reaching the drainfield of a septic system. Removal of an outlet filter will cause the premature failure of a drainfield system and create a potential sanitary nuisance. In September of 1996, Rita Haynes contracted with Petitioner for the installation of a septic system for her mobile home. The system received construction approval from the Suwannee County Health Department on September 5, 1996. At that time, the outlet filter was attached to the system. On September 12, 1996, the Suwannee County Health Department re- inspected the system. The inspector discovered that the filter was missing. Ms. Haynes did not remove the filter or authorize anyone else to do so. Removal of the outlet filter constituted theft of Ms. Haynes' property. Allegations concerning the removal of the outlet filter on Ms. Haynes' property are included in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. In September of 1996, Tracy Fernandez contracted with Petitioner to install a septic system for her mobile home. The system received construction approval from the Suwannee County Health Department on September 4, 1996. At that time, the outlet filter was present. The filter was missing when the Suwannee County Health Department re-inspected the system on September 10, 1996. Ms. Fernandez did not remove the filter or authorize anyone else to do so. Removal of the outlet filter constituted theft of Ms. Fernandez's property. Allegations concerning the removal of the outlet filter on the property of Ms. Fernandez are included in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. In July of 1996, Laura Landen contracted with Ford to install a septic system for her mobile home. Petitioner told Ms. Landen that he would save her some money by removing the outlet filter after the initial inspection. The system received construction approval from the Suwannee County Health Department on July 24, 1996. At that time, the outlet filter was attached to the septic tank. The filter was missing when the Suwannee County Health Department re-inspected the system on September 11, 1996. Ms. Landen did not remove the filter or authorize anyone else to do so. Removal of the outlet filter constituted theft of Ms. Landen's property. Allegations concerning the removal of the outlet filter on Ms. Landen's property are included in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. In October of 1996, John and Mary Phillips contracted with Petitioner to install a septic system for their home. The system received construction approval from the Columbia County Health Department on October 23, 1996. At that time, the outlet tee filter was present. Subsequently, the Phillips' daughter saw Petitioner take something out of the septic tank. The filter was missing when the Columbia County Health Department re-inspected the system on October 25, 1996. Mr. and Mrs. Phillips did not remove the filter or authorize anyone else to do so. Removal of the outlet filter constituted theft of the Phillips' property. Allegations concerning the removal of the outlet filter on the Phillips' property are included in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. In April of 1996, Marshall and Karen Merriman contracted with Petitioner to install a septic tank system on their property. The outlet filter was attached to the septic tank at the time of an initial inspection by the Suwannee County Health Department on April 22, 1996. Subsequently, Mr. Merriman saw Petitioner drive up and remove the outlet filter from the septic tank. Petitioner's removal of the outlet filter constituted theft of the Merrimans' property. A re-inspection by the Suwannee County Health Department on April 23, 1996, revealed that the outlet filter was missing. The inspector also discovered that Petitioner had not placed enough rock in the Merrimans' drainfield. Accordingly, the system did not pass final inspection. Mr. Merriman stopped payment on his check made payable to Petitioner in the amount of $909.50. Another septic tank contractor was hired to properly install the septic system on the Merrimans' property. Mr. Merriman's complaint to the Suwannee County Health Department resulted in a citation for a $1,500 fine against Petitioner for violating the following rules: (1) Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, practicing fraud or deceit; (2) Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)2, Florida Administrative Code, misconduct causing harm to customer; and (3) Rule 10D-6.055(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, removal of outlet filter. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the citation on September 24, 1996. That same day he requested an informal administrative hearing to contest the citation. The Suwannee County Health Department referred Petitioner's request for an informal hearing concerning the above-referenced citation to Respondent on September 27, 1996. Respondent then requested its District 3 Administrator to conduct the necessary proceedings and submit a Recommended Order to Respondent. The record does not reveal the disposition of Petitioner's request for an informal hearing regarding the citation. The Administrative Complaint at issue here does not contain any allegations relative to Mr. Merriman's complaint. However, since Petitioner did not dispute the material allegations contained in the citation, they may be considered as true in aggravation of any penalty imposed in the instant proceeding. In addition to the missing filters referenced above, the Columbia County Health Department found filters missing from Petitioner's installations on property owned by Richard Johnson and David Timmerman in September of 1996. The filters had been present during prior inspections of Petitioner's installations on the Johnson and Timmerman properties. The removal of the outlet filters from the Johnson and Timmerman properties constituted theft of their property. The Administrative Complaint at issue here contains allegations concerning Petitioner's removal of these outlet filters. The Suwannee County Health Department and the Columbia County Health Department had many citizen complaints about Petitioner's work. They performed a random check of all recent septic tank installations in their respective counties. They re- inspected the septic tank installations of other registered septic tank contractors as well as Petitioner's installations. They found missing outlet filters only in Petitioner's installations. The two health departments began spray painting a spot on filters during initial inspections to stop anyone from using the filters at multiple installations and inspections. Petitioner habitually, and as a routine business practice, removed the outlet filter from the septic tanks he installed after the initial inspection but before he covered the tank with dirt. He was responsible for stealing the required outlet filters on the property of Rita Haynes, Tracy Fernandez, Laura Landen, John and Mary Phillips, David Timmerman, and Richard Johnson. In each of these instances, Petitioner acted fraudulently and deceitfully. His gross misconduct created a potential sanitary nuisance and caused his customers monetary harm. An outlet tee filter costs approximately $50. Petitioner was able to underbid his competitors by removing the filter from an inspected system and using the same filter on another installation. From time to time, septic tanks need to be pumped out to prevent the flow of sludge and solids from the tank into the drainfield. Sludge and solids will clog the drainfield causing the system to fail. A failed system is expensive to repair or replace. A failed system also creates a public health hazard. When a septic tank is pumped out, all of the sludge should be removed. After the tank is empty, it should be washed down with a hose and inspected for cracks. If the tank is in good condition, a septic tank contractor is supposed to sign an inspection slip. In September of 1996, Allen Donaway contracted with Petitioner to pump out his septic tank and install a new drainfield. Petitioner's employees arrived at Mr. Donaway's residence on or about September 18, 1996, to pump out the tank. They claimed they had completed the job even though they left 12 or more inches of sludge at the bottom of the tank. Despite Mr. Dunaway's demands, Petitioner's employees refused to pump any more septage from the tank. When Mr. Donaway contacted Petitioner to complain that his employees had only partially pumped the tank, Petitioner demanded immediate payment. Mr. Donaway gave Petitioner a check for $135 which Petitioner cashed immediately. Mr. Donaway had to pay another registered septic tank contractor to pump the rest of the sludge from the tank and to install the new drainfield. Allegations concerning Petitioner's failure to completely pump out the sludge from Mr. Donaway's septic tank are contained in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. In a Letter of Warning dated July 15, 1996, the Columbia County Health Department informed Petitioner that Debbie Gregory had filed a complaint against him for an unsatisfactory septic pump-out. This letter requested a response to an allegation that Petitioner, without good cause, had abandoned a project which he was under a contractual obligation to perform in violation of Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner was advised that he could avoid the imposition of a $500 fine or a disciplinary action against his contractor's license by correcting the problem within five working days. As of August 6, 1996, Petitioner had not responded to the health department's inquiry. He made no attempt to correct the problem by completely removing the solids and greases from Ms. Gregory's septic tank. Petitioner was advised by letter that Respondent intended to initiate enforcement procedures. Allegations concerning the unsatisfactory septic pump-out on Debbie Gregory's property were included in the Administrative Complaint at issue here. Petitioner's failure to completely pump out all of the sludge from the septic tanks of Allan Donaway and Debbie Gregory created a potential health hazard. Additionally, his gross misconduct caused these customers monetary harm. They had to pay another septic tank contractor to complete Petitioner's work so that they could avoid the expense of prematurely replacing their drainfields. In August of 1996, Petitioner installed an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system on the property of Johnny Howard, Jr. The Suwannee County Health Department subsequently determined that Petitioner had installed the septic system on the wrong side of the Howard residence with the drainfield extending across the property line of the adjoining property. The inspector also discovered that the septic tank was installed next to a dryer vent opening in the Howard residence. When Petitioner refused to correct the problems at the Howard residence, the county health unit paid another septic tank contractor to correct the septic system. Respondent then filed an Administrative Complaint seeking revocation of Petitioner's septic tank contractor's registration and imposition of an administrative fine. On July 22, 1997, Respondent entered a Final Order in Department of Health Case Number 97-154 which revoked Petitioner's septic system contractor's registration and imposed a fine in the amount of $1000 due to the improper installation of the septic system at the Howard residence. This Final Order approved and adopted a Recommended Order in DOAH Case Number 96-5543, finding that Respondent was guilty of violating Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code, for completing contracted work at the Howard residence without a permit and Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)2, Florida Administrative Code, gross misconduct causing monetary harm. Allegations concerning Petitioner's improper installation of the septic system on Mr. Howard's property were not contained in the instant Administrative Complaint. However, they may be considered in aggravation of any administrative fine imposed in the instant case. In the course of investigating citizen complaints against Petitioner, Respondent learned that Petitioner was advertising his business using the name of Ford Septic Tank and/or Ford Septic Tank Service(s) on his trucks and in the Yellow Pages. Petitioner's authorized business name is LA Ford Septic Tank. Respondent sent Petitioner a Letter of Warning dated August 27, 1996, advising him that advertising his services in a form other than his authorized business name violated part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The letter informed Petitioner that continued violations could result in an administrative fine of $500 per day. The letter stated that the violations might be cited in a future complaint based on repeat violations. Petitioner did not exercise his option to request an administrative hearing to contest the allegations contained in the Letter of Warning. On November 20, 1996, employees of the Suwannee County Health Department took photographs of Petitioner's business sign using an unauthorized name on a county road in Suwannee County. On November 22, the same employees took photographs of Petitioner's trucks bearing an unauthorized name. Petitioner's persistence in using an unauthorized business name was especially egregious because other septic tank contractors with the last name of Ford, who were not affiliated with Petitioner, worked in the same commercial and residential areas. For example, Mr. Merriman contracted with Wilbur Ford to correct the septic system that Petitioner improperly installed. North Florida Septic Tank was owned by Robert and Donna Ford. Their Yellow Page advertisement specifically disclaimed any affiliation with Petitioner. The instant Administrative Complaint contains allegations concerning Petitioner's use of an unauthorized name to advertise his business. Petitioner filed an application to become a registered septic tank contractor on August 6, 1991. Petitioner was convicted of grand theft and stopping payment on a check with intent to defraud on October 28, 1991, in the circuit court of Hernando County, Florida. Petitioner was convicted of these two felonies before he took the septic tank contractor's examination in November of 1991. Petitioner did not inform Respondent about the two convictions. Petitioner obtained his septic tank registration through fraud or misrepresentation by failing to disclose his felony convictions. The instant Administrative Complaint contains allegations concerning Petitioner's failure to disclose the two felony convictions. Respondent's efforts to persuade Petitioner to correct his improper installations and/or unsatisfactory pump-outs were not successful. He made no attempt to replace the filters he removed. He did not heed Respondent's warnings regarding his use of an unauthorized business name. He has failed to make any effort to rehabilitate himself or to mitigate the effects of his behavior despite the following: (1) the severity of his offenses; (2) the danger to the public that he created; (3) the number of times that he repeated the offenses; (4) the number of complaints filed against him; and (5) the monetary harm he caused his customers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $7,000 against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas D. Koch, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 133 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Larry A. Ford 25295 CR 137 O'Brien, Florida 32071 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 James Howell, Secretary Department of Health Building 6, Room 306 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has violated the standards of practice in septic tank contracting, Florida Administrative Code rule 64E-6.022, and, if so, the penalty. (All references to Respondent are to Arlender Miller. All references to Ms. Rooter are to Ms. Rooter, Inc.)
Findings Of Fact At the times of the alleged jobs, Respondent was registered as a septic tank contractor and served as the qualifying agent for Ms. Rooter. At the time of all three jobs, Respondent had apparent authority to serve as the agent of Ms. Rooter in contracting for and performing the septic tank contracting work described below. However, nothing in the record establishes any relationship between Respondent and Ms. Rooter at the time of the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, so as to justify treating the notice of this proceeding, when served upon Respondent, as notice to Ms. Rooter. Hans Seffer, who testified, is the son of the woman who owns the apartment complex located at 14950 North Miami Avenue, Miami. Mr. Seffer found Ms. Rooter on the internet and spoke with Carolyn Futch, operations manager of Ms. Rooter, about septic tank contracting services needed at the apartment complex. Respondent later met with Mr. Seffer at the property. Initially, Mr. Seffer believed that the existing septic tank needed only to be pumped out. However, upon inspection, Respondent determined that the system also required a new drainfield, pump, and dosing tank. Accordingly, on February 20, 2008, Respondent, as "technician," and either Mr. Seffer or his mother signed a one-page contract on a form identifying the contractor as Ms. Rooter, license number SA0071430. The contract describes the following work: Install 1,000 sq. ft. drainfield with 300 gallon dosing tank including immediate (2/21/08) tank pump out. Additionally if tank requires pumpout prior to securing all necessary permits, Ms. Rooter will perform pumpout at no additional cost. Manhole cover included. Respondent and either Mr. or Mrs. Seffer initialed this section of the contract. The contract states that the total due for this work is $10,500. Ms. Seffer paid $5,000 by check on February 21, 2008, leaving a $5,500 balance due. On March 1, 2008, Respondent, as agent for Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system. The application describes the property improvements as a multifamily complex with ten bedrooms and 5,284 square feet of building space. The site plan attached to the application states: "Replace drainfield only." On April 2, 2008, Ms. Futch emailed Mr. Seffer to confirm an earlier discussion between them. The discussion addressed a requirement of Petitioner that Ms. Rooter install a second tank. The email states that the property owner will pay $5,600 for the installation of a "2nd tank (1,050-gal)," so the new total contract price is $11,100. This email restates the scope of the work as the installation of a 1,000-square-foot drainfield and 300-gallon dosing tank. By return email two days later, Mr. Seffer agreed to the additional work. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner issued to the property owner a construction permit that specifies a 2,575-gallon septic tank and a 1,000 square-foot drainfield. The permit states: "The licensed contractor installing the system is responsible for installing the minimum category of tank in accordance with sec. 64E-6.013(3)(f), F.A.C." This rule does not refer to tank capacities. On April 23, 2008, Petitioner issued a "construction inspection and final approval" form that shows the installation of two 1,200-gallon septic tanks and a 1,005-square-foot drainfield. The form states that items bearing an "X" are "not in compliance with statute or rule and must be corrected." The construction and final system are approved by Petitioner's inspector. During the course of the work, Respondent told Mr. Seffer that the existing tank was damaged and needed to be replaced, at an additional cost of $5,000, so the remaining balance rose to $16,100. Mr. Seffer agreed to this change. By email dated April 30, 2008, to Mr. Seffer, Ms. Futch confirmed the additional cost of $5,000 for the second septic tank and expressed "hope [that] Ms. Rooter has met your expectations." The email acknowledges, however, that "we must complete the electrical portion of the job." On May 2, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Rooter two checks totaling $15,000, leaving a balance of $1,100. On the same date, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch an email that, pursuant to their agreement, he would retain this amount for the "electric and final raking work." By email dated May 27, 2008, to Ms. Futch, Mr. Seffer noted that the manhole that Ms. Rooter had installed in the middle of the lawn was not level and was sunken, presenting a tripping hazard; the final grading was incomplete, leaving low spots and holes; a large rock remained near the palm tree and needed to be removed. Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch a reminder email on June 4, 2008, that resent the May 27 email. Mr. Seffer sent another email to Ms. Futch on June 21, 2008. In it, he notes that a Ms. Rooter employee worked on digging an electrical trench on June 13, but left mid-day, and no work had been performed since that day. In the meantime, recent rains had revealed a lack of compaction in the backfilling done by Ms. Rooter, as the fill had settled and undermined a sidewalk. After failing to obtain a response, on July 26, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent a final email to Ms. Futch warning her that he would file complaints with governmental agencies and advising that the unconnected pump was not pumping sewage throughout the entire system. The record does not contain the contracts for the septic tank contracting services involved in the second and third jobs alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Also, Petitioner did not present the testimony of the property owners involved in these jobs. The record for these jobs is limited to the permitting documentation. On September 26, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Shoreview Properties, Respondent submitted an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 9999 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores. This application describes the property as commercial with a 47,771 square-foot building. On October 1, 2008, Petitioner's inspector inspected the property. The inspector found an opened drainfield area with contaminated material and other conditions capable of hosting various disease vectors. He also found a backhoe and worker, who claimed that someone else had excavated the drainfield. The inspector immediately posted an ONASN, pursuant to the authority of chapter 386, Florida Statutes, that required the immediate abatement of the listed insanitary conditions. The inspector also determined that the existing onsite sewage disposal system exceeded Petitioner's jurisdictional threshold of 5,000 gallons per day. On September 10, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Lisa Mullin, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 101 Northeast 195th Street, Miami. This application describes the property as 0.19 acres, on which is situated a single family residence comprising 1,663 square feet and three bedrooms. On September 22, 2008, an agent of the property owner called Petitioner and complained that Ms. Rooter had commenced the work without having first obtained a permit. Petitioner's inspector visited the site on the same day and found "very recent" earthwork. The owner informed the inspector that the contractor had installed three drainlines, cut an old water line, and installed a new water line over the drainfield. However, the record fails to establish the amount of time that elapsed between the work claimed to have been performed by Ms. Rooter and the report by the property owner. Respondent has paid numerous fines imposed by Petitioner for improper septic tank contracting. In 1999, Respondent paid a fine in an unspecified amount for performing an unpermitted drainfield repair and making the repair without the required filter sand. On January 27, 2000, Respondent paid a fine of $250 for performing unpermitted system repairs. On February 4, 2000, Respondent was assessed a fine of $1,000 for performing unpermitted and uninspected system repairs and failing to honor a warranty. On January 8, 2004, Respondent received a cease and desist order for qualifying more than one septic tank contracting business. In 2007, Respondent paid separate fines of $1,500 and $1,000 for illegal septic tank contracting work in Dade and Monroe counties, respectively.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three violations identified in paragraphs 26, 27, and 29 above, dismissing the remaining charges against him, dismissing any charges against Ms. Rooter, and revoking Respondent's septic tank contracting registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Arlender Miller 640 Northwest 129th Street Miami, Florida 33168 Jenea Reed, Esquire Miami Dade County Health Department 8323 Northwest 12th Street, Suite 214 Miami, Florida 33126 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Shairi Turner, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Kim Berfield, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should correct a health violation and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule and statute, as alleged in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 22, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves an allegation that Respondent, Steve DeLuca, violated an agency regulation and statute by making repairs to a drainfield on property located at 1444 East New York Avenue, Deland, Florida, without obtaining the necessary permits from the Volusia County Department of Health (Health Department). That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner, Department of Health (Department). Respondent denies the charge and, as clarified for the first time at hearing, contends that the repairs were minor in nature and thus did not require a permit, no authorization was given to the excavation firm which performed the repairs, and the Citation was not issued to the actual owner of the property. On October 29, 1999, William N. VanderLugt (Vanderlugt), a Health Department environmental specialist, received a complaint regarding a septic tank repair being undertaken at 1430 East New York Avenue, Deland, Florida. During the course of inspecting that property, Vanderlugt observed excavation activities on the drainfield located next door at 1444 East New York Avenue. More specifically, Vanderlugt observed an area in the back yard approximately 6 feet by 20 feet in size which had been recently excavated and a large pile of sand nearby. In the excavated site, he saw a rock bed of the size commonly used in drainfields, "clean" and "newly installed" rocks, and a "black paper" covering a part of the rocks. Therefore, he concluded that the excavating firm had just installed a new rock drainfield. This type of activity constitutes a repair to an existing drainfield and requires that such work be performed by a licensed septic tank contractor. It also requires that appropriate permits be obtained from the Health Department. Although Respondent contended that the work was merely to correct a "minor structural flaw" which would not require a permit, Vanderlugt's testimony is more persuasive on this issue, and it is found that a more substantial repair to the drainfield was made. Further inquiry by Vanderlugt revealed that no permits had been obtained for the repair of a drainfield from the Health Department by the excavating company, Collier Enterprises. After a brief conversation with a Collier Enterprises employee, the substance of which is hearsay in nature and cannot be used, Vanderlugt visited the offices of Delco Oil Company and spoke with Respondent, who is employed by that firm. In doing so, Vanderlugt was under the impression that Respondent owned the property in question. During his brief conversation with Repondent, Vanderlugt pointed out that he had to issue a citation because no permit had been obtained for the work at the property in question. DeLuca responded with words to the effect that "they [Collier Enterprises] broke a pipe and they fixed what they broke." Apparently, there was no discussion as to whether Respondent or someone else actually owned the property. Vanderlugt returned to the property in question and performed a second inspection on November 3, 1999. Because no permits had been obtained by that date, and the drainfield site had been covered, a recommendation for a citation was prepared by Vanderlugt. A Citation for Violation was later issued by the Department on December 22, 1999, alleging that Respondent had failed to obtain permits before making a drainfield repair. The Citation was delivered to Respondent at Delco Oil Company. Because Collier Enterprises was not licensed to perform the work, it was given a first violation "warning" letter by the Health Department, as required by a Department rule. During later meetings with Respondent and others, Vanderlugt learned that the actual owner of the property in question was Deluca Properties, Inc., and not Steve DeLuca. For some reason, however, the Department declined to amend its citation and charge the actual owner with the alleged violation. Although Petitioner asserted at hearing and in its Proposed Recommended Order that Respondent is the owner's registered agent, there is no competent evidence of record to support this assertion. According to the general manager of Delco Oil Company, which is apparently owned by Steve Deluca and others, no permission was given to the excavating company to make any repairs. Indeed, Deluca Properties, Inc. has a licensed septic tank contractor who makes all septic tank repairs, when needed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Christopher R. Ditslear, Esquire Post Office Box 41 Deland, Florida 32721-0041 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to findings of fact set forth in paragraphs 1.- 8.,below. Stipulated Facts Respondent has documented contamination from the abandoned petroleum storage system. The abandoned petroleum storage system has been properly closed. Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent on Respondent's forms 17-769.900(3) and (4), F.A.C., which was postmarked on or before June 30, 1992. The site is not eligible for cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9) and (12), Florida Statutes, the Early Detection Incentive Program, or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. This site is not owned or operated by the federal government. This site did not have leaking tanks that stored pollutants that are not petroleum products as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes. Respondent was not denied access to this site. Petroleum contamination was not discovered after the application deadline of June 30, 1992. Additional Facts Petitioner, a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Leon County, Florida, is in the business of owning and leasing property. Petitioner is the fee simple owner of property located at 2022 Wahnish Way in Tallahassee, Florida. The property located on Wahnish Way was leased to James T. "Pete" Thomas by Petitioner's predecessor in title. Thomas operated a gasoline station and automobile repair garage on the property. The lease with Thomas was continued by Petitioner without change upon Petitioner's assumption of the legal title to the property in 1985. Prior to Petitioner's assumption of title to the property, Thomas had installed four petroleum storage systems in a four tank pit on the property in the early 1970's. Each tank and its integral piping is a petroleum storage system, as defined by Section 376.301(15), Florida Statutes (1991). In the early 1980's, Thomas and his wholesale gasoline distributor determined that one of the four underground tanks was losing petroleum product. In 1982, Thomas ceased using the southernmost tank in the pit for the storage of petroleum products for subsequent consumption, use or sale. The distributor ceased placing gasoline in the southernmost tank. Later, in compliance with subsequent statutory enactments, Thomas registered all of the tanks, including the abandoned southernmost tank with Respondent by the statutory deadline of December 31, 1984. Although Thomas signed the registration documents as an agent of Petitioner, he was not such an authorized agent and the registration occurred without the knowledge or approval of Petitioner. As a result, Petitioner cannot be viewed as having filed the registration. Petitioner, unaware that Thomas had experienced any product loss problems or that the tanks on the property had been registered by Thomas with Respondent, became aware of both matters following receipt of a letter from government officials of Leon County, Florida, on November 20, 1990. As set forth in that letter, Petitioner was apprised that the tanks were not in compliance with State of Florida standards and would have to be closed or retrofitted to bring the tanks into compliance. Following receipt of the letter, Petitioner informed Thomas that selling of gasoline at the site was to be discontinued immediately. Closure of the tanks, performed in early 1991 by contractors retained by Petitioner, consisted of excavation and removal of the petroleum storage systems from the property. All four tanks were in the tank pit side by side, from the northernmost end of the pit to the southern end of the pit fronting on Osceola Street in Tallahassee, Florida. When the removal was completed, a Closure Assessment form was prepared by one of the contractors, Jim Stidham and Associates, in accordance with requirements of Florida law. During that process, excessive contamination from petroleum product of the soils in the extreme south end of the tank pit was discovered. Excessive contamination, defined as anything more than 500 parts per million, was located beneath the southernmost pump on the southern end of the pump island and in the southern end of the pit. Both soil sample seven in the southernmost end of the pit and soil sample 11 under the southernmost pump document these unacceptable high levels of contamination. A 20 foot soil boring as near as possible to the southernmost tank on the site revealed the unacceptable levels of contamination extended to that depth. As supported by the testimony of James A. Stidham, Petitioner's expert in the assessment of contamination caused by underground petroleum storage tanks, the location of contamination in the pit area establishes that the tank causing the contamination was the southernmost tank. In view of the location of the contamination in the pit area, the tank discovered to have a hole in it at the time of removal was the southernmost tank. The excessive contamination located at the shallow depth of two feet under the southernmost pump resulted from the improper disconnection of piping attached to the pump and is not attributable to the leak in the tank. Each tank was connected by piping on the eastern end of each tank to the corresponding pump. The southernmost pump was not used after 1982 and was missing integral parts by the time the tanks were closed. In the course of exploring options for clean up of the property, Petitioner filed for assistance from Respondent in the form of participation in the ATRP. Unaware of the true date of the cessation of use of the southernmost tank, Petitioner gave the date of last use for all tanks in the pit by stating that the "tanks were taken out of service between December 15, 1990 and January 15, 1991." Petitioner provided this response to Respondent's July 30, 1991 request for further information on August 6, 1991. Although Respondent made an initial determination to deny Petitioner's application in the middle of August, 1991, that action was not communicated to Petitioner. Instead, Petitioner's application was held by Respondent, pending possible amendment to Section 376.305(7), Florida Statutes (1991), the law controlling admission to the ATRP. Respondent held Petitioner's application for a total of 19 months before issuance of a formal decision to deny the application on February 26, 1993. Such delay by Respondent is unreasonable. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application was based upon the eligibility requirement restricting ATRP participants to those situations where the petroleum storage system has not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, and the belief of Respondent's personnel that all storage systems on Petitioner's property had stored products beyond that date. Specifically, Respondent eventually gave notice that it intended to deny Petitioner's application for participation in the ATRP for the following reason: Eligibility in the Abandoned Tank Restoration Program is restricted to those petroleum storage systems that have not stored petroleum products for consumption, use or sale after March 1, 1990, pursuant to Section 17-769.800(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent utilized provisions of Subsection 376.305(7)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), to permit entry of some applicants into the ATRP, demonstrating that Respondent did not consider the March 1, 1990 deadline contained in provisions of Subsection 376.305(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1991), to be absolute. As attested at the final hearing by Respondent's employee, Respondent considered "variables" when determining whether to enforce the March 1, 1990, deadline. Those variables comprise the criteria listed in Subsection 376.305(7)(f), Florida Statutes (1991). By use of those variables, Respondent effectively applied provisions of Subsection 376.305(7)(f), Florida Statutes (1991), to some program applicants other than Petitioner and permitted their participation while choosing to refrain from final agency action under that same criteria with regard to Petitioner's application pending subsequent legislative enactment. Petitioner's southernmost tank is an abandoned petroleum storage system that was not required to be registered with Respondent when it was in service; the system came into the possession of Petitioner following its abandonment; was never returned to service; and is not otherwise eligible for cleanup pursuant to Subsection 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes, or Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner's application for participation in the ATRP with regard to contamination resulting from Petitioner's southernmost petroleum storage system. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2658 The following constitutes my rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, upon proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-23. Adopted, though not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 3.-4. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings on this point. 5.-11. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. A mischaracterization of the evidence in that the testimony establishes that an existing lease agreement was continued. Accepted to the extent that the evidence establishes that there were four tanks in the pit. Rejected, credibility, weight of the evidence as to the accuracy of the registration form in the face of conflicting evidence. 16.-18. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 19.-20. Accepted. 21.-22. Rejected, subordinate. Accepted. Rejected, relevance. 25.-26. Accepted. 27.-29. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, argumentative. Accepted. Rejected, legal conclusion, argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa Fletcher Allaman Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jefferson M. Braswell Lisa M. Duchene W. Douglas Beason Assistant General Counsels Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, L.B. King, Jr., violated certain rules relating to petroleum contamination site cleanup criteria promulgated by Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), whether he should be required to pay an administrative fine and investigative costs and expenses incurred by the Department, and whether he should take corrective action, as described in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice of Violation) issued on June 15, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record presented by the parties, and those allegations in the Notice of Violation which are undisputed, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is the owner and operator of non-residential property (doing business as King Oil and Tire) located at 16776 Southeast U.S. Highway 19 (at Main Street and Ward Street) in Cross City, Florida. He has owned the property since June 30, 1982. Since July 1978, eight regulated petroleum storage tanks were situated on the property. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 761.200(20), (45), (53), and (65). The Department has assigned facility identification number 15/8839661 to the site. During the intervening time period since Respondent assumed ownership, six of the tanks and their associated piping have been closed or removed, including tank 4 in August 1997 and tanks 5 and 6 in March 2004. Tank 4 was a 1,000 gallon diesel underground storage tank system (UST) originally installed in July 1982, tank 5 was a kerosene UST installed in July 1978, while tank 6 was a waste oil UST installed in July 1978. Only tanks 7 and 8 still remain in service. After tank 4 and the associated piping were closed in August 1997, Respondent conducted a closure assessment in the area of tank 4 and performed soil and groundwater analytical sampling in the area of its former piping run. He then filed a Tank Closure Assessment Report (TCAR) with the Department on August 19, 2003. The TCAR revealed groundwater contaminants above the Department's Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Methylnapthalene in two respects and for Naphthalene. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-777.170(1)(a), Table I. Because of the presence of contamination on the site, on September 3, 2003, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he submit a Discharge Report Form (DRF) and initiate a site assessment, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600, and that he file a completed site assessment report by July 10, 2004.3 Subsection (1) of that rule requires that "[w]ithin 30 days of discovery of contamination, the responsible party shall initiate a site assessment." On September 29, 2003, the Department received the requested DRF. During a tank closure inspection of tanks 5 and 6 performed on March 4, 2004, the Levy County Health Department, acting on behalf of the Department, discovered stained soils in the fill area of tank 6. On May 18, 2004, the Department received a TCAR dated May 7, 2004, for the closure of tanks 5 and 6. The TCAR documented the results of laboratory analytical tests on groundwater samples, which revealed groundwater contaminants above the Department's CTLs for Methylnapthalene in two respects. On May 24, 2004, the Department received from Respondent a copy of a DRF (dated March 9, 2004, as amended on April 9, 2004) for the contamination related to tanks 5 and 6. The DRF was the last report filed by Respondent concerning tanks 5 and 6. On the same date, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he initiate site assessment activities for the discharge related to tanks 5 and 6, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(1). On July 14, 2004, the Department sent Respondent another letter requesting (a) completion of a site assessment and (b) the submission of a Site Assessment Report (SAR) for the discharge from tank 4 (SAR-97), which complied with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(8). (The SAR-97 was originally due on July 10, 2004, but had not yet been filed.) In order to be deemed complete, a SAR must contain all of the information detailed in subsection (8). Also, the letter requested that a SAR for the 2004 discharge (SAR-04) be completed no later than August 1, 2004, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(7). That subsection requires in relevant part that "[w]ithin 270 days of discovery of contamination, the responsible party shall submit to the Department or to the FDEP local program for review two copies of a [SAR] " On July 15, 2004, or the day after the above letter was mailed, the Department received a copy of the SAR-97 from Respondent. The report was then referred to the Department's Petroleum Cleanup Section for its review. By letter dated August 27, 2004, the Department advised Respondent that SAR-97 was under review. The letter also changed the due date for the SAR-04 from August 1, 2004, to November 9, 2004. On September 15, 2004, the Department received correspondence from Respondent requesting an extension of time in which to submit his SAR-04. On December 10, 2004, the Department approved the request and authorized Respondent to file a SAR-04 no later than March 1, 2005. On April 12, 2005, Respondent filed with the Department a Site Assessment Report Addendum (SARA) for the 1997 discharge (SARA-97). The report was dated March 1, 2005. On May 25, 2005, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he file two copies of a supplement to the SARA-97 no later than July 5, 2005, to address certain deficiencies noted in that report, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770-600(11). That subsection provides that "[i]f the [SAR] is incomplete in any respect, or is insufficient to satisfy the objectives of subsection 62- 770.600(3), F.A.C., the Department or the FDEP local program shall inform the responsible party pursuant to paragraph 62- 770.600(9)(b), F.A.C., and the responsible party shall submit to the Department or to the FDEP local program for review two copies of a [SARA] that addresses the deficiencies within 60 days after receipt of the notice." The same letter also requested that a disposal manifest be provided for the tank and piping closures. On July 11, 2005, the Department received a second SARA-97 from Respondent's consultant. On July 14, 2005, it also received the disposal manifest documentation for the closure of tank 4 and its piping. These were the last reports filed by Respondent. On October 4, 2005, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he provide two copies of a third SARA for the 1997 discharge to address deficiencies noted by the Department in the second SARA. The letter indicated that the third SARA was to be filed no later than November 23, 2005. The Department also requested that he provide a completed financial affidavit to justify Respondent's claim that he was financially unable to complete the remaining required cleanup corrective actions at his property. On November 29, 2005, Respondent requested an extension of time to complete the third SARA-97. (The reason for the requested extension was that Respondent's insurance carrier would not give authorization for the work.) On January 12, 2006, the Department advised Respondent by letter that his request had been denied and that he must submit either the third SARA or a financial affidavit, as previously requested, no later than February 15, 2006. In its response, the Department indicated that it did not "consider generic delays by contractors or insurance carriers as good cause for an extension." To date, neither filing has been made. By failing to file the requested third SARA for the 1997 discharge, Respondent has contravened the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-770.600(11) and 62- 770.800(3), which require that within 60 days after notice, a responsible party submit a SARA to address deficiencies noted in a SAR. Respondent's conduct also implicates Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.800(5), which makes it a violation of two Florida Statutes for a responsible party to not submit requested information within the time frame specified. Since March 1, 2005, which was the due date on which a report was to be filed, Respondent has failed to submit an approved SAR for the 2004 discharge, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(7), which in turn contravenes Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.800(3) and (5). To date, Respondent has failed to complete site assessment activities for both the 1997 and 2004 discharges, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(10). That provision states that "[s]ite assessment activities shall not be deemed complete until such time as a [SAR] is approved." To date, Respondent has failed to timely and completely assess and remediate the contamination at his property, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-770. That chapter contains the criteria which apply to the cleanup of a site contaminated with petroleum products. During the course of its investigation of this matter, the Department has incurred expenses "in the amount of not less than $500.00." As mitigating evidence, Respondent offered into evidence Respondent's Exhibits 2-15, the majority of which pertain to his insurance policy and the pending litigation with his carrier, Mid-Continent Casualty Company (MCC), or the priority score funding process, which is the process by which contaminated properties are scored or rated for purposes of determining eligibility to receive state cleanup funds when the responsible party is financially unable to do so. Although evidence regarding the insurance policy and pending litigation was deemed to be immaterial to the issues of establishing Respondent's liability for the violations and responsibility for undertaking the corrective actions necessary to satisfy the violations, the undersigned ruled that it could be used by Respondent as mitigating evidence, if relevant, for the purpose of seeking to reduce the administrative penalty. Respondent's Exhibits 8, 9, and 11 indicate that after he reported the 2003 discharge to MCC, in 2003 the carrier denied coverage for that discharge (on the ground "any 'confirmed release' must commence after the retroactive date of the policy (4/3/98)"). However, MCC initially accepted coverage for the 2004 discharge and authorized Respondent's environmental consultants to conduct a site assessment. The documents further show that in December 2005, or before the 2004 site assessment had been completed and a SAR prepared, MCC reversed its position and denied coverage for the 2004 discharge on the ground there was no "Confirmed Release," as defined by the policy. Respondent then filed his lawsuit seeking a determination that the carrier was responsible for cleanup costs. Respondent asserts that he has expended more than $50,000.00 in pursuing the lawsuit, which is much more than the administrative penalty being assessed by the Department. Respondent points out that prior to the time MCC reversed its position as to coverage for the 2004 discharge in December 2005, he had filed a DFR, TCAR, disposal manifest, SAR- 97, and two SARAs for the 1997 discharge, and a TCAR and DFR for the 2004 discharge, all of which indicate a good faith effort on his part to comply with the assessment requirements. As noted above, the final reports prepared by Respondent's consultant were a second SARA-97 and a disposal manifest for the 1997 discharge, which were filed with the Department in July 2005, and a TCAR and DRF for the 2004 discharge filed in May 2004. Respondent's Exhibit 10A recites language in Coverage B of the insurance policy, which provides in part that MCC "will pay Clean-up Costs by an Insured for environmental damage that an Insured is legally obligated to pay . . . ." Respondent argues that if he acknowledges by affidavit or other proof that he does not have the ability to pay for cleanup costs, he fears that under the above language, MCC would not be "legally obligated to pay." This is because Section 376.3071(7)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that when a responsible party does not have the ability to pay for all of the cleanup costs, the Department "may" enter into an agreement with the responsible party to undertake all or part of the site rehabilitation after "taking into consideration the party's net worth and the economic impact on the party." Respondent contends that if he files an affidavit under this statute, MCC would then be relieved of any responsibility under the policy, and his rights in the lawsuit would be jeopardized. Respondent further points out that several other provisions in the insurance policy prohibit him from completing the assessment until the litigation is concluded. For example, one provision (Section II.B) provides that "No Clean-up Costs, charges, and expenses shall be incurred without the Company's consent," while another (Section II.C) provides that "An Insured shall not admit or assume any liabilities or settle any Claim(s) without the Company's consent." Respondent asserts that these provisions prevent his consultant from conducting any further work on the site without MCC's consent, and if he does so, he will lose the right to reimbursement under the policy. Finally, Exhibits 3 through 6 show that Respondent's property has been assigned a site ranking score of ten points, and that the Department is currently funding sites that are eligible for state restoration funding only if they have scores of 37 points and higher. Thus, Respondent argues that a delay in remediation of the site is not unreasonable. Except for the two discharges at issue in this case, there is no evidence that Respondent has a history of non- compliance or that he gained any direct economic benefit by virtue of the discharges. Although no reports have been filed since July 2005, through counsel, Respondent has kept the Department abreast of his efforts to establish liability on the part of MCC so that the site assessments can resume.
