Findings Of Fact Based upon the prehearing statement, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is a Florida corporation in good standing, authorized to do business in this state. The Petitioner owns and controls the site which is the subject matter of these proceedings. Such site is located in Brevard County, Florida. The Department has identified the subject site as DER facility no. 05- 8500985 (the facility). At all times material to this case, the facility consisted of: three underground storage tanks (UST), one 3000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, one 1000 gallon UST used for storing diesel fuel, and one 1000 gallon UST used for storing gasoline; five monitoring wells; and pipes and pumps related to the foregoing system. The facility constituted a storage tank system as defined in Section 376.301, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-761.200(38), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner holds, and is named insured for, third party pollution liability insurance applicable to the facility. Such insurance was issued pursuant to Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. The policy for the foregoing insurance, policy no. FPL7622040, was in force from March 22, 1991 through March 22, 1992. The Department issued a notice of eligibility for restoration insurance to Petitioner for the above-described facility. Based upon the foregoing, the Petitioner is a participating owner or operator as defined in Chapter 17-769, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Section 376.3073, Florida Statutes, Brevard County operates a local program that has been approved by the Department. Such local program is managed by the Brevard County Office of Natural Resources Management (County). In July, 1990, a discharge of diesel fuel occurred at the Petitioner's facility. Petitioner's employees estimated that approximately twenty gallons of diesel fuel filled the pump box overflowed from the pump box across the seawall into the adjacent waters. Upon discovering the discharge, Petitioner shut down diesel fuel dispensing until repairs could be made to the apparent cause of the leak. Additionally, the diesel fuel remaining in the pump box and on top of the tank area was removed. Contaminated soil in the pump box was also removed. The apparent cause of the discharge described above was attributed to cracked pipe fittings which were repaired by Glover Oil Co. within a few days of the discharge. No detailed inspection was made to the system to determine if additional sources of discharge existed. Petitioner did not complete a discharge reporting form (DRF) for the above-described incident until April 18, 1991. The April DRF was completed after Petitioner was directed to do so by Ms. DiStasio, an inspector employed by the County. From August, 1990 until May, 1991, at least one monitoring well at the Petitioner's facility showed free product accumulating in the well pipe. The exact amounts of the free product found are unknown, but reports estimated the level at 100 centimeters. From August, 1990 until September, 1991, the Petitioner did not undertake any measure to explore the origin of the free product found in the monitoring well. Further, the Petitioner did not report the monitoring well testing results as a suspected or confirmed discharge. In April, 1991, an inspection of the Petitioner's facility was performed by Ms. DiStasio. That inspection resulted in a letter to the Petitioner that outlined several violations at the facility. Among those violations listed was the Petitioner's failure to report a suspected or confirmed discharge. At the time of the April, 1991 inspection, Petitioner had reported neither the July, 1990 discharge (a known discharge) nor the monitoring well test results (at the minimum a suspected discharge). In connection with the July, 1990 discharge, following the repairs made by Glover Oil, Petitioner did not have the system pressure tested. Only the area visible from the pump box was checked for leakage. In July, 1991, when Ms. DiStasio performed a re-inspection of the facility, she found Petitioner had not (in the interim period, April through July, 1991) taken any steps to test the system or to remove the fuels from the suspect tanks. Since the free product continued to appear in the monitoring well, a pressure test of the system would have definitively answered the discharge question. Alternatively, the removal of the fuels would have prevented further seepage until the system could be pressure tested. On August 6, 1991, the Petitioner issued a letter that advised the County that it had stopped dispensing fuel at the facility. The tanks were not drained, however, until on or about September 11, 1991. Further, the August, 1991, letter acknowledged that the Petitioner "had proposals for initial remedial cleanup related to diesel contamination in the tank field area." Obviously, the Petitioner must have contemplated a need for such cleanup. On September 11, 1991, at the Petitioner's request, Petroleum Equipment Contractors, Inc. attempted to pressure test the 3000 gallon diesel tank. The purpose of the pressure test was to determine if the diesel system had a leak. The company could not even run the test on the tank because of the defective system. A similar test on the Petitioner's gasoline tank passed without incident. Once the Petitioner learned the results of the test, it initiated Initial Remedial Action (IRA) as described on the IRA report filed by Universal Engineering Sciences. The IRA consisted of the removal of the excessively contaminated soil, approximately 74 cubic yards, and the removal of the USTs. The foregoing work was completed on or about September 15, 1991. On October 4, 1991, the Petitioner filed a discharge reporting form dated October 2, 1991, that identified September 11, 1991, as the date of discovery for the discharge. This discharge discovery was allegedly made incidental to the diesel tank pressure testing failure. No reference was made to the months of monitoring well reports showing a free product. On October 8, 1991, Ms. DiStasio prepared a Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program Compliance Checklist that reported the Petitioner was not in compliance with applicable statutes and rules. When Petitioner applied for restoration coverage under the statute on January 31, 1992, such request was denied by the Department on March 6, 1992. The basis for the denial was as follows: Failure to notify the Department of a positive response to sampling within three working days of testing, pursuant to the rule in effect at the time of the initial response (17-61.050(1), Florida Administrative Code). An inspection by Brevard County on April 17, 1991, revealed that free product had been detected in one monitoring well since July 1990. The discharge reporting form was not submitted until October 2, 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying Petitioner's claim for restoration coverage under the Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-2121 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1, 2, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are accepted. Except as found above, paragraph 3 is rejected as not supported by the record cited. It is accepted that Brevard County acted as the local agent in this case. Paragraph 4 is rejected as not supported by the record. With regard to paragraph 5, substituting "A" for "The" and "confirmed" for "discovered" the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. Similarly, with the substitution of the word "confirmation" for "discovery" in Paragraph 6, the paragraph can be accepted; otherwise rejected as contrary to the record. No suitable explanation was offered by the Petitioner for why, if a discharge were not reasonably suspected, it retained the company to immediately remove the USTs upon the failed pressure testing. Clearly, the Club had a notion the tanks were a discharge problem. Paragraph 7 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While there was some confusion as to the exact volume of free product in the monitoring well, there was clear evidence that such was reported for many months prior to the confirmation in September, 1991. Further, the main confusion regarding the product found in the well was not as to its existence, but as to the individual's knowledge of the metric measurement of it. One hundred centimeters of product in a two or three inch pipe would not be a minute amount. Except as addressed in the foregoing findings, paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner did not undertake all repairs necessary to abate a discharge problem. Paragraph 10 is rejected as not supported by the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Clearly, as early as August, 1990, Petitioner knew or should have known of a discharge problem based upon the monitoring well report; that all of the discharge did not necessarily flow from the fittings that had been repaired is irrelevant. Further, Petitioner did no testing to verify that the replaced fittings had solved the discharge problem (especially in light of the well reports). Paragraph 11 is rejected as an inaccurate restatement of the exhibit. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Incidentally, the hearing in this case was in the year 1992. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as a misstatement of the exhibit cited. Paragraphs 13 through 27 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Brigette A. Ffolkes Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Scott E. Wilt MAGUIRE, VOORHIS & WELLS, P.A. 2 South Orange Plaza P.O. Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Puckett Oil Company, at times pertinent hereto, operated a full-service gasoline and auto service station at 7251 Pensacola Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida. The station at that site performed a complete range of automotive repairs, including lubrication and oil changes. These services are typical of such full-service service stations. On or about June 27, 1986, the operator of that station which was owned by Puckett, Mr. Winters, discovered a discharge of used oil at the site. The discharge occurred because the operator believed that used oil had been drained into an underground storage tank on a routine basis at the facility, as the oil was changed in customer vehicles. In fact, it developed that, unbeknownst to Mr. Winters, the tank had been removed by the prior land owner. This resulted in repetitive contamination of soil and groundwater at the facility, since the oil poured into the floor drain at the station, after being removed from the crank cases of customer vehicles, was in reality draining into the ground, instead of into a storage tank. After becoming aware of this problem, Puckett filed an Early Detection Incentive (EDI) Program Notification Application, reporting the discharge of used oil to the Department, pursuant to Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). That EDI notification application form lists used oil as a "product." Puckett notified the Department of its intent to proceed with voluntary cleanup at the Puckett site pursuant to Section 376.3071(11) and (12), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), and to seek reimbursement for the cost of that contamination cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). The Department, in view of the request, conducted a site inspection on December 19, 1986. The Department's inspection personnel prepared an EDI Program Compliance Notification Checklist on the Puckett site. This report noted the circumstances of the discharge, to the effect that the used oil tank had been removed while used oil was still being disposed of through the drain at the service station. Thereafter, by its Order of April 16, 1987, the Department advised Puckett that its site was not eligible for "Super Act" reimbursement. The denial of eligibility was based on the DER's position that used oil was not "petroleum" or a "petroleum product" for purposes of Section 376.301(9) or (10), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). On May 8, 1987, Puckett filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings, alleging, among other things, that used oil is "petroleum" or "petroleum product" within the meaning of the "Super Act" and that the Department is estopped from denying "Super Act" reimbursement eligibility for voluntarily reported discharges of used oil. Inasmuch as the DER conducted inspections of the site in question, recording its findings, the Department was aware of the circumstances of the discharge; that the used oil tank had been removed and that oil had continued thereafter to be placed in the drain facility, thus contaminating the soil where the used oil disposal tank had formerly been placed. The Department did not raise the eligibility exception involving gross negligence in the Order of April 16, 1987, however, nor by any other vehicle until the filing of its Motion for Continuance with the Hearing Officer on August 31, 1987. Additionally, in response to a Request for Admissions served by Puckett, the Department admitted that the sole basis for denial of the reimbursement eligibility for the Puckett site was the fact that the substance discharged was "used oil," which the Department contends is not petroleum or petroleum product and thus is not a proper subject for reimbursement of related clean up and decontamination expenses. Uncontroverted evidence establishes that in August 1984, eleven oil changes at the Puckett site generated 3.5 quarts or about 9 1/2 gallons of used oil. Using this figure as an average, until the time the discharge was discovered 22 months later, the Puckett site generated approximately 210 gallons of used oil. Mr. Winters testified that he believed he had a 500 or 1,000 gallon used oil tank. Puckett's used oil was disposed of by inserting the drain bucket on the floor drain. The floor drain is a receptacle with an adapter on it for the oil drain bucket. Although the floor drain system appeared to be a working system, the underground used oil storage tank at the Puckett site had been removed, unbeknownst to Mr. Winters. It was apparently removed by Exxon Corporation, the previous site operator. It was Exxon's practice to remove fuel tanks from non-operational stations, such as the Puckett site was at the time it was sold to Puckett. It was not their normal practice, however, to remove used oil storage tanks. Mr. Winters, in his sixteen years of operating service stations, has never experienced a floor drain with such an adapter that was not connected to an underground storage tank. Further, he had previously leased a service station that had been purchased from Exxon after being closed for seven years and the used oil tank was still in place at the time he took possession of the station. He asked the person responsible for closing the Exxon station (the Puckett site) where the used oil tank was located. That person responded by pointing to an area of landscape shrubbery where a galvanized pipe could be seen protruding from the ground. A used oil collection company attempted to pump the contents of the tank using that pipe. Three large holly bushes were growing undisturbed over the area where Mr. Winters had been told the tank was located. It thus appeared to Mr. Winters that the tank could not have been removed. There was no evidence that Mr. Winters attempted to conceal the discharge of the oil or that he continued to dispose of the used oil in the floor drain after discovering that the tank had been removed. If the floor drain had not become stopped up, Mr. Winters likely never would have begun looking for the presence of the tank. A used oil collection company never was able to pump any used oil from the pipe supposedly connected to the tank. It was Mr. Winters' belief that used oil collection companies normally came to service stations after closing hours to pump the used oil storage tanks, so they can avoid paying for the used oil. It was for this reason, he believed, that he rarely had seen a used oil collection company trying to pump oil from such a storage tank. He was thus not concerned when the company reported that it could pump no used oil from the tank because he believed that another used oil collector had previously drained it. The used oil discharged at the Puckett site consists of used engine crank case oil with an estimated two percent of used transmission oil. Used oil at the Puckett site is not mixed with solvents or other hazardous wastes. Puckett does not accept neighborhood collections of used oil. An assessment of the contamination at the Puckett site was conducted by Delta Environmental Consultants. Delta had an analysis of soil samples prepared by Pioneer Laboratories and an analysis of ground water samples by Savannah Laboratories. Dr. Litt, the Petitioner Puckett's expert witness, opined, based on the contamination assessment, that the contamination was due to used oil or "used oil fuel" instead of "hazardous waste fuel" or hazardous waste. Dr. Litt relied on the testimony of Mr. Winters to the effect that solvents or other hazardous wastes were not mixed with the used oil at the Puckett site in the service station's operations. Based on the soil and ground water analyses supplied him, Dr. Litt found an absence of halogenated solvents which would commonly be mixed with used oil, thus corroborating Mr. Winters' testimony that the used oil at the Puckett facility was not known to have been mixed with any hazardous wastes. The soil analysis indicates a level of organic halogens of 1,090 parts per million. This level might raise a presumption, under relevant EPA regulations, that the oil had been mixed somewhat with hazardous wastes, but Dr. Litt established that indeed no mixing had occurred based upon Mr. Winters' testimony, as well as the fact that the testing method used is accurate to only a plus or minus 700 parts per million in a total range of 1,000 to 2,000 parts per million. Indeed, some halogen levels may be attributed to natural soil conditions. Thus, the finding of 1,090 parts per million organic halogens could be as much as 700 parts per million in error, and some of this quantity can be due to natural backgrounds. Additionally, the level of individual chlorinated solvents sampled indicated no mixing of used oil with typical hazardous wastes. International Petroleum Corporation International Petroleum Corporation (International) has operated an oil storage plant and used oil reclamation facility at 105 South Alexander Street, Plant City, Florida, since May 1980. That site contains approximately 10 acres. There are two on-site tank farms containing 17 above-ground stationary tanks and two underground tanks. One underground tank holds 10,000 gallons and is used to store diesel fuel. The other tank holds 5,000 gallons and stores virgin gasoline. The above-ground tanks range in size from 8,000 to 212,000 gallons and are used to store oil, both used oil and new oil. All the tanks have been registered with the DER in accordance with its rules and are a part of the DER's "stationary tank system." The plant site also contains an office building and a testing laboratory which provides an array of testing services. The lab contains an atomic absorption unit, kinematic viscosity baths, API gravity hydrometers, distillation equipment and a gas chromatography. International uses this equipment, operated by a trained chemist, to test incoming loads of oil for such things as viscosity, flash point, API gravity, heavy metals, halides, etc. Since 1980, International has received, processed and sold more than 5,000,000 gallons of oil from this facility. The oil processed through the facility includes virgin kerosene, diesel, jet fuel and oils of various grades ranging from ASTM grade numbers 1-4 (the distillates) and ASTM grade numbers 5, 6 and "bunker C" (the residuals). The residual oils are those oils left after the lighter distillates are removed through the vacuum distillation process. The amount of residual oils processed since 1980 is relatively low, less than fifteen percent of the total amount of oils processed at International's facility. Out of 7,000,000 gallons processed in an average year, the plant may receive two or three carloads of grade numbers 5, 6 or bunker C. From 1980 to 1985, approximately 7,000,000 to 12,000,000 gallons of virgin oils were processed at the facility. In each of those years, from 4,000,000 to 7,000,000 gallons of used oil were also processed. Over that five- year period approximately 20,000,000 gallons of used oil were processed and sold through the International facility. International blends virgin oils received at the plant with used oils to meet particular specifications of a customer. It uses its own trucks to collect oil from service stations, automobile dealerships and other industrial accounts. Oil is then delivered to the plant and tested for basic constituents before being placed in an appropriate storage tank. International tests all incoming used oil to see if it meets the criteria for so-called "on spec" used oil or "off spec" used oil. These specifications were established by the EPA in 1985 and adopted by the DER. Used oil meeting these criteria may be burned as fuel in industrial and non-industrial boilers without limitations. The criteria are as follows: Constituent/Property Allowable Level Arsenic 5 ppm maximum Cadmium 2 ppm maximum Chromium 10 ppm maximum Lead 100 ppm maximum Total Halogens 4,000 ppm maximum Flashpoint 100 degrees Fahrenheit minimum International has followed a practice of rejecting incoming used oil which fails to meet the criteria of 1,000 parts per million or less of total halogens, which is the rebuttable threshold presumption of "hazardous waste" oil. International makes an effort to ensure that used oil it receives and processes is thus "on spec." It regularly sends samples to independent laboratories to cross-check its own laboratory testing results. It is selective in its sources of used oil and typically obtains used oil from large companies such as the Mack truck shops, car dealerships and other large volume producers of used oil. These are sources unlikely to be contaminated with any hazardous materials. The "on-spec" used oil accepted by International is placed in separate storage tanks, segregated according to water content and API gravity, viscosity and lead content. It is then blended with virgin oils to meet the specification of various customers. Heat is sometimes supplied in order to drive off water. The used oil undergoes no further treatment or alteration, being merely tested and blended to meet the customer's requirements. Often blending is unnecessary. When a truckload is received, tested and found to meet specifications, it is sometimes directly delivered to a customer. International sometimes obtains used oil without payment from its suppliers and has often purchased it from the generators of used oil. It always sells it to its customers, however. It has a definitely defined industrial market as a fuel commodity and is recognized as having value when sold for such purposes. It may sell for as little as 30 cents per gallon and has sold for much more than that, depending on the market conditions prevailing at the time of sale. It is used both as a burner fuel for industrial and non-industrial boilers, as well as a key constituent in the phosphate beneficiation process. International sells approximately 40 percent of its used oil production to asphalt plants where it is used to fire burners and to rock drying mills, also as a burner fuel. It sells approximately 60 percent of its production of used oil to the phosphate companies for the beneficiation process. In that process, oil is used with other reagents and fatty acids to "float" phosphate out of the rock or ore in which it is contained, allowing it to be skimmed and separated. Although the oil is not burned as a fuel in this process, its use by the phosphate plants substitutes for virgin oils of ATM grade numbers 4 and 5 (heating oil) or in some cases kerosene or number 2 diesel. In 1985, International produced 4,295,101 gallons of used oil which were burned as a fuel by its customers and in 1986 produced 2,221,652 gallons of used oil which were burned as a fuel. The used oil which it sells for the beneficiation process meets DER and EPA standards for "on spec" used oil fuel, except for the lead content, which fact is immaterial to its use for the beneficiation of phosphate. The used oil sold for phosphate purposes does meet pertinent regulatory standards for "off spec" used oil, in any event, so that it could be burned as industrial furnace fuel under EPA and DER rules. The sale of used oil for final use as a burner fuel is very common. Many oil recyclers pick up used oil and take it directly to asphalt plants for burning as fuel without any blending or other treatment. International's sale of 60 percent of its used oil for phosphate processing is unique in the used oil industry, but is attributable to its close proximity to the central Florida phosphate plants. Most oil recycling facilities sell a larger percentage of their product for burner fuel than does International. The used oil which International sells as burner fuel is comparable to heating oil, ASTM grade numbers 2 or 4 and has a similar viscosity, specific gravity and flash point. It can be poured and handled without preheating. Residual oil, however, such as grade numbers 5 and 6 (bunker C) are very viscous and require preheating in industrial boilers or burner furnaces before it can be burned as fuel. The used oil sold by International Petroleum is more similar to ASTM grades 2 and 4 (the distillates) than it is to grades 5 and 6 (the residuals). Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination of the soil and groundwater at the International site was discovered in December 1983 by DER personnel. International retained a consultant to assess the site and determine the nature and extent of any contamination. It has already expended more than $50,000 in an effort to investigate and clean up petroleum contamination at its site. DER conducted a soil and groundwater site investigation in 1985, which showed that hydrocarbons were in the soil and that volatile organics were also present in the groundwater at the site. International has provided all background information requested by DER on site conditions existing prior to cleanup. This was for purposes of showing its entitlement to reimbursement eligibility. The contamination at the site consisted mostly of small leaks, drips and spills associated with loading and unloading railway tank cars, as well as stationary tanks, over at least a five year period. The storage tanks include integral piping systems, and some leakage occurred at hose or pipe connections. The petroleum products placed in the various tanks in the tank farm vary, so that the contamination existing at the site cannot be differentiated or attributed separately to used oils or virgin oils, to distillates (ASTM grades 1-4) or the heavier residuals. All are made up of hydrocarbons and their breakdown products in the ground are essentially indistinguishable. The record does not establish that any major or significant oil spills have occurred at the plant site and does not show that the operators have been particularly negligent or have failed to conform to industry standards. International has already taken remedial action by building high retaining walls and by removing contaminated dirt where repeated drippages occurred near the railroad tracks. Employees have received training to avoid leaks from hoses and pipes and have been instructed to clean up even small spills immediately. Valve equipment has also been upgraded. As a result of these efforts, subsequent testing of the monitoring wells at the site has shown that the groundwater condition has markedly improved and it may be possible that the cleanup action already taken will be sufficient to accord with regulatory standards for groundwater. Used Oil as "Petroleum" or "Petroleum Product" Used oil is derived from crude oil and consists primarily of engine lubricating oil which is a form of hydrocarbon and a special fraction of the original crude oil. The lubricating oil consists of vacuum distilled base oil and atmospheric distillate portions of crude oil produced at a refinery and further refined by processes involving wax removal and solvent extraction. The remaining portion of lubricating oil consists of additives added to the base oil to improve certain physical properties such as rust inhibition and to improve viscosity. Many of these additives, in turn, are substantially comprised of base oil themselves. Used oil also typically contains gasoline which condenses in the crank case, water, gasoline additives, lead sulfates, carbonates or oxides and other partial combustion products of gasoline motor fuel. Lead contained in used engine oil is produced by engines running on tetraethyl lead gasoline. This lead accumulates in the form of lead sulfate, lead carbonate or lead oxide, rather than tetraethyl lead in its original form. The sulfates, carbonates and oxides are insoluble and are not likely to be leached out by groundwater, in contrast to tetraethyl lead. Use of the oil does not change its basic chemical structure. The oil may be contaminated by various impurities resulting from partial combustion of gasoline, from rust, from condensed water and so forth, but these are essentially mechanical mixtures, rather than alterations of the chemical structure of the oil itself. Aside from water, when oil is pumped from the ground at the well, two substances are produced at the well head: crude petroleum oil and natural gas, including casing head gas. Used oil is similar in nature to the petroleum products specifically listed in Section 376.301(10), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). The predominant use of used oil is as a fuel, similar to diesel, kerosene and gasoline. A fuel is a material burned as a source of heat, rather than for disposal purposes. It can be either for propulsion purposes or for stationary equipment such as industrial boilers, asphalt plants and the like. Kerosene and diesel fuel are similar in terms of viscosity and BTU value to ASTM grade number 2 fuel oil. Used oil is thicker and more viscous than ASTM grades 2, 3 or 4, but not so viscous as grades 5 or 6. Neither does it have as high a BTU content as grade number 5 fuel oil. ASTM grade number 5 residual oil must be preheated before burning as a fuel. Viscosity is too high for the material to atomize properly at normal temperature. In fact, used oil can be used as a blending agent to blend down or reduce viscosity of grade number 5 oil and reduce the temperature to which number 5 oil must be preheated before burning. With some variance from one sample to another, used oil typically is similar in viscosity and BTU value to ASTM grade number 3 or 4 fuel oil. Gasoline, kerosene, diesel and used oil are all hydrocarbons which burn readily. These materials are mixtures of hydrocarbons, with additives which do not materially affect the properties of the hydrocarbon fuel, or its use as a fuel. Gasoline, in fact, is not classified by ASTM grade. Parenthetically, it thus appears that the Legislature did not intend to limit the scope of "petroleum product" by such considerations as only viscosity and BTU value. "Petroleum products" are commonly used as fuels and are typically stored at service stations or storage tank facilities which can pose a danger of causing inland soil or water contamination, if improperly discharged. Gasoline, kerosene, diesel and used oil are commonly stored in tanks at facilities throughout the state. Used oil does not have any meaningful similarity to the substances specifically excluded from the definition of petroleum or petroleum product by Section 376.301(10), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). Used oil, for instance, bears little similarity to liquefied petroleum gas or to petrochemical feed stocks, which latter products are used to supply the raw materials for chemical plants manufacturing petrochemicals of many types. Used oil only is similar to these substances to the extent that it is within the broad family of hydrocarbons derived from crude oil or gases, derived in turn from petroleum wells. Likewise, the ASTM Grades 5 and 6 residual oils are based on the residuum or the heave viscous material left after the distillation process is applied to crude oil. This residuum is the material left that is too heavy to further distill. On the other hand, crank case lubricating oils and transmission oils, which are typically involved in the category "used oil" or "used oil fuel," are derived by the process of vacuum distillation such that they are distillation products, as opposed to residual products. "Bunker C" oils, and marine bunkering oils generally, are residual fuel products and, together with asphalt oil, are not used as fuel, at least not at inland locations. These materials likewise are typically not stored at inland service stations or bulk storage or reclamation facilities and locations. Both the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Florida DER, in their regulatory scheme concerning used oil, encourage its collection and recycling. Used oil is typically recycled as a fuel and as a lubricant, by being separated from its contaminants by a re-refining process. Indeed, the oil constituent of used oil is not altered by use as lubricating or transmission oil, but rather is rendered in a "used oil" state by being subjected to various contaminants. It is not presently economically viable, given low virgin oil prices, to recycle used oil for lubricating oil. Thus, the two alternatives for disposition of used oil are to deposit it in landfills, a practice now generally prohibited by the DER and other regulatory authorities, or to use it as a fuel. Indeed, the use of used oil as a fuel is about the only practical way to dispose of it safely and legally in view of former uses, such as road oiling for dust control and weed abatement, now being prohibited in potable water aquifer areas. Section 403.75(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Thus, it is not only common and general practice to burn used oil as a boiler fuel and as a fuel in various industrial and utility plants, at the present time-that is almost the only manner in which it can be legally and safely disposed of. The Department itself has a policy encouraging the collection and recycling of used oil, as lubricating oil, fuel or as a feed stock in the manufacturing of other petroleum products. (See IP Exhibits 17, 18 and Joint Exhibit 5 in evidence.) Under EPA regulations which have been adopted by DER, used oil is not regulated as a hazardous waste. Under these regulations, the EPA has adopted a "rebuttable presumption of mixing" in order to distinguish between used oils which have been contaminated through mere use and used oils which have been mixed with hazardous wastes and therefore must be regulated as hazardous wastes or "hazardous waste fuel." Certain hazardous, halogenated constituents, such as chlorinated solvents, are the hazardous wastes typically found mixed with used oil. The "presumption of mixing" provides that any used oil containing greater than 1,000 parts per million of total halogens (such as chlorine, fluorine, bromine, iodine and similar substances) is presumed to have been mixed with a hazardous waste and will be regulated as "hazardous waste fuel" under 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart D, rather than as "used oil fuel" under 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart E. Hazardous waste fuel is essentially a hazardous waste with a BTU value of at least 5,000 BTUs per gallon. Hazardous waste fuel burning is tightly regulated by the EPA and DER. The presumption of mixing can be rebutted through a demonstration that the used oil in question has not been mixed with any hazardous waste. If mixing of used oil with hazardous wastes is known to have occurred, however, the oil is regulated as a hazardous waste when it is burned for energy recovery. Once it has been determined that a particular used oil is a used oil fuel and not a hazardous waste, the used oil falls into one of two categories: "Specification used oil fuel" or "off-specification used oil fuel." Specification used oil contains essentially the same toxic constituents as virgin oil fuels. Off-specification used oil fuel contains elevated levels of toxic components. Most used oil is off-specification, particularly if it is made up of mixtures of several types of used oil. If oil comes from a service station which was used in an engine burning leaded gasoline it would likely result in the used oil from that engine being off-specification due to the toxic lead compounds which would be present in the oil. If the oil was used in an engine which burned unleaded fuel, it is likely that it would be within specification limits for "on-specification used oil." Neither type of used oil is regulated as hazardous waste when burned as fuel, however. For purposes of determining whether an oil fuel is off-specification on on-specification, the EPA has developed a list [at 40 CFR Section 266.40(e): of contaminants, with the allowable levels for each contaminant, below which oil will be determined to be "on specification." Those contaminants are arsenic (5 ppm), cadmium (2 ppm), chromium (10 ppm), lead (100 ppm), with total halogens not exceeding 4,000 ppm in order for used oil to be within specification for nonindustrial burning. Specification used oils may be burned as fuel in nonindustrial boilers, including schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings. Off-specification used oil fuel may be burned in industrial furnaces, industrial boilers, utility boilers and some space heaters meeting certain federal safety requirements. Moreover, EPA regulations allow the blending of off-specification and specification used oil so that the resultant used oil, when burned, meets the specifications for nonindustrial burning. The Department's policy makers who were responsible for the initial decision that used oil is not petroleum or a petroleum product did not consult with certain key personnel in the Department's own used oil section concerning whether oil should be considered as a petroleum or petroleum product. In fact, Mr. Gentry, who is involved in policy making regarding the subject matter of the "Super Act," was not aware that the Department has a program to encourage the burning of used oil as a fuel nor the fact that used oil is extensively burned as a fuel in Florida.
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 applications of Puckett Oil 4 Company and International Petroleum Corporation for eligibility for reimbursement pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 7th of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 87-2161 & 87-2465 Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-23. Accepted. 24. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 25-38. Accepted. 39-40. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings and as not directly material. 41-45. Accepted. 46-48. Rejected as not material and relevant. 49-54. Accepted. 55. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 56-58. Accepted. 59. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 60-63. Accepted. 64. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject and as unnecessary to the resolution of material issues. 65-70. Accepted. 71. Rejected as irrelevant. 72-77. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject. Accepted, but not directly relevant and material. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-5. Accepted. 6. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 7-8. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as immaterial, in part, because the Hearing Officer, in determining whether the material at the subject sites meets the statutory definitions at issue is not, by the "pleading" confronted with the issue of whether any and all types of "used oil" meet these definitions, rather merely those types comprising the contamination at Petitioner's facility. The Hearing Officer cannot, in this proceeding, issue declaratory statements or advisory opinions. Accepted. Accepted, except for the next to last sentence. 11-12. Accepted. Accepted as to its historic accuracy, but not as a resolution of the essential issue presented. Rejected as immaterial in the absence of a Motion to Compel further, more detailed answers. Accepted as to its historical accuracy, but, for reasons similar to the ruling next above, not as probative of the appropriate, timely raising of the issue of gross negligence. 16-24. Accepted. 25-26. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted as to its historical import. 29-38. Accepted. 39. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant evidence of record. 40-43. Accepted. 44-45. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact, but, rather, a conclusion of law and statement of policy. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings and as largely immaterial. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter; as being partially immaterial and as a discussion of policy and not a pertinent finding of fact. 51-53. Rejected as constituting legal argument and not a finding of fact. 54-55. Rejected as constituting legal argument. 56. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. 57-58. Rejected as - subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 61-63. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and as constituting, in part, legal argument instead of fact finding. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and, standing alone, of scant materiality in proving whether used oil is a "petroleum product" or a "fuel commodity." Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. 78-80. Accepted in part, but not as to its material import and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 81-84. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant credible evidence. 85. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant credible evidence and as largely immaterial. 86-87. Rejected as immaterial to the ultimate factual and legal issues. 88-89. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant credible evidence. Accepted. 92-93. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 94-95. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and not in itself material. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Rejected as not comporting with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings and as not directly material and relevant. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's 4 findings on this subject matter. 102-103. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as to its purported material import. 104. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as to its purported material import and further as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 105-106. Rejected as constituting legal argument and discussion. 107-109. Rejected as constituting legal argument and discussion and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. 110-111. Rejected as constituting legal argument and discussion. 112-113. Rejected as constituting legal argument and discussion and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as constituting legal argument and discussion. Accepted but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings and not, in itself, material to the legal issue sub judice. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of credible evidence. Rejected as not in itself material and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the credible evidence. Rejected as not in itself material and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the credible evidence and as constituting legal argument and discussion. 119-120. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as to its purported material import and further as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Fingar, Esquire HUEY, GUILDAY, KUERSTEINER & TUCKER Regulation Suite 510 First Florida Bank Building Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Blair 2600 Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399. L. Caleen, Jr., Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN 2400 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue There are two issues in this case: whether the Petitioner, Thomas M. Parham, is maintaining an unpermitted stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of air or water pollution; and whether installations on Mr. Parham's property are discharging into groundwater, and whether he should therefore be required to obtain a groundwater monitoring permit and conduct groundwater monitoring as ordered in the Department's Final Order, DEP OGC File No. 08-0521 (the Order).
Findings Of Fact Thomas Parham purchased the property at 5401 Pickettville Road, Jacksonville, Florida (the Property), in a tax sale on November 21, 2007. His intention was to use it to park and store trucks and heavy equipment. At the time of purchase, there were no signs posted on the Property indicating that it was hazardous or toxic or otherwise compromised environmentally. At the time, there was no statute or rule requiring the Property to be posted to give the public notice of any of those conditions. Parham drove past the Property before buying it, but it was fenced, and the gates were locked, and he was unable to get in to inspect it. From the fence, he saw no indication that the Property was hazardous or toxic or otherwise compromised environmentally. However, Parham knew that there was fill material on the Property. He states that he did not know the Property was toxic or hazardous, but he did no due diligence to determine what kind of fill was on the Property. Parham has bought and sold property in tax sales for a living for the past 11 years. He owns 115 different properties, and has been involved in 795 property transactions. Once, he accidentally bought a contaminated property, which the City of Jacksonville bought back from him after the contamination was discovered. Based on his experience, Parham knew or should have known to conduct due diligence on the Property before buying it. After purchasing the Property, Parham saw that part of it had a significant amount of a black material. He testified that he believed it was charcoal or bituminous coal, which he called "black beauty." Instead of determining what it was, Parham decided to cover it with dirt. He had 124 truckloads of fill delivered to the Property and covered all of the supposed "black beauty." Someone saw the activity on the Property and contacted the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). DEP inspected and entered a Final Order, DEP OGC File No. 08-0521 (the Order) to require Parham to install monitoring wells and implement a monitoring program to determine whether the Property was causing pollution and contamination offsite. Parham challenged the Order, which resulted in this proceeding. Actually, the black material on the Property was not charcoal or bituminous coal. It was sandblasting grit material used by Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (Jacksonville Shipyards), in its shipyard operations to sandblast old paint coatings and rust from ships before re-painting. It would be expected that the used grit would be contaminated with metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The used grit was trucked to and deposited on the Property when it was owned by Jacksonville Shipyards in the 1970's and early 1980's. Prior to Jacksonville Shipyards' purchase of the Property in 1972, it was used as a sand mine. In the process, two large pits, each 20 to 25 feet deep, were excavated on the Property. Later, waste was dumped into the pits, including concrete, asphalt, metal pipes, wire, and wooden demolition material. When Jacksonville Shipyards purchased the Property in 1972, sandblasting grit was added to the waste placed into the pits. Initially, these activities were not regulated, and the pits were not lined before being used for waste disposal. By July 1980, leachate generated when waste material (including the sandblasting grit, which was being delivered to the Property daily) came in contact with water was running off the Property towards Six Mile Creek, which flows east to where it is joined by Little Six Mile Creek, from which the combined flow towards the east becomes the headwater of the tidal Ribault River. In addition, leachate was entering the groundwater on the Property, which also flowed generally to the north towards Six Mile Creek. When DEP's predecessor, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) began to regulate land fills, it required Jacksonville Shipyards to submit a groundwater monitoring plan, which DER approved. Monitoring wells were installed, and the groundwater on the Property was sampled once in 1984 and showed groundwater contamination. DER groundwater standards and criteria for arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, chlorides, copper, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids (TDS), and zinc were exceeded. DER attempted to negotiate a consent order with Jacksonville Shipyards to address the contamination, but those efforts failed, and then Jacksonville Shipyards and related business entities went into bankruptcy proceedings. After the bankruptcy proceeding was initiated, Jacksonville Shipyards conducted no further groundwater monitoring at the Property. Neither DER nor DEP issued a solid waste permit or a groundwater monitoring permit for the Property. No waste has been removed the Property, and no liner has been installed. Leachate has continued to run off the Property and infiltrate the groundwater on the Property and flowed towards Six Mile Creek. After bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, representatives of DER and DEP checked from time to time to see if overdue property taxes had been paid, reasoning that payment of the taxes would be an indication that the bankruptcy proceedings had progressed to the point that a financially viable owner of the Property could be required to implement an appropriate monitoring program for the Property. In fact, unbeknownst to DEP, title to the Property was conveyed to Picketsville Realty Holdings, LLC, in 1998. In 1998 DEP contracted with a consultant to conduct sampling at the Property to identify the source of the groundwater contamination detected in the onsite monitoring wells in 1984. Groundwater, soil, and surface water samples were collected and analyzed, as were reports on assessments conducted at the Pickettville Road Landfill, a federal Superfund site located across Pickettville Road from the Property. The consultant reported in 1999 that lead in groundwater samples exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) in shallow well 11 and in deep well 2. In shallow well 9, N-nitrosodiphenylamine also exceeded the MCL. Lead was detected in all twelve soil samples collected in areas where sandblasting grit was found on the surface although none of the soil samples exceeded DEP's residential direct exposure Soil Cleanup Target Level (SCTL) of 400 mg/kg. The report concluded that the Property was the source of most if not all of the contamination detected in the monitoring wells on the Property. The Pickettville Road Superfund site was not considered to be contributing to the groundwater contamination on the Property because groundwater data indicated that the Superfund site is not up-gradient of the Property. Groundwater flow from the Property was found to be generally westerly towards Six Mile Creek. In approximately 2003, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted with a consultant to perform an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) on the Property to determine whether it should be placed on the federal National Priorities List (NPL) of sites at which a release, or potential release, of hazardous substances poses a serious enough risk to the public health or the environment to warrant further investigation and possible remediation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. In this assessment, surface and subsurface soils and groundwater were collected from the Property, sampled, and analyzed. In addition, surface water and sediment samples from Six Mile Creek and from the Ribault River were collected, sampled, and analyzed. The federal ESI report was issued in 2004. It found arsenic, copper, benzo(a)pyrene equivalents in the surface soil samples that exceeded the default levels of concern for direct exposure, as provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-777. It also found arsenic, copper, iron, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and benzo(a)pyrene equivalents in the subsurface soil samples that exceeded the default levels of concern for direct exposure, as provided in Rule Chapter 62- 777. It also found chromium, iron, and lead in one groundwater sample at concentrations exceeding DEP's groundwater standards. Aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, nickel, vanadium, acenaphthene, fluorine, and phenanthrene levels in various groundwater samples were elevated but did not exceed DEP's groundwater standards. It also found that surface water samples from Six Mile Creek contained barium, copper, manganese, and vanadium at elevated concentrations. Sediment samples from Six Mile Creek and the Ribault River contained numerous metals, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, several polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and PCB-1260 at concentrations exceeding EPA Region 4 guidance values. It was concluded that from the elevated concentrations in the surface water samples that contamination of the surface water pathways continues to occur from inorganic contaminants from the Property. The number of impacted groundwater monitoring wells decreased from 1984 to 2004. However, arsenic concentrations increased in shallow well 9, and barium concentrations increased in shallow well 8, during that time. Also, acenapthene, which is a semi-volatile compound associated with PAHs, was reported in two wells in the 2004 ESI report but no detection was reported in the 1985 report. The 1985, 1999, and 2004 reports indicate that the waste-filled pits on the Property are discharging to groundwater. This is not surprising since there is no liner beneath the waste that has been placed in the pits. Rain and runoff on the Property would percolate through the waste and leaches contaminants out of the waste. The leachate enters the groundwater on the Property. Parham contends that contamination found on the Property is from the 53-acre Pickettville Landfill, which was operated by the City of Jacksonville. He contends that a large number of lead batteries were placed in the Pickettville Landfill from extensive lead battery disposal. The evidence proved that the Pickettville Landfill is a Superfund site but did not prove composition or amount of the waste placed in the Pickettville Landfill over the years. Even if the Pickettville Landfill was used extensively for lead battery disposal over the years, the evidence was that little or none of the contamination on the Property is attributable to the Pickettville Landfill. Besides groundwater flow from the Pickettville Landfill likely being away from the Property, lead contamination was found in the surface and subsurface soils of the Property, making it very unlikely that the contamination on the Property came from the Pickettville Landfill. Parham also questions the estimate in the three contamination reports on the Property that 200,000 cubic yards of sandblasting grit were dumped on the property. He estimated that would amount to 13,000 truckloads, which would not fit on the 4-acre Property. But a witness for DEP estimated that two- acres of 20-25 foot deep pits would hold that quantity of sandblasting grit. Even if the actual quantity of sandblasting grit dumped on the Property was less, the evidence was that it was the likely source of the metal contamination found in the soils and groundwater on and under the Property. Similarly, Parham suggests that waste oil and other waste in the Pickettville Landfill could be the source of PAH or PCB contamination on the Property. Besides groundwater flow from the Pickettville Landfill likely being away from the Property, those contaminants move very slowly and do not move large distances, making it very unlikely that the contamination on the Property came from the Pickettville Landfill. Even if some did, the Pickettville Landfill would not account for much of the contamination on the Property. Parham contends that, even if the Property is contaminated, his placement of 124 truckloads of dirt on the Property will prevent any further groundwater contamination. But dirt is not impervious and will not prevent rain and runoff from percolating through the waste on the Property and leaching contamination into the groundwater on the Property. Eventually, this groundwater leaves the Property and enters Six Mile Creek.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order requiring Thomas Parham to: Submit a complete application for monitoring plan approval on Form 62-520.900(1) to the Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast District, 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite B200, Jacksonville, Florida 32256-7590 within 90 days of entry of the Final Order; Implement the approved monitoring program within 90 days after Department approval; and Install monitoring wells in accordance with the approved monitoring program and Rule 62-520.600(6). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SuperAmerica of Florida, Inc. (SuperAmerica) is affiliated with SuperAmerica Group, Inc., a corporation with headquarters in Lexington, Kentucky. SuperAmerica markets petroleum products from convenience store facilities in an eleven-state area concentrated in the Ohio Valley and upper Midwest. In 1985, SuperAmerica began constructing convenience store facilities in Florida, and opened its first stores in 1986. It installed state-of-the-art petroleum storage tanks, lines, dispensers and leak detection equipment at each new site. Casey McKenzie became SuperAmerica's administrative manager for its Florida facilities in October 1990. At that time there were approximately thirty-seven SuperAmerica convenience store facilities in Florida. Mr. McKenzie's duties included monthly reporting to corporate headquarters, environmental compliance, and emergency petroleum discharge response at the Florida sites. Mr. McKenzie left Florida in June 1993, after SuperAmerica completed its sale to Shell Oil Company of what was then over fifty sites. Virtually all of SuperAmerica's Florida sites had three separate tanks for different grades of gasoline, plus one tank for diesel fuel. The tanks were either 12,000 or 8,000 gallons in volume. Each site had between twelve and sixteen dispensers, and each dispenser had up to six nozzles for dispensing different grades of gasoline and diesel fuel. The Florida sites, including the sites at issue, experienced high volume sales as they were open twenty-four hours a day and were located in areas of heavy private and commercial traffic. The volume of sales required frequent storage tank refilling, sometimes daily or every other day. The volume of sales and frequent refillings made petroleum discharges in the form of spills, splashes and drips caused by human error a common occurrence. Customer overfill incidents involving small quantities of fuel were the most common occurrence. Other spills resulted when the underground storage tanks were being filled. SuperAmerica had procedures to minimize the risk of spills and to detect the spills or discharges. The tanks were all fitted with Gilbarco automatic tank gauging devices which computed volume of fuel and water in the tanks, the inches of fuel and water and the temperatures inside the tanks. Operators or staff also used long sticks to manually measure volume of fuel and water in the tanks. And a third method of measure was a daily sales inventory. Mr. McKenzie received the reports of these inventories on a periodic basis and store operators were instructed to watch for, and report unexplained discrepancies. To his knowledge, during his tenure as administrative manager, there were no unexplained discrepancies nor discrepancies in those inventories resulting from leaking tanks. At each site, including the sites at issue, there were six groundwater monitoring wells. The wells were generally installed during installation of the underground storage tanks in the same excavation pit. The monitoring wells were accessible through manhole covers on the surface of the concrete pad. Locked caps below the manhole covers were intended to maintain the environmental integrity of the wells. Water entered the wells through slots in the pipes which lined the well, from about a foot below the pad surface and extending below the water table. Prior to June 1991, the SuperAmerica area managers took water samples from the wells each month, performed sight and smell tests and recorded the results on an inspection report. Beginning in June 1991, SuperAmerica hired National Environmental Services and Testing (NEST) to perform the monthly groundwater sampling from the monitoring wells. NEST used a vapor monitoring device (organic vapor analyzer - OVA) in the monitoring wells to detect the pressure of organic vapors in addition to performing groundwater sampling. The monitoring wells at the seven sites at issue contained groundwater. At various times, as more specifically addressed below, NEST's monitoring reports for the sites at issue noted elevated organic vapor readings, odor present, and product in the form of skim, light skim, or sheen. Mr. McKenzie had procedures in place and carried out those procedures to respond to large volume spills or accidents above ground, as well as catastrophic leaks of underground tanks. These were his primary concerns. He did not expect a catastrophic leak in the relatively new equipment, and none occurred. Mr. McKenzie did not attribute any of the reports of elevated vapor readings, odor or presence of petroleum or diesel product in the form of skim or sheen, as evidence of tank or line failure. There are other rational explanations for the readings. Specifically, rainfall could easily dissolve and wash spilled fuel, antifreeze, oil or road grease into cracks in the pad, into manhole covers and onto the ground where it could easily seep into the monitoring wells. As conceded by counsel for SuperAmerica, there was a discharge at each of the seven sites, for purposes of the FPLRIP program. Printed text on the top of the Discharge Reporting Forms advises facilities of their obligation to report discharges or suspected releases within one day of discovery. For each site at issue, monitoring well records contained evidence of odor, product or elevated vapor readings more than one day prior to SuperAmerica's filing Discharge Reporting Forms. After filing Discharge Reporting Forms with DEP, Mr. McKenzie contacted Tanknology Corporation to schedule testing of the tanks and lines. The company was busy and was not able to complete the tests until some time (more than three days) after Mr. McKenzie filed the Discharge Reporting Forms. SuperAmerica did not intentionally cause a discharge at any of the sites, nor intentionally disable leak detection devices. When the Discharge Reporting Forms were filed, Mr. McKenzie was not aware of any spill or other discharge in excess of 25 gallons for which he had failed to file a reporting form within twenty-four hours. As of the date of the hearing there was no conclusive evidence of what caused the odor, product and elevated OVA readings in the monitoring wells. SuperAmerica's expert conjectures that they were caused by surface water runoff, sloppy transport deliveries, customer overfills and other routine problems of the high-volume facilities. In determining whether SuperAmerica was eligible under FPLRIP with regard to the sites at issue, DEP's program administrator, William Truman, considered only whether SuperAmerica properly reported suspected releases and whether it timely tested the storage systems. Those were appropriate considerations. The basis for denial as to each site is more specifically described below. On January 19, 1993, counsel for the parties executed a joint stipulation relating to an eighth facility site. In that stipulation, the agency recited its agreement that failure to report suspected releases within one working day of discovery could no longer, standing alone, serve as a basis for denial of restoration coverage eligibility under 1992 amendments to Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, governing FPLRIP. The stipulation also recited: Nothing in this Joint Stipulation shall be construed to mean that violation of the discharge response requirements contained in section 376.3072(2)(d), F.S. (1992) , and implemented in rules 17-769, 17-769.600(15) and (16), Florida Administrative Code is no longer a valid basis for denial of eligibility for restoration coverage on an incident by incident basis under FPLRIP. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. G) Hudson-DEP Facility No. 51-8837646 DOAH Case 92-6871 (Site 8023) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system located at 9508 SR 52, Hudson, Pasco County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks (USTs): two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTS; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about March 1988. On August 21, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well five was 3800 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2800 ppm. On September 16, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1000 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2000 ppm. On October 15, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 2400, five was 2900 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2200 ppm. On November 20, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 3600, five was 3000 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 6900 ppm. On December 4, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 3100, five was 2800 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 5100 ppm. On January 4, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells four, five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1100, five was 2400 ppm, and the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2900 ppm. On March 6, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was product in monitor wells four, five and six. The report also indicates there was an odor in monitor wells five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well six exceeded 10,000 ppm. Elevated readings and odor persisted in well six in April and June. On July 14, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the facility. There was an odor in monitor wells five and six. The OVA reading for monitor well four was 1400 ppm, while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 2600 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The form was signed by Casey McKenzie. The form indicates the date of discovery was July 14, 1992 (the most recent date on which NEST sampled the monitor wells). The method of initial discovery was a Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Company. The Type of pollutant discharged was Unleaded gasoline. The Cause of leak and Estimated number of gallons lost were both Unknown. On or about August 26, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. The test report commented that one dispenser had leaks at the nozzle when pumping and the tester had the store put an Out of Order sign on the nozzle. On or about September 1, 1992, the Department issued an order declaring SuperAmerica site no. 8023 eligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. On October 6, 1992, and again on October 21, 1993, the Department issued its amended orders of ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the discharge reported. Melbourne-DEP Facility No. 05-8840685 DOAH Case 93-4402 (Site 8024) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8024) located at 700 West New Haven Avenue, Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1988. On December 13, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 4200 ppm to 8500 ppm. On January 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 1200 ppm to 8000 ppm. On February 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in wells one, two, five and six. There was an odor in all six wells. The OVA readings for the monitor wells ranged from 2100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On March 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an order in monitor wells one and five. The OVA readings for wells one and five both exceeded 10,000 ppm. Odor and elevated readings persisted in April. On June 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well six exceeded 10,000 ppm. There was odor in wells one, five and six. The report contains the notation Charlie will check early July. If readings have not declined, he will file DNF. On July 9, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 220 ppm to 7100 ppm. There was odor in wells three, four, five and six. On July 17, 1992, Brevard County conducted an inspection of the facility. The Natural Resources Management Division of Brevard County is DEP's designated local program for purposes of the FPLRIP. The report noted the excess OVA readings since December. It required a tightness test and investigation into the source of the discharge, and it required a contamination assessment. It also noted that administrative action will be taken on this facility for major violation of 17-761, Florida Administrative Code . . . (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1) On or about July 21, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF indicates the date of discovery was July 9, 1992 - the date on which NEST sampled the monitor wells. The method of initial discovery was Vapor Readings. The Type of pollutant discharged was Unleaded gasoline. The Cause of leak and the "Estimated number of gallons lost were both Unknown. On or about July 28, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On or about July 1, 1993, the Department issued its Order of Ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Cocoa-DEP Facility No. 05-8841566 DOAH Case 93-4402 and 93-4403 (Site 8034) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8034) located at 1600 Clear Lake Road, Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida. The facility consisted of three underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; and one 8,000 gallon UST. The USTs were installed in or about January 1989. On December 13, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well number five. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for wells one, two, three, four and six all exceeded 10,000 ppm. On January 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells one through four and well six. With the exception of well three, the OVA readings for all of the wells exceeded 10,000 ppm. On February 16, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 2100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On March 19, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in all of the wells. The OVA readings for the wells ranged from 4100 ppm to an excess of 10,000 ppm. On or about March 31, 1992, Brevard County conducted an inspection at site no. 8034. The Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form cover sheet prepared by the Brevard County Inspector noted in part: From 12/31/91, OVA readings in all wells have exceeded reportable quantity (>500 ppm); in some instances, 5 wells >10,000 ppm. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2) The Inspection form also noted the facility failed to report Suspected releases within one working day of discovery. The above-referenced Underground Storage Tank Compliance Inspection Form also noted the facility failed to report Confirmed releases (positive response of a release detection device) within one working day of discovery (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2). The form requires a DRF within one day and a tightness test ASAP. On or about March 31, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF was signed by Mr. Casey McKenzie. The DNF indicated the date of test or discovery was March 30, 1992. The method of initial discovery was a DER Compliance Audit. The DNF does not contain information concerning the estimated number of gallons lost. The Cause of leak and the Type of pollutant discharged were both Unknown. On or about April 5, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a tightness certificate. The test report noted no product visible in the monitoring wells, but odor was present. On July 1, 1993 and again on October 21, 1993, the Department issued its order and amended order of ineligibility for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Sarasota-DEP Facility No. 58-8840985 DOAH Case 93-5734 (Site 8035) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8035) located at 4405 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, Sarasota County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1988. On September 17, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well six. There was an odor in all six wells. The OVA reading for wells one, two, three and five all exceeded 1500 ppm. On October 18, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Both product and an odor were present in all six wells. The OVA readings for wells one through five exceeded 700 ppm. On November 22, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Both product and an odor were present in all six wells. The OVA readings for wells one, two and five were 2200 ppm, 1200 ppm and 4000 ppm. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. Product and odor were present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well five was 3100 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well five was 3200 ppm. On February 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in all six wells. The OVA reading for well two was 900 ppm. On March 11, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product in all six wells and odor present in wells one, two and five. The OVA reading for well two was 900 ppm. On April 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was both product and an odor present in wells one, two and three. On or about April 16, 1992, Sarasota County conducted a routine inspection at the above-referenced facility. The Sarasota County Pollution Control Division is DEP's designated local program agency for purposes of FPLRIP. On the Pollutant Storage Tank System Inspection Report Form the Sarasota County Inspector noted: Monitor wells 1, 2, 3 and 5 had OVA readings exceeding 5000 ppm. - High readings and product in wells has been recorded in monthly report by the facility since October, 1991. (Respondent's Exhibit 4) The inspector also noted the facility Has recorded high OVA readings in several MW's but not filed DRF. The County Inspector also noted the facility failed to report Any spill, overfill, or other discharge within one working day of discovery and that the facility failed to report Suspected releases within one working day of discovery. The County Inspector made the following notations on the back of the report: Monitoring well log indicates excessive contamination free product in all wells high OVA readings as [far] back as October '91 no records of any tightness testing in regards to the increase of contamination levels found in wells. DRF on file? (Respondent's Exhibit 4) A letter from Sarasota County dated April 22, 1992, required laboratory analysis of monitor well water within 45 days. The analysis was done by NEST and was provided to Sarasota County on June 29, 1992. On July 7, 1992, Sarasota County received the report and requested that SuperAmerica file a Discharge Reporting Form due to the appearance of excessive contamination. On or about July 15, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a DNF with the Department. The DNF indicates July 14, 1992 as the Date of receipt of test results or discovery. On or about August 29, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On or about September 17, 1993, the Department issued its order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Clearwater DEP Facility No. 52-8944446 DOAH Case No. 93-4406 (Site 8036) At all times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8036) located at 4450 Easy Bay Drive, Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. The above- referenced facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about August 1989. On September 16, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 8000 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well six was 3000 ppm. On October 17, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product and an odor present in well five. The OVA reading for well five was 8500 ppm. On January 1, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for wells four and five was 1100 ppm. On February 6, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product present in well five. The OVA reading for well five was 400 ppm. On March 11, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 2800 ppm. On April 7, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 650 ppm. On July 13, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 1100 ppm. Casey McKenzie prepared a Discharge Notification Form but did not file it because he believed the local agency had instructed him to hold it pending further investigation. On or about August 28, 1992, Tanknology Corporation performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a Certificate of Tightness. On October 12, 1992, Pinellas County conducted a routine inspection at the above-referenced facility. The HRS Pinellas County Health Unit is the agency's designated local agency for FPLRIP. The County Inspector made the following notation on the Inspection Report Form Cover Page: What actions were taken in response to positive responses in one or more monitor wells for the following months - 10/91; 9/91; 11/91; 1/92; 2/92; 3/92; 4/92; 7/92 - provide copy of monitor these monitor reports - take appropriate actions at this time. (Respondent's Exhibit 5) On or about October 27, 1992, SuperAmerica filed the July 13, 1992 DNF with the Department. The DNF reflected a discovery date of July 13, 1992. The DNF indicated the method of initial discovery was a vapor reading from monitor well testing company. On or about July 1, 1993, the Department issued its order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Englewood-DEP Facility No. 08-8945143 DOAH Case 93-2710 (Site 8038) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8038) located at 2710 South McCall Road, Englewood, Charlotte County, Florida. The facility consisted of four USTs: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about September 1989. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 6200 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 9800 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 2000 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 1100 ppm. On February 13, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 1500 ppm. On April 10, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 1100 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 5900 ppm. An Interoffice Memo dated April 24, 1992, from Mr. McKenzie to the manager of store no. 8038 provided in part: The monthly test of your store's monitor wells revealed the following results which need to be addressed: Monitor well number 5 showed vapor readings exceeding 5900 PPM. This is a reportable quantity to the DER. No previous results have show [sic] levels this high. (Petitioner's Exhibit 38C) This latter assertion is obviously in error given the fact that in December, 1991, the OVA reading for well four was 6200 ppm while the OVA reading for well five was 9800 ppm. On May 12, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well four was 2100 ppm while the OVA reading for monitor well five was 3000 ppm. On June 15, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 2500 ppm. On July 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well five was 1100 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with DEP. The DNF was signed by Casey McKenzie. The DNF indicated the Date of Test or discovery was July 20, 1992. The method of initial discovery was Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Reports. The estimated number of gallons lost and the cause of leak were both unknown. On or about September 1, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the site and issued a certificate of tightness. On September 4, 1992, Casey McKenzie wrote to DEP's South District Office with regard to the DNFs filed for Englewood Facility and the Punta Gorda Facility. With regard to SuperAmerica's failure to timely report the releases, the letter provided in part: In your letter, you refer to the elevated OVA readings recorded several months ago but not reported. This was simply an error on my part. SuperAmerica began utilizing an outside contractor to perform monitor well sampling at these locations in December. Prior to that, we performed the monthly sampling ourselves using the sight and smell method appropriate for ground water well monitoring... I was not aware of the thresholds for reporting of vapor levels. I was aware we had no sheen or odor present. When our contractor and I finally discussed the importance of the vapor readings and the ramifications involved, we immediately filed Discharge Notification Forms for suspected releases. . . Any errors made in reporting were due to lack of knowledge on my part, ... (Respondent's Exhibit 3) Mr. McKenzie's assertion of ignorance cannot be reconciled with the statements set forth in his Interoffice Memo dated April 24, 1992. See paragraph 85, above. On or about April 23, 1993, and again on October 20, 1993, DEP issued its order and amended order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. Punta Gorda-DEP Facility No. 08-9045849 DOAH Case 93-2711 (Site 8039) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of its petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8039) located at 3035 Tamiami Trail, Punta Gorda, Charlotte County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gallon gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The USTs were installed in or about January 1990. On December 10, 1991, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was product in well four. There was an odor in all of the wells. The OVA readings for wells one, three, four, five and six all exceeded 10,000 ppm. On January 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. The OVA reading for well two was 600 ppm; well three was 4500 ppm; well four was 900 ppm; and well five was 2500 ppm. On February 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two, three and five. The OVA reading for well one was 6000 ppm; wells two and three were in excess of 10,000 ppm; well four was 4100 ppm; and well five was 3800 ppm. On March 9, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two, three and five. The OVA reading for well two was in excess of 10,000 ppm; well three was 2000 ppm; and well four was 3000 ppm. 26 On April 10, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well two was 1500 ppm while the OVA reading for well three was 550 ppm. On May 14, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well two was 2200 ppm while the OVA reading for well three was 1100 ppm. On June 15, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in well two. The OVA reading for well two was 7300 ppm; well three was 1500 ppm; and well four was 1100 ppm. On July 20, 1992, NEST sampled the monitor wells at the above- referenced facility. There was an odor present in wells two and three. The OVA reading for well one was in excess of 10,000 ppm; well three was 2000 ppm; and well four was 3100 ppm. On or about July 24, 1992, SuperAmerica filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. The DNF was signed by Casey McKenzie. The DNF was dated July 24, 1992. However, the DNF did not include the information as to the date of test or discovery of the discharge. The cause of the leak and the estimated number of gallons lost were both unknown. The DNF indicated the method of discovery was a Vapor Reading Report from Monitoring Company. On or about August 27, 1992, the agency conducted an inspection at Site 8039. During the inspection, no obvious odors were detected in the monitoring wells, indicating that there may have been errors in the original OVA readings. The agency directed SuperAmerica to have groundwater samples analyzed. The analysis was provided to the agency on October 27, 1992. On or about August 27 and September 4, 1992, Tanknology Corporation International performed tank and line tests at the sight and issued certificates of tightness. On or about April 23, 1993, and again on October 20, 1993, DEP issued its order and amended order declaring SuperAmerica ineligible for FPLRIP restoration coverage for the reported discharge. North Ft. Myers-DEP Facility No. 36-8631544 DOAH Case 93-4405 (Site 8006) At all material times, SuperAmerica was the owner/operator of a petroleum storage tank system (site no. 8006) located at 4600 Bayline Drive, North Ft. Myers, Lee County, Florida. The facility consisted of four underground storage tanks: two 12,000 gallon gasoline USTs; one 8,000 gasoline UST; and one 8,000 gallon diesel UST. The tanks were installed on or about April 1987. In or about November 1992, SuperAmerica hired Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) to perform an environmental audit in conjunction with SuperAmerica's planned sale of the property. On January 7, 1993, ESE was performing soil borings in the tank farm and pump island areas. Soil samples were being analyzed for the presence of excessive contamination, if any. Those borings were made with a four-inch diameter hand auger. At boring SB-2, near the easternmost fuel island, the ESE employee cracked the fiberglass midgrade unleaded product line with the hand auger causing an underground discharge. SuperAmerica discovered the discharge on January 16, 1992 and filed a Discharge Reporting Form on that same date. On July 1, 1993, DEP issued its Order denying SuperAmerica eligibility for restoration coverage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter its final order denying eligibility to SuperAmerica in cases nos. 92-6871, 93-2710, 93- 2711, 93-4402, 93-4403/93-4404, 93-4406 and 93-5734; granting eligibility in case no. 93-4405; and dismissing case no. 93-2712 (voluntary dismissal). DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 6th day of March, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The findings of fact proposed by both parties, or stipulated by the parties, have been adopted in whole or in substance, except for the following: SuperAmerica's Proposed Findings of Fact. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial: 11-17, 20-23, 26-29, 39-40, 48-52, 59-66, 72-75, 79-87, 90- 92, 94-96, 98, 101, 104, 106-107, 109-147, 166, 173, 181,183, 203, 211-212, and 220. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence or unsupported by credible evidence: 97, 108, 149-155. DEP's Proposed Findings of Fact. These findings have all been adopted in substance. Additional findings have been made however, to explain the background and include facts common to all of the sites. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, Suite 654 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kenneth Plante General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Gary M. Pappas, Esquire POPHAM, HAIK, SCNOBRICH and KAUFMAN, LTD. 4000 International Place 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, Florida 33138 James M. Ellerbe, Esquire SuperAmerica Group Law Department 3499 Dabney Drive Lexington, Kentucky 40509
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 is eligible for state- administered cleanup under the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program pursuant to Section 376.3078, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Metropolitan Dade County (Petitioner) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapter 24, Metropolitan Dade County Code, Petitioner regulates, among other things, the use, storage, and disposal of industrial wastes and hazardous substances in Dade County. Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 (Respondent Industrial) is a Florida corporation and the owner of commercial real property located at 2035-2055 Northwest 7th Avenue, Miami, Florida. At this facility site, Respondent Industrial conducts business as a wholesale supplier of drycleaning supplies. The Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) is an agency of the State of Florida. Pursuant to Chapters 20, 376, and 403, Florida Statutes, Respondent DEP, among other things, regulates and is charged with the protection of the State's surface waters, groundwater, and other natural resources. On June 29, 1993, Petitioner's Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) issued Respondent Industrial a Notice of Violation and Order of Corrective Action (NOV). The NOV provided that evidence of "industrial waste discharges to the ground and groundwater" and that samples collected from Respondent Industrial's monitoring well revealed levels of tetrachloroethylene, also referred to as perchloroethylene (PERC), in violation of Chapter 24, Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Protection Ordinance.2 On or about September 20, 1993, in response to the NOV, Respondent Industrial's environmental consultant, Wingerter Environmental, prepared and submitted to DERM a Contamination Assessment Plan (CAP). On November 30, 1993, the CAP was approved by DERM, and subsequently modified on January 29, 1994. The CAP provided for the installation and sampling of five monitoring wells and four soil borings, and the surveying of relevant groundwater elevations. Analytical results from the soil and groundwater sampling identified elevated levels of PERC. Based on the analytical results, in May 1994, DERM and Respondent's new environmental consultant, AB2MT, discussed the need for expanding contamination assessment activities, including the installation and sampling of additional soil borings, shallow wells and a deep well. AB2MT completed the additional installation and sampling. Analytical results from the expanded assessment identified elevated levels of PERC, vinyl chloride and trichlorethylene. In May 1994, House Bill No. 2817, the Drycleaning Solvent Contamination Cleanup Act (Drycleaning Act), passed the Florida Legislature and was submitted to the Governor for signature. The Drycleaning Act became law, Chapter 94-355, Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 1994.3 On May 8, 1994, after passage of but prior to the Drycleaning Act becoming law, Respondent DEP announced that it was suspending all enforcement actions against drycleaning and wholesale supply facilities based on the Florida Legislature's passage of the Drycleaning Act. On May 16, 1994, Respondent Industrial's expanded contamination assessment report prepared by AB2MT was verbally approved by DERM. On January 24, 1995, DERM forwarded a Final Notice Prior to Court Action (Final Notice) to Respondent Industrial. The Final Notice stated that Respondent Industrial was not in compliance with the NOV, requested that Respondent Industrial enter into an administrative consent agreement within thirty days, and indicated that the case would be turned over to the County Attorney's Office if the referenced violations were not corrected.4 On August 30, 1995, a guidance document, regarding applications under the Drycleaning Act, was issued by Respondent DEP. The guidance document stated that Respondent DEP would begin accepting applications to the state-administered program created by the Drycleaning Act upon adoption by Respondent DEP of a rule to implement the program. In a meeting on January 25, 1996, DERM informed Respondent Industrial that it had a continuing obligation to cleanup and that it possibly could be found grossly negligent for failing to conduct a cleanup. On March 13, 1996, Respondent DEP adopted the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program Rules (Rules), Chapter 62- 781, Florida Administrative Code. The Rules specified eligibility requirements for applications submitted under the Drycleaning Act. On April 21, 1996, Respondent Industrial made application to Respondent DEP for acceptance into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. On September 16, 1996, Respondent Industrial was accepted by Respondent DEP into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, pursuant to Chapter 62-781, Florida Administrative Code. By Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing served October 4, 1996, Petitioner appealed Respondent DEP's acceptance of Respondent Industrial into the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. According to Petitioner, Respondent Industrial's willful failure to assess and remediate contamination at the site of the wholesale supply facility constitutes gross negligence, thereby precluding its eligibility in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
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 finding Industrial Equipment and Supply, DEP Facility No. 139502056 eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1998.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's service station site known as Siesta Key Exxon Village, at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, is eligible for state administered cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Weeks Oil Company, Inc., owns and operates a service station, Siesta Key Exxon, located at 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida. On December 21, 1988, Petitioner applied, pursuant to the Early Detection Incentive Program (EDI), for state assistance due to a suspected discharge of gasoline at the facility. The application indicated that a manual test of a monitoring well, conducted on December 16, 1988, detected contamination. After free product was discovered in the monitoring wells in December, 1988, subsequent monitoring well reports for the months of January - May, 1989, indicated the presence of free petroleum product. The January, 1989, monitoring report indicates six inches of free product; the February, 1989, monitoring report indicates twelve inches of free product; the March, 1989, report failed to indicate the presence of free product; and both the April and May, 1989, monitoring reports indicate the presence of sixteen inches of free product. Purity Well Company, the monitoring well contractor retained by Weeks Oil, bailed free product out of the monitoring wells once a month during the period January through May, 1989. On May 23, 1989, Richard Steele of the Sarasota County Pollution Control Division conducted an Early Detection Incentive Program Inspection at Siesta Key Exxon, 5201 Ocean Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida, DER Facility #588521170. During the inspection, Mr. Steele examined the monitoring well reports for Siesta Key Exxon for the months of January through May, 1989. Evidence of contamination was indicated by each month's monitoring well report, and the amount of free product indicated by the monitoring well reports increased over time. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele observed a minimum of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three. As part of the Early Detection Incentive Program inspection, Mr. Steele requested inventory records for Siesta Key Exxon, which records were provided on June 7, 1989. Inventory records for January, February, March and April, 1989, indicated a total shortage of 441 gallons of gasoline. Mr. Steele's inspection report of May 22, 1989, indicates that no initial remedial action other than the bailing of monitoring wells occurred subsequent to the December, 1988, EDI application. During the May 22, 1989, inspection, Mr. Steele was neither provided with any evidence of repairs to the petroleum storage system made for the purpose of acting upon monitoring well reports, nor did he visually observe any evidence of repair. By letter dated May 24, 1989, from Richard Steele to Weeks Oil Company, Mr. Weeks was informed of the presence of two feet of free product in monitoring well number three and specifically requested a tank tightness test. The May 24, 1987, letter requested Mr. Weeks to send the results of the tank tightness test to the Sarasota County Pollution Control Office or the Department of Environmental Regulation district office. Mr. Weeks discussed with Steele the fact that the contaminants appeared to come from tanks no longer in service, which tanks were scheduled for relining. Mr. Weeks did not consider it practicable to test tanks scheduled for relining and thought Steele agreed that he could delay the testing until the tanks were refitted. Mr. Steele never made such a commitment, and the tank test was never conducted. On October 20, 1989, the tanks at Siesta Key Exxon were excavated and fiberglass coated. The August 22, 1989 ineligibility determination cites as the reason for denial, the failure of Weeks Oil to conduct a tank tightness test as requested by Sarasota County or otherwise immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, The ineligibility letter concludes that failure to immediately investigate and repair the contamination source as required by Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, shall be construed as gross negligence in the maintenance of a petroleum storage system, which precludes participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program. A tank tightness test should be performed by the owner or operator of a petroleum storage system where there are any discrepancies in inventory records or monthly monitoring system checks. Rule 17-61.050(4)(c) 3., Florida Administrative Code, requires upon discovery of an inventory discrepancy that investigation of the system "shall not stop until the source of the discrepancy has been found, the tank has been tested, repaired, or replaced, or the entire procedure has been completed." Pursuant to Rule 17-61.050(6), Florida Administrative Code, the owner or operator of a storage system shall test the entire storage system whenever the Department has ordered that such a test is necessary to protect the lands, ground waters, or surface waters of the state. Specifically, the Department may order a tank test where a discharge detection device or monitoring well indicates that pollutant has been or is being discharged. Given the inventory record discrepancy and the amount of free product continually observed in the monitoring wells at Siesta Key Exxon, it was appropriate for Mr. Steele to request a tank tightness test. The bailing of a contaminated monitoring well is not an appropriate method of determining the source of petroleum contamination. The failure of Weeks Oil Company, Inc., to timely conduct a tank test as requested by Sarasota County, acting on behalf of the Department, creates a risk of or the potential for greater damage to the environment because a continual unchecked discharge leads to the release of more petroleum product into the environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application of Petitioner to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet D. Bowman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2400 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 James B. Weeks, Jr. Weeks Oil Company Post Office Box 100 Sarasota, FL 34230 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Notice of Intent to Issue Order Requiring Access to Property (“Access Order”) issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) and directed to Glenda Mahaney, as the property owner, is a valid exercise of the Department’s authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Glenda Mahaney is a natural person and the owner of the property identified in the Access Order. The Department is the state agency which has been granted powers and assigned duties under chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, for the protection and restoration of air and water quality and to adopt rules and issue orders in furtherance of these powers and duties. Background The groundwater beneath a parcel of land adjacent to Petitioner’s property was contaminated with petroleum when the land was used in the past for auto salvage operations. Initial groundwater sampling near the border of Petitioner’s property showed groundwater contamination by gasoline constituents which exceeded Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (“GCTLs”). In other words, the contamination was at levels that required cleanup. However, later sampling showed the concentration of contaminants had decreased below GCTLs, probably as a result of natural attenuation. The existing data suggests that any groundwater contamination beneath Petitioner’s property is probably now at a level that would not require cleanup. However, the Department issued the Access Order because the Department is not certain about the contamination beneath Petitioner’s property and because Petitioner has continually requested further investigation. Petitioner believes contamination from the auto salvage site has caused illness in a tenant and even contributed to other persons’ deaths. However, no expert testimony was received on this subject and no finding is made about whether contamination exists on Petitioner’s property which has caused illness or death. The Department’s Site Investigation Section wants access to Petitioner’s property in order to determine whether contamination has migrated beneath Petitioner’s property and, if it has, the extent and concentration of the contaminants. The Department wants to: (a) install up to five temporary groundwater monitoring wells, (b) collect groundwater samples from the wells, (c) collect a groundwater sample from Petitioner’s potable water well, and (d) remove the monitoring wells after the sampling. The Access Order includes terms related to advance notice, scheduling, and related matters. Liability Although Petitioner believes petroleum contamination is present and wants it cleaned up, she objects to the provision of the Access Order related to liability. Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order provides: Ms. Mahaney shall not be liable for any injury, damage or loss on the property suffered by the Department, its agents, or employees which is not caused by the [sic] negligence or intentional acts. Petitioner insists that she should not be liable under any circumstances for injuries or damages suffered by Department’s agents or employees who come on her property for these purposes. She demands that the Department come onto her property “at their own risk.” At the final hearing, the Department stated that it did not intend to impose on Petitioner a level of liability different than the liability that would already be applicable under Florida law. The Department offered to amend Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order to indicate that Petitioner’s “liability, if any, shall be determined in accordance with Florida law.” Scope of the Investigation Petitioner objects to the proposed groundwater sampling because she does not believe it is extensive enough. Petitioner also believes the Department should test for soil contamination. The Department’s expert, David Phillips, testified that the proposed monitoring well locations were selected based on the direction of groundwater flow in the area and the wells are along the likely path of migration of any contaminated groundwater from the former auto salvage site. Another Department witness, Tracy Jewsbury, testified that no soil contamination was found on the auto salvage site, so the Department has no reason to expect there would be soil contamination on Petitioner’s property that came from the auto salvage operation. The Department will use the data collected from the wells to determine if contamination is present and whether future contamination assessment and/or remediation activities are necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection withdraw the Access Order or, alternatively, that Paragraph 9(e) of the Access Order be amended to provide that Ms. Mahaney’s potential liability, if any, shall be determined in accordance with Florida law. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2017. William W. Gwaltney, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Glenda Q. Mahaney Post Office Box 123 Mount Dora, Florida 32756 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Arthur L. Jones, Trustee of the Arthur L. Jones Revocable Trust, also known as Eastlake Woodlands Shopping Center ("Eastlake"). Petitioner is not and never has been responsible for the discharge of pollutants at Eastlake within the meaning of Section 376.302. On November 9, 1993, Petitioner requested a determination of eligibility under the "Good Samaritan" program authorized in Section 376.305(6). Petitioner seeks reimbursement of $644,712 in costs associated with the assessment and remediation of perchloroethylene ("PCE") contamination at Eastlake. From May, 1982, through May, 1986, Eastlake included a dry cleaning establishment among its tenants. The dry cleaning establishment utilized PCE. PCE contamination was discovered in June, 1992, when a Publix Supermarket adjacent to the former dry cleaning business ("Publix") requested an environmental assessment as part of its expansion at Eastlake. The environmental assessment was performed by Chastain-Skillman, Inc. ("Skillman"). Skillman first discovered PCE contamination at the site as a result of tests of groundwater obtained from behind the former dry cleaning establishment. From July, 1992, through August, 1992, Skillman confirmed the PCE contamination through tests of additional groundwater samples from 10 other locations. In October, 1992, Petitioner orally notified Respondent of PCE contamination at the site. The PCE contamination was not reported to Respondent's Emergency Response Coordinator. The PCE contamination was not an emergency. Emergencies typically include incidents such as a petroleum spill related to a vehicular accident, a chemical spill, or a fire related release. The PCE contamination did not constitute an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. It did not constitute a threat to potable water wells at the site. PCE is a solvent commonly used in the dry cleaning business. Release of PCE is a relatively common occurrence in the dry cleaning business. On September 27, 1993, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a consent order with regard to PCE contamination at the site. In relevant part, the consent order requires Petitioner to submit a Contamination Assessment Report and Remedial Action Plan. Petitioner submitted a Contamination Assessment Report in November, 1992. Petitioner did not submit a Remedial Action Plan because Respondent placed a moratorium on enforcement actions undertaken with regard to PCE contamination at dry cleaning establishments. Respondent is in the process of implementing a program for state funded cleanup of contaminated dry cleaning sites throughout the state. Respondent is developing a priority system for cleanup of contaminated dry cleaning sites based upon relative threat to the public health and environment. There are approximately 2,800 contaminated dry cleaning sites around the state that will be affected by Respondent's dry cleaning program. Petitioner is entitled to apply for reimbursement of future costs once Respondent implements its dry cleaning program. Respondent has issued a policy memorandum concerning the review of Good Samaritan applications. Respondent's policy differentiates between petroleum contamination and non-petroleum contamination, such as PCE contaminated sites. Reimbursement of petroleum contamination is funded through the Inland Protection Trust Fund ("IPTF"). Reimbursement of non-petroleum contamination is funded through the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund ("WQATF"). IPTF funds are statutorily limited to reimbursement of costs associated with petroleum contamination. Respondent's policy is to exhaust the enforcement process before WQATF trust funds are utilized for the assessment and remediation of non- petroleum contamination. Respondent's policy requires a Good Samaritan to obtain prior approval from Respondent's Emergency Response Section or On-Scene Coordinator before initiating cleanup of a non-petroleum site such as the PCE contaminated site at Eastlake. The requirement for prior approval is designed to allow Respondent to preserve the amount of personnel, equipment, and resources available for statutorily prescribed priorities, including emergency responses. 2/ The requirement also allows Respondent to determine the endpoint of the emergency phase of a cleanup and the beginning of the remedial phase of the cleanup. The requirement for prior approval may be waived in the event of an imminent hazard. Respondent adequately explicated its non-rule policy for a moratorium on dry cleaning sites and for prior approval of remediation of non-petroleum sites including dry cleaning sites contaminated with PCE. Respondent's explication was adequate even if its policy constitutes an unwritten rule within the meaning of Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes. Petitioner failed to show good cause for waiver of the requirement for prior approval. The PCE contamination at the site was neither an emergency nor an imminent hazard. The public was restricted from the contaminated area by a fence surrounding the site. The public was not exposed to or threatened with contamination by inhalation. No potable water wells are near the site. Therefore, there was no threat of public access to contaminated drinking water. Petitioner did not obtain prior approval for its remediation of the site. Remediation was undertaken to complete the Publix expansion in a timely manner. Petitioner's efforts in assessing and remediating the site have been exemplary. Petitioner has fully cooperated with Respondent in assessing and remediating the site. In July, 1993, Petitioner retained American Compliance Technologies ("ACT") as a consultant to assist Petitioner in the remediation of the contaminated site. ACT prepared a health and safety plan for workers on the site. The plan addressed the risk to workers of exposure to PCE during construction and demolition activities necessary for the Publix expansion. Construction and demolition activities included removal of the concrete slab at the location of the former dry cleaning business. Disturbance of the soils contaminated with PCE created a potential for exposure of workers to PCE. The health and safety plan developed by ACT required workers to wear standard protective gear utilized by the industry. The plan satisfied the requirements of OSHA. ACT did not prepare a risk assessment addressing the potential for exposure of the general public to PCE. Nor did ACT prepare a risk assessment for the potential impact of PCE on groundwater or potable wells. The PCE contamination did not constitute an imminent threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether CJC Properties, Ltd. (CJC), is eligible for state restoration funding assistance under the Petroleum Contamination Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program for one or more discharges of gasoline at DEP Facility No. 378943938 (“the facility”).
Findings Of Fact The Facility CJC is a Florida Limited Partnership. It is the current owner of property located at 5691 U.S. Highway 27 North, in Tallahassee. Prior to CJC’s acquisition of the property, the property was owned by Carolyn J. Chapman, John W. Chapman, Jane Chapman Latina, and Carolyn Chapman Landrum (“the Chapmans”). The property was leased to various entities and operated as a gas station. The tanks and dispensers remained in service until November, 1995. The last operator of the facility was Lake Jackson 76, Inc. There were five underground petroleum storage tanks at the facility. Before 1991, one of the tanks at the facility was used for regular, leaded, gasoline. When leaded gasoline was phased out, the tank was used for unleaded gasoline. Site Assessments and Sampling Data On November 30, 1995, the Chapmans employed Petroleum Contractors, Inc., to remove the five storage tanks. During the tank removal, Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists, Inc. (“EGS”) performed an assessment to determine whether the facility was contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. The Underground Storage Tank Removal Report prepared by EGS noted that all five tanks appeared to be intact. Soils in the tank pit wall and bottom were not discolored. No significant contamination was observed directly below the tanks. Soil from the tank pit was stockpiled on the site. EGS observed no significant signs of contamination of this soil. The soil stockpile was also screened with a Flame Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). No organic vapors were detected. An OVA detects any organic vapor, but is used as a screening tool to find petroleum vapors. Department rules require that an OVA reading be performed both unfiltered and filtered. The filtered reading screens out everything but methane and is “subtracted” from the unfiltered reading to determine the presence of petroleum vapors. Twenty-four soil samples were taken from various depths at nine locations in the tank pit. These samples were tested using an OVA. Nine of the soil samples, taken from four locations, had corrected OVA readings indicative of petroleum contamination. EGS concluded that “soil contamination detected in the tank pit is likely the result of a leak in the piping” between the dispensers and the tanks. Soil samples were also taken from three borings in the vicinity of the dispenser island and OVA-tested. In boring D-2, organic vapors were detected from the surface to a depth of approximately seven feet. The OVA readings from D-2 declined with depth. EGS reported that “some contamination was detected beneath a dispenser; however, it does not ‘appear’ to significantly extend below six (6) feet.” EGS did not report both filtered and unfiltered OVA readings for the soil samples taken from the dispenser area, as it had done for soil samples taken from the tank pit and the stockpile. For the dispenser area soil samples, EGS reported a single OVA reading for each sample, without indicating whether the reading was “corrected” after filtering. For this reason, the Department contends that these data are unreliable. CJC points out that EGS stated in the text of its report that the soil samples were filtered. CJC also argues that, because the filtered OVA readings for soil samples taken from the tank pit area were not different from their unfiltered readings, the OVA readings for the soil samples from the dispenser area would not have changed after filtering. The preponderance of the evidence is that the contamination in the dispenser area was petroleum. Based on EGS’ findings during the tank removal in November 1995, Petroleum Contractors, Inc., filed a Discharge Reporting Form on December 1, 1995, stating that there had been a discharge of unleaded gasoline at the facility. In January 1996, the Chapmans applied to participate in FPLRIP based on the discharge reported on December 1, 1995. By order dated January 26, 1996, the Department determined that the reported discharge was eligible for state-funded remediation assistance under FPLRIP. In 1997, another consultant, Levine Fricke Recon (LFR) conducted a site assessment at the facility and submitted its Interim Site Assessment Report to the Department. As part of its own soil sampling at the site, LFR collected a “direct push” soil boring in the dispenser island area, near the place where EGS had reported organic vapors. The boring data showed no petroleum vapors until the interval 16-to-20 feet below ground surface. LFR also collected and analyzed groundwater samples from the site. It reported that a sample taken from beneath the former diesel dispenser contained lead. Because lead occurs naturally in soils, its presence in a water sample does not confirm that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. In 1998, LFR conducted a second assessment of the facility site. It installed and sampled four shallow monitoring wells, designated MW-1S through MW-4S, and three deep monitoring wells, designated MW-2D through MW-4D. Groundwater samples from MW-3S and MW-3D were analyzed for lead, ethylene dibromide (EDB), and 1,2-Dichloroethane. All three substances are usually detected in a groundwater sample contaminated with leaded gasoline. On August 28, 1998, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment II to the Department, which shows lead and EDB were found in a sample taken from MW-3S, but not 1,2-Dichloroethane. LFR did not conclude or express a suspicion in either of its two assessment reports that leaded gasoline had been discharged at the facility. The deadline for submitting a Discharge Reporting Form or written report of contamination was December 31, 1998. A site assessment report received by the Department before January 1, 1999, which contained evidence of a petroleum discharge, was accepted by the Department as a “report of contamination.” The petroleum discharge information received by the Department before January 1, 1999, consisted of the Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, the FPLRIP claim, the Interim Site Assessment Report, and the Interim Site Assessment Report II. Post Deadline Site Assessment Data After the statutory deadline, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment III. This report includes January 1999 groundwater sampling data from four monitoring wells which show the presence of low levels of EDB. When EDB is found in a groundwater sample, it is a common practice to re-sample the well from which the sample was taken. Of the wells that showed the presence of EDB, only MW- 10D was re-sampled, after January 1, 1999. There was no EDB present in the groundwater when MS-10D was re-sampled. In June 2000, as part of the remediation of the contamination at the facility, an area of contaminated soil was removed to a depth of 14 feet. The area of soil removed included the former dispenser area. In January 2003, the Department notified CJC that the $300,000 FPLRIP funding cap would soon be reached. In March 2003, CJC signed a Funding Cap Transition Agreement, acknowledging that “At no time will the DEP be obligated to pay for cleanup of this discharge any amount that exceeds the funding cap.” CJC further acknowledged that it “is responsible for completing the remediation of the discharge in accordance with Chapter 62-770, F.A.C.” In 2005, CJC re-sampled one of the monitoring wells for lead and EDB. Neither substance was present. The site is not currently being actively remediated. Periodic groundwater sampling indicates that concentrations of contaminants are dropping. No further active remediation has been proposed. The cost to complete remediation is a matter of speculation. The record evidence is insufficient to make a finding about future remediation costs. Eligibility Determinations On September 2, 2003, CJC submitted a PCPP Affidavit to the Department, seeking state funding under PCPP. On October 30, 2003, the Department denied CJC eligibility for PCPP funding on the basis that the contamination was covered under FPLRIP and, therefore, was excluded from funding under PCPP. The Department has never granted PCPP eligibility for the cleanup of a discharge previously being funded under FPLRIP. Apparently, in 2005, CJC hired Glenn R. MacGraw, an expert in the assessment of petroleum-contaminated sites, to review the EGS and LFR assessments. In a letter to CJC’s attorney dated August 19, 2005, MacGraw expressed the opinion that “at least 2 discharges have occurred on this site, one in the former tank area, and one in the former dispenser area.” MacGraw’s opinion that there had been a discharge of leaded gasoline was based on the detection of EDB and lead in the groundwater. He also thought the presence of methyl tetra-butyl ether (MTBE) in groundwater samples taken from the tank pit area showed a tank leak of unleaded gasoline. CJC requested FPLRIP funding for the other alleged discharges at the facility. On March 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter formally stating its disagreement that there were other reported discharges and denying eligibility for FPLRIP funding. On March 30, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Ineligibility under PCPP. The amended order added a second ground for denial, that the reported discharge was not shown to have occurred before January 1, 1995. Whether There Was A Second Discharge Eligible for Funding CJC argues that the presence of lead and EDB in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3S shows that there was a discharge of leaded gasoline at the facility. However, LFR reported that the well screen for MW-3S had probably been damaged during installation, because a significant amount of filter sand was observed in the purge water. The Department contends, therefore, that the source of the lead detected in the groundwater sample from MW-3S could have been (naturally) in the soil that entered the well. The Department also discounts the detection of EDB in the groundwater sample because EDB is an ingredient of some pesticides and can show up in groundwater when pesticide has been applied to the overlying land. Furthermore, EDB was not detected in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3D, a deeper well located near MW-3S. MacGraw does not think the EDB came from a pesticide application, because the EDB contamination at the site occurs in an elongated “plume,” in the former dispenser area, whereas one would expect to see EDB distributed evenly over the site if the source was a pesticide application. MacGraw mapped the plume of EDB by using data obtained after the discharge reporting deadline. Michael J. Bland, a Department employee and expert in geology and petroleum site assessment, believes the data from the facility are insufficient to confirm the presence of EDB or its distribution. LFR reported in its Interim Site Assessment that no significant soil contamination was found near the dispenser island. Groundwater samples from MW-3D, a deep monitoring well near MW-S3, showed no EDB, lead, or 1,2-dichlorothane. Bland opined that, if the detection of EDB in the shallow well was reliable, EDB would have been detected in the deep well, too, because EDB is a “sinker.” EDB is persistent in groundwater, so when it is not detected when a well is re-sampled, reasonable doubt arises about the detection in the first sample. Of all the wells sampled in 1999 that showed EDB, only MW-10D was re-sampled in 2003. When the well was re-sampled, there was no EDB. CJC contends that EDB was not found in the re-sampling of MW-10D because of the soil removal in 2000, but the Department contends that the soil removal would not have affected the presence of EDB in MW-10D, because the well is significantly down-gradient of the area of soil removal. It was undisputed that the presence of 1,2- dichoroethane in MW-S3 was not reliably determined. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the contamination reported in the dispenser area is the source of contamination which persists at the facility. The reported contamination only affected the top six feet of soil. The soil removal to a depth of 14 feet in that area in 2000 should have fully remediated the reported contamination. The data upon which CJC relies in claiming eligibility under FPLRIP or PCPP for a second discharge are, at best, incomplete and ambiguous. CJC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. CJC also failed to prove that the reported contamination in the dispenser is associated with a discharge that still exists to be remediated with state assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that CJC is ineligible to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program for the discharge reported to the Department on December 1, 1995, and that CJC has not demonstrated eligibility to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program for any other discharges. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2008.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on the stipulation of the parties: Thomas P. Cimaglia is the owner and operator of the Oasis Truck-N-Tel located at 5750 South State Road 7, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On October 14, 1985, underground storage tanks at the facility were closed, i.e., they were excavated and removed. At the time the tanks were removed, diesel fuel contamination was discovered from fuel which had escaped from the tanks. The removal was observed by representatives of the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board (County Board). At the County Board's request, monitoring wells were installed around the excavated area. The monitoring wells contained free petroleum product (diesel fuel). On or about January 21, 1986, Richard Valentine, Inc., submitted a proposal to Mr. Cimaglia for a scavenger system designed to recover the free product. On February 24, 1986, the County Board issued a "conceptual approval to construct and operate the recovery system." The system was subsequently installed. Much of the upkeep of the system was performed by Andy Greene and Mr. Cimaglia. Mr. Greene was a salaried employee of Petitioner involved in the day to day operations at the Oasis Truck-N-Tel. On July 15, 1986, Mr. Cimaglia advised the Department in Tallahassee, in writing, of his intent to file for reimbursement of cleanup costs. On September 18, 1986, Mr. Cimaglia was notified by the Department that the site would be inspected to determine eligibility for reimbursement. The inspection was performed during the week of September 22, 1986. On January 29, 1987, Mr. Cimaglia submitted to the Department a "proposal to recover diesel fuel from groundwater and clean up contaminated soil." The proposal indicated that the scavenger system had proven ineffective, for only 50 to 60 gallons of free product had been recovered. The new proposal suggested that the contamination area be excavated, the soil treated and diesel fuel on the water surface of the excavation be removed by a pump truck and soaking rags. On March 16, 1987, the County Board approved the "Remedial Action Plan." On May 19, 1987, Mr. Cimaglia was advised by the Department in writing that his facility had been found eligible for reimbursement of allowable costs of cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes. Mr. Cimaglia submitted his reimbursement application to the Department before September 1, 1988. On September 17, and October 24, 1988, he submitted further information and supporting documentation as requested by the Department. On December 20, 1988, the Department issued its notice of agency action which denied reimbursement of cleanup costs. The bases for denial of reimbursement were (1)the scavenger product recovery system was not effective ($18,757.13), (2)no supporting documentation was provided for the personnel costs of Mr. Cimaglia and Mr. Green ($3,745.00) and (3)areas of clean fill and paving were not delineated ($8,661.70). On December 29, 1988, Mr. Cimaglia informed the Department by letter that the area of asphalt and paving consisted of a 75 foot by 75 foot area of 1 inch thick asphalt, underlain by 6 to 8 inches of hard rock base. On January 6, 1989, he filed a petition for a determination of his right to reimbursement of the costs the Department had denied. After the information about the paving was received, reimbursement for the repaving was approved and paid. In August 1989, the parties met in the offices of the County Board to review the County Board's files in this matter. It was determined that the County Board had specifically approved the original scavenger recovery system, which later had proven ineffective. Based upon Mr. Cimaglia's receipt of approval from that unit of local government, the Department agreed to reimburse Mr. Cimaglia for the costs of that system. It was also agreed that the Department would review further documentation, if submitted by Mr. Cimaglia, concerning the denial of reimbursement of personnel costs. On September 11, 1989, Mr. Cimaglia filed an affidavit attesting to the time that Mr. Greene spent working on the treatment system rather than his normal tasks at the facility. The affidavit was accompanied by a summary of Mr. Cimaglia records which documented the hours expended by Mr. Greene on the cleanup. The summary was submitted in lieu of the actual records, submission of which was impracticable due to their volume. On December 1, 1989, the parties entered the Joint Stipulation which settled the underlying case and determined all of the disputed costs to be reimbursable. The Final Order was entered on March 1, 1990. The following facts are based on the evidence at the final hearing: At the hearing, Mr. Cimaglia withdrew the request for reimbursement of the attorneys fees he paid to Richard A. Herald, in the amount of $1,280. The amount at issue still exceeds $15,000. The Department's denial of rehabilitation costs focused on three items: The recovery system installed and operated in 1986, personnel costs, and paving costs. The Department should have known that the initial treatment system, which ultimately did not prove to be effective, had been given conceptual approval by the County Board on February 24, 1986. While the Department believed, when reviewing the Cimaglia reimbursement application, that the County Board had only given tentative approval to the general idea, that was not true. The Department now lays the blame for its misapprehension at the feet of Mr. Cimaglia, because the Department had received no engineering drawings, installation reports or technical data regarding the treatment system, and the absence of any specific order from the County Board authorizing the treatment system. At the time the first treatment system was approved by the County Board, the county was operating under a local ordinance which gave it independent authority to enforce county pollution control laws, and to direct cleanups. It is significant, however, that after 1986 the Department had contracted with the County Board to supervise petroleum contamination cleanups and to supervise and administer reimbursement. This matter was not handled by the County Board, even though Mr. Cimaglia's application was filed in 1988; it was handled by the Department directly. The Department failed to communicate effectively with the County Board when it contacted the County Board to determine whether that agency had approved the initial cleanup plan. Where a system for cleanup has been specifically approved by a local government agency as an appropriate technology, the Department will pay the costs for using that system, even if it ultimately proves ineffective. It was only in August 1989, after the initial denial of the reimbursement application that a meeting was held with Mr. Cimaglia, representatives of the County Board, and the Department, during which the Department finally came to understand that the initial cleanup method had been approved by the County Board. It is unreasonable for the Department to blame Mr. Cimaglia for the Department's failure to have communicated effectively with the County Board earlier. This is one of the first reimbursement applications which the Department processed. Its procedure for handling applications, and its standards for judging whether a reimbursement applications would be granted, was just developing. The Department had not promulgated rules which would have told an applicant, such as Mr. Cimaglia, precisely what sort of information should have been submitted with an application so that the Department would have known that the County Board had approved the initial treatment system. That information was readily available to the Department, and there is no satisfactory explanation in this record of why the Department did not know it, for a Department employee did telephone the County Board, and should have been told that the treatment system had been approved. This inadequate investigation of the application by the Department caused Mr. Cimaglia to incur attorneys fees in attempting to process his application, and is an appropriate item to be reimbursed under the Equal Access to Justice Act in these circumstances. The Department justifies its failure to have initially approved personnel costs on the basis that the Department believed Mr. Cimaglia had provided all supporting documentation before it made its initial decision on December 20, 1988, on the reimbursement application. While the application had copies of many invoices, bills, receipts, or cancelled checks to show direct costs, the Department received no specific documentation of personnel costs until after its initial denial of personnel costs on December 20, 1988. No rule of the Department stated the manner in which these applications would be handled, and there was no way for Mr. Cimaglia to know what to send. Because he had to incur attorneys fees to make the matter more specific, those fees should be reimbursable under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Mr. Cimaglia could not have known to send with his application information of the type the Department ultimately accepted. Paving costs should be treated similarly. Mr. Cimaglia did submit a map which showed an area from which the diesel fuel tanks had been removed and where remedial activities occurred. That area had to be repaved with asphalt. He had submitted a paver's invoice for $3,700. Information about the size of the excavated area and the thickness of the pavement had been available in the files of the County Board since that work had been performed. The fact that the Department had, at the time it was processing early applications, little experience in determining the reasonableness of paving costs is not an adequate reason to have denied the costs here. A paver's invoice had been submitted. The Department had no reasonable basis to reject it, and indeed ultimately accepted those costs. The Department's actions required Mr. Cimaglia to incur attorneys fees, and these fees ought to be reimbursable under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
