Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of the site known as Union 76 #702 or as Taylor's 76, Inc., located at 9700 East Indigo Street, Perrine, Dade County, Florida. The prior owner of that site was Lawrence Oil Company. There appears to be a commonality of principals between Petitioner TYU, Inc., and its predecessor in title, Lawrence Oil Company. In 1986 the Legislature created the Early Detection Incentive Program (hereinafter "EDI") to encourage early detection, reporting, and cleanup of contamination from leaking petroleum storage systems. Essentially, the Legislature created a 30-month grace period ending on December 31, 1988, for owners of sites with contamination from petroleum storage systems to apply for reimbursement for cleanup expenses due to the contamination, without retribution from the State. The statute also provided several bases for which an applicant would be deemed ineligible. Prior to the December 31, 1988, deadline Petitioner checked the various sites owned by it, including the site which is the subject of this proceeding, to determine whether contamination was present. The subject site had been a service station, selling gasoline for 30 to 35 years. From 1986 forward, however, gasoline was no longer being dispensed at the site although the underground gasoline tanks were still present. It is unknown whether the tanks were emptied at the time that they were taken out of service. Automobile repairs were still performed at the site. By 1989, the site was also occupied by a lawn maintenance company and a pool company. In 1988 and 1989 a 55-gallon drum of used oil was located on the site. The lawn company employees used that oil to lubricate their chain saws. The remainder of the used oil and the solvents from the small parts washer were picked up from that site for recycling. In November or December of 1988, Harry Barkett, president of Lawrence Oil Company, personally visited the site. He sampled the monitoring wells. Because he smelled gasoline in the monitoring wells, he retained Seyfried & Associates, Inc., an environmental consultant, to prepare a report to be submitted to the Department. That report is dated December 15, 1988. Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program, together with the report of Seyfried & Associates, Inc., was submitted to the Department prior to the December 31, 1988, deadline. At the time, Metropolitan Dade County's Department of Environmental Resources Management (hereinafter "DERM") was performing EDI inspections for the Department pursuant to a contract. On March 22, 1989, a DERM employee who performed only industrial waste inspections went to the subject site. He specifically was not there to inspect the petroleum storage systems, and he did not do so. That employee went into the service bays where the routine auto repair and maintenance services were performed. He noticed the floor drains going from the service bays to the oil/water separator. He then inspected the oil/water separator. He noted that a hole had been cut at the top of the effluent pipe, which breached the system and which might allow oil to flow into either a drain field or a septic tank system. He did not check further to ascertain which. He took three samples from inside the oil/water separator, one for oil and grease, one for phenols, and one for metals, specifically cadmium, chromium, and lead. Not surprisingly, the laboratory analysis of those samples indicated the presence of phenols, oil, and grease. The only sampling done by that employee was of the contents of the oil/water separator. No investigation was made of, and no samples were taken from, the soil or groundwater anywhere on the site. Such sampling was not part of that employee's authority or responsibility. On October 11, 1989, Dade County DERM sent a different employee to perform the EDI inspection at the subject site. To determine the presence of contamination from petroleum or petroleum products, that employee dipped an acrylic bailer into each of the monitoring wells and then "sniffed the bailer" to ascertain if the odor of gasoline could be detected. He did not dip the bailer lower than the top foot of water since he did not wish to bring the bailer up through a column of water before sniffing. Dade County DERM employees no longer "sniff the bailer" due to the health risk involved in such a procedure. In 1989, however, it was the common practice for DERM employees to "sniff the bailer," albeit cautiously. That employee failed to detect the odor of gasoline and did not see any petroleum contamination in the monitoring wells. He issued a report to that effect. He took no samples from the soil or groundwater to determine if there were contamination from petroleum or petroleum products at the site. Based upon the second report indicating the absence of gasoline odor and based upon the first report indicating the presence of oil, grease, and phenols inside the oil/water separator, Dade County DERM recommended to the Department that Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program be denied. Based upon that recommendation, the Department sent Petitioner a letter dated May 23, 1990, denying Petitioner's application for participation in the EDI program. That letter stated as the two reasons for denial the following: Contamination is not the result of a discharge from a petroleum storage facility as defined in Section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes. Waste oil contamination found on the ground and groundwater was the result of poor maintenance practices by site owner/ operator. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is restricted to contamination from such storage facilities pursuant to 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. Contamination is a mixture of waste oil, grease and phenolic compounds. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is limited to petroleum or petroleum products as defined in Section 37.301 [sic] (9) and (10), Florida Statutes. That letter further advised Petitioner of its right to request a hearing regarding that determination and advised Petitioner that its failure to timely request an administrative hearing would render that correspondence to be a final Order of Determination of Ineligibility. When Petitioner received that correspondence, one of its employees interpreted the letter to mean that the Department had determined that the site did not have contamination from petroleum or a petroleum product. Viewing that as good news, that employee merely put the letter in a file. No request for an administrative hearing was made by Petitioner, and the correspondence became a final Order of Determination of Ineligibility by its own terms. In 1990 the Legislature determined that all sites which had been declared ineligible by the Department would be re-determined for eligibility. The Legislature established March 31, 1991, as the new deadline by which owners or operators could request the Department to reevaluate eligibility for sites for which a timely EDI application had been filed but which had been deemed ineligible by the Department. The new legislation set forth several circumstances under which the Department would not redetermine the eligibility of a previously denied site. One of those exceptions related to the reason for which a site had initially been denied. Petitioner had remained convinced that the subject site was contaminated by petroleum or petroleum products prior to the original deadline for filing EDI applications. Petitioner was aware of the new legislation and new deadline by which sites determined ineligible could have their eligibility redetermined. Petitioner therefore retained Kiefer-Block Environmental Services, Inc., to do a site analysis to verify Petitioner's belief that the site had a petroleum contamination. That company issued a report indicating that was the case. Petitioner timely filed its application for redetermination before the March 31, 1991, deadline and submitted to the Department the information obtained from Kiefer-Block, the second environmental consultant to verify the presence of petroleum contamination. In reviewing applications for redetermination, the Department established a procedure whereby it simply looked at its original letter denying eligibility to ascertain the reason for denial. If that reason matched one of the exclusions under the new legislation, the Department advised the applicant that it was not eligible to have its site redetermined. The Department did not review the Department's files relating to a site and did no additional inspection. In 1991 the Legislature again amended the statute, this time carving out an exception to those sites excluded from redetermination of eligibility by directing that sites excluded due to an absence of contamination be redetermined for eligibility if contamination had in fact existed. That amendment went into effect July 1, 1991. Accordingly, that amendment was part of the law in effect when the Department made its decision as to whether it would redetermine Petitioner's eligibility. By letter dated September 3, 1991, the Department advised Petitioner that it was not eligible to participate in the redetermination process. That letter specifically provided as follows: This Order is to inform you that this site is not eligible to participate in the eligibility redetermination process pursuant to Section 376.3071(9)(b), F.S., because the original reasons for ineligibility were: Contamination is not the result of a discharge from a petroleum storage facility as defined in Section 376.301(11), Florida Statutes [definition in Section 376.301(15), F.S., current revision]. Waste oil contamination found on the ground and groundwater was the result of poor maintenance practices by site owner/ operator. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is restricted to contamination from such storage facilities pursuant to 376.3071(9), F.S. Contamination is a mixture of waste oil, grease and phenolic compounds. Participation in the Early Detection Incentive Program is limited to petroleum or petroleum products as defined in Section 376.301(9) and (10), Florida Statutes [definitions in Section 376.301(13) and (14), F.S., current revision]. Section 376.3071(9)(b)3.c., F.S., states that redetermination of eligibility is not available to facilities that were denied eligibility due to contamination from substances that were not petroleum or a petroleum product, or contamination that was not from a petroleum storage system. Petitioner timely filed its request for an administrative hearing regarding that letter, contesting the Department's refusal to redetermine Petitioner's eligibility to participate in the EDI program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: (1) granting Petitioner's application for redetermination of eligibility and (2) finding Petitioner ineligible to participate in the Early Detection Incentive Program. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 26th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-0678 Petitioner's three unnumbered paragraphs contained in its post-hearing submittal have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5-18, and 20 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Vittorino Special Projects Manager TYU, Inc. 1601 McCloskey Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33605-6710 Brigette A. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue 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 The issue is whether Florida Petroleum Markers and Convenience Store Association (Florida Petroleum) is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes, and if so, in what amount.1
Findings Of Fact Introduction Florida Petroleum is the prevailing party in the underlying rule challenge and requests an award of reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes.2 Florida Petroleum prevailed in DOAH Case No. 05-0529RP on one of two challenged proposed rule revisions to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-770, which governs cleanup of petroleum contamination. Proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(b) was held to be an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." Proposed rule 62-770.220(4), was "not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, except insofar as notice must be given every five years to persons other than 'local governments and owners of any property into which the point of compliance is allowed to extend,' as provided in Section 376.3071(5)(b)2., Florida Statutes."3 The Department argues that its actions were "substantially justified" because there was a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time its actions were taken. The proposed rules were approved by the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) on February 2, 2005, which is the time when the Department's "actions were taken." The Department does not argue that special circumstances exist that would make the award of fees unjust. Department Contamination Programs The Department's Division of Waste Management is comprised of the Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems, the Bureau of Waste Cleanup, and the Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste. The Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems administers the state's petroleum contamination cleanup program. This cleanup program encompasses the technical oversight, management, and administrative activities necessary to prioritize, assess, and cleanup sites contaminated by discharges of petroleum and petroleum products from petroleum storage systems. There are approximately 23,000 petroleum-contaminated sites statewide. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-770 establishes petroleum contamination site cleanup criteria. These criteria are established for the purposes of protecting the public health and the environment and for determining, on a site-specific basis, the rehabilitation program tasks that comprise a site rehabilitation program and the levels at which a rehabilitation program task and site rehabilitation program may be deemed complete. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-770.160(8). The petroleum contamination cleanup program incorporates risk-based corrective action (RBCA) principles to achieve protection of human health, public safety, and the environment in a cost-effective manner. The phased RBCA process is iterative and tailors site rehabilitation tasks to site-specific conditions and risks. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-770.160(8). The Bureau of Waste Cleanup administers the state's drycleaning solvent cleanup program. This program is for the cleanup of property that is contaminated with drycleaning solvents as a result of the operations of a drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-782 establishes drycleaning solvent cleanup criteria, established for the purposes of protecting the human health, public safety and the environment under actual circumstances of exposure and for determining, on a site-specific basis, the rehabilitation program tasks that comprise a site rehabilitation program and the levels at which a rehabilitation program task and site rehabilitation program may be deemed complete. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-782.150(1). The drycleaning solvent cleanup program, like the petroleum contamination cleanup program, the brownfield site rehabilitation program, and the global RBCA contamination cleanup program mentioned below, incorporates RBCA principles to achieve protection of human health and the environment in a cost-effective manner. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-782.150(1) and 62-785.150(1). In 2003, the Legislature adopted Section 376.30701, Florida Statutes, which authorizes the Department to adopt rule criteria for the implementation of what is referred to as "global RBCA," which extends the RBCA process to contaminated sites where legal responsibility for site rehabilitation exists pursuant to Chapter 376 or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Global RBCA is a cleanup program for contaminated sites that do not fall within one of the Department's other contamination cleanup programs. Department Rulemaking Efforts After the passage of Section 376.30701(2), Florida Statutes, the Department initiated rulemaking to develop Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-780 (global RBCA). Section 376.30701(2) established July 1, 2004, as the date the Department was to adopt rule criteria to implement the global RBCA contamination cleanup program. At the same time, the Department initiated rulemaking with respect to revisions to Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-770 (petroleum), Chapter 62-782 (drycleaning solvents), and Chapter 62-785 (brownfields). This decision was predicated on the similarities among the four waste cleanup programs and the Department's desire to ensure a consistent approach across the four programs and pursuant to one large rulemaking effort. As such, the Department sought to include the same notification provisions in each rule for consistency purposes. (T 33-34, 55). However, the Department also recognized at the time that the notice provision for RBCA for petroleum contamination cleanups, i.e., Section 376.3071(5)(b)2., was different from the notice provisions for RBCA cleanups for the drycleaning solvent (Section 376.3078(4)(b)), brownfields (Section 376.81(1)(b)), and global RBCA (Section 376.30701(2)(b)) programs. (T 69, 115, 126-129). In each of these three statutes, the Legislature expressly expanded the class of persons to whom notice is required to be given and expressly referred to a specific type of notice to be given (actual or constructive) depending on the class of persons designated to receive notice. Each of the latter statutes was enacted after, and presumably with knowledge of Section 376.3071(5)(b)2., which was materially amended in material part in 1996 to add, in part, the notice provision. See Ch. 96-277, § 5, at 1131, 1135-1136, Laws of Fla. In May 2004, the Department became aware of concerns with regard to on-going efforts to assess the groundwater contamination at the former American Beryllium plant in Tallevast, Manatee County, Florida. (The party's refer to the city as Tallavast, whereas the Transcript (T 36) and DEP Exhibit 1 refer to the city as Tallevast.) For approximately two years, the owner of the plant, Lockheed Martin, had been conducting an on-going assessment of the extent of the solvent (trichloroethylene) contamination. The Department was concerned that there were residential areas located adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the former industrial plant. In May 2004, it became apparent that there were problems with certain assumptions concerning the assessment of the groundwater contamination. First, there had been an erroneous assumption that the contamination plume was small and located predominantly on-site. Second, based on well surveys, there was an assumption that there were no human health exposure points in the form of contaminated off-site potable water wells. Significant concerns arose when it became apparent the contamination plume was more extensive than anticipated and had migrated off-site. These concerns were exacerbated when it became apparent that groundwater contamination was impacting off-site potable water wells. Tallevast residents raised concerns that they were being exposed to contamination and that they were never properly notified by the Department, upon the initial discovery of the groundwater contamination. Tallevast residents were also concerned about whether the Department had failed to properly notify then once it was discovered the groundwater contamination had migrated off-site. The problems experienced at Tallevast emphasized to the Department the need to explore available avenues to enhance public notification procedures as a whole.4, 5 The Department asserted as to a reasonable basis in fact for the proposed rules, that contamination affecting Tallevast residents provided an impetus for the Department in May 2004 to address notification of contamination to affected off-site property owners. The situation in Tallevast arose because well surveys failed to indicate the extent of the contamination plume and that residents were using private wells for potable water. The Department's objective was to make sure that if there was exposure potential, the potentially affected parties should be notified. The Department seems to agree that the failure to discover the contamination of the potable wells in Tallevast occurred during the assessment phase of the cleanup and that it had not yet gotten to the stage of determining the remediation strategy. (T 45-46). The Department's stated concerns regarding Tallevast are not specifically addressed by proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(b) and (4). (T 74-75, 95-96). The Department’s procedure for granting a temporary extension of the point of compliance is that the responsible party will propose such an extension in its remedial action plan. (The four cleanup programs provide for the establishment of a TPOC.) The Department will then issue its notice of intended agency action, notice of the agency action will be provided to the enumerated persons, and the persons receiving notice will have a 30-day comment period. (T 149-155). (Pursuant to proposed rule 62-770.220(3)(a), the person responsible for site rehabilitation (PRSR) "shall provide" actual notice "to the appropriate County Health Department and all record owners of any real property into which the point of compliance is allowed to extend . . . ." In this regard, as Mr. Chisolm testified, the process is "similar to a permit.") Mr. Sole testified that, in the course of rulemaking, Florida Petroleum argued to the Department that the "petroleum statute under 376.3071 is different as it addresses the temporary point of compliance. It's not as prescriptive as the other statutory provisions for Risk-Based Corrective Action and the dry-cleaning, the Brownfields, and now the Global RBCA [statutes]. And their concern was that because it's not as prescriptive, [the Department] should not be establishing these additional notice provisions, such as constructive notice . . . But their fear was or concerns . . . were that you're going to engender a lot of litigation that's unnecessary because, as soon as you say the word 'contamination,' somebody is going to want to sue me . . . . And I understood that position. But at the same time, the lessons that we learned were that failure to provide that notice, unfortunately, can cause exposure and can cause a public health concern; and [the Department] needed to balance the two." (T 63-64, 122). Mr. Chisolm testified, in part, about the development of the constructive notice provision in proposed rule 62- 770.220(3)(b) and explained that the global RBCA, brownfields, and drycleaning solvent statutes required constructive notice to residents and business tenants of impacted properties.6 Mr. Chisolm further explained: So, if you're going to give notice to the legal owners of a piece of property, many cases there are tenants there. And they may not get the word, and they may be the ones that are drinking the water. The same with business tenants. So the idea was let's give notice to the people who are going to be or potentially going to be affected by this contamination, which is, after all, under the property which they may be inhabiting and using. So that was the purpose for the rule change in this case. Let's give notice to everybody who could potentially be affected by the rule, by the contamination beyond the property boundaries . . . . The whole idea behind RBCA, Risk- Based Corrective Actions, is that, if there's no exposure, there's no risk. There's no danger to the individual, to any individual. (T 116-117).
Findings Of Fact Since 1984, the Department has been the state agency charged with the responsibility to establish rules and regulate underground pollutant storage facilities in Florida. In 1988, the Legislature added the administration of the newly enacted Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program to the Department's duties. The program was to be established on or before January 1, 1989. The Applicant is the owner of a petroleum storage system in Jacksonville, Florida. Since 1984, it has been subject to the rules regarding underground pollutant storage facilities promulgated by the Department. On September 18, 1989, an odor indicative of possible petroleum contamination was discovered at the site during the installation of monitoring wells. A Discharge Notification Form was sent to the Department by the Applicant on October 23, 1989. The form advised that there were no leaks in the system. It was suggested that the odor may have resulted from surface spill at the site over a number of years. In response to the notification, an inspection of the site was completed by the Department on December 5, 1989. The inspection revealed the following on-site violations: Registration requirements were not being met. The forms had not been updated to include the presence of monitoring wells and overfill protection at the facility. Two underground tanks had not been properly abandoned. Inventory and reconciliation records had not been properly maintained, as required by rule since 1987. This violation was reviewed, and discussed in detail with on-site representatives of the Applicant. The monitoring wells were not installed by the time deadlines set forth in the Department's rules regarding stationary tanks. Since the wells were installed in September 1989, samples had not been taken for visual signs of petroleum contamination. The purpose of the system is to allow the owner of the storage tanks to learn if there is a leak in the tanks that can be quickly controlled to limit contamination. The day after the inspection, the Applicant applied for a determination of eligibility for participation in the restoration coverage portion of the new Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Liability Program. An affidavit was signed stating that all of the Department's rules regarding stationary tanks were being complied with by the Applicant. Six days after the inspection, the Department sent the Applicant written notice of the results of the inspection. The Applicant was given time frames and instructions for correcting the listed violations that could be corrected. A contamination assessment and clean up were also required in the letter. This letter did not address the issue of eligibility for the restoration funding program because that was a matter unrelated to the inspection results. On March 7, 1990, the Department determined the facility was ineligible for participation in the restoration funding provided by the Florida Petroleum Liability and Coverage Program. The following reasons were given: Failure to properly abandon underground storage tanks, pursuant to Section 17-61.050(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to maintain inventory records, reconciliations, and significant loss/gain investigation as per Section 17-61.050(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to install monitoring system and overfill protection by the dates set forth in Section 17-61.06(2)(c)2, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to properly monitor leak detection system, pursuant to Section 17-61.050(5)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The 10,000 gallon fuel oil tank and the 3,000 gallon waste oil tank present at the facility were abandoned in March 1990. The notice issued by the Department after its inspection in December 1989, gave the Applicant sixty days after receipt of the notice to properly abandon the tanks. The Applicant substantially complied with this requirement after the written notice was received. Although the Applicant failed to maintain the inventory records, reconciliations, and significant loss/gain investigations required by the Department rules, some of these violations had been corrected prior to the Department's inspection in December 1989. Correct inventory recordkeeping was discussed during the inspection, and the need to immediately implement the proper recordkeeping practices was emphasized in the post-inspection notice of violations. All of the recordkeeping violations were not cured until August 1990. The records kept by the Applicant during the noncompliance period from 1984 to August 1990, did not provide a substantially equivalent degree of information regarding possible leak detection or prohibited discharges as the required recordkeeping procedures. Two underground stationary storage tanks on the site have been part of the Applicant's petroleum storage system since 1970 and 1975, respectively. The monitoring wells and overfill protection for these tanks should have been in place by December 31, 1987. Neither monitoring system was installed until September 1989. The Applicant began the contract negotiations for installation in September 1988. The Applicant did not demonstrate that the facility contained an alternative procedure between December 31, 1987 and September 1989, that provided a substantially equivalent degree of protection for the lands, surface waters, or groundwaters of the state as the established requirement for monitoring wells and overfill protection. In December 1989, the Department's notice advised the Applicant that the monitoring wells should be sampled monthly for visual signs of petroleum contamination. Since April 1990, the Applicant has been completing the monthly sampling in the monitoring wells as part of its leak detection system, as required by the Department's rule regarding underground stationary tanks.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for restoration coverage in the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program at the Jacksonville location. DONE and ENTERED this 28 day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this _28_ day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are addressed as follows: Rejected. Improper interpretation of law. As for the facts in the first sentence, they are accepted. See HO #8. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #9. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9 and #11. Rejected. Contract to fact. See HO #11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12 and #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Improper shifting of duty ad legal responsibility. Rejected . Improper application of law. The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #4 and #10. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #3 and #12. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Not established by evidence. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William Chadeayne, Qualified Representative 8933 Western Way, Suite 16 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Janet E. Bowman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, TD Del Rio, LLC, should pay for investigative costs and expenses and undertake corrective actions that are demanded by the Department of Environmental Protection (Department), as set forth in the Amended Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action (Amended NOV).
Findings Of Fact Background The Department has the authority to institute an administrative action to abate or correct conditions that may create harm to the environment. In this case, it filed an Amended NOV directing the existing and prior owner of certain property to undertake cleanup and cost recovery to redress the discharge of petroleum products and disposal of hazardous waste. The property is located at 4810 South 50th Street, Tampa, Florida, measures approximately 200 by 800 feet, and is further identified as Parcel Number U-03-30-19-1Q3-000112-00001.0. The property is located in an industrial area. Mr. Dearing operated a metal recycling facility on the property during the 1990s. The facility received scrap waste and passed waste through mechanical shears that shredded the waste for sorting and recycling. The Amended NOV alleges that all contamination on the property occurred while Mr. Dearing owned the property. The charges related to his activities have been resolved in a settlement agreement prior to the final hearing in this matter. The terms of the settlement are not of record. TD Del Rio, LLC, is a limited liability company formed in April 2012. It serves as a pension fund for a self-directed Individual Retirement Account for Mr. McRae. The company acquired ownership of the subject property in September 2012 by purchasing a tax deed from Hillsborough County. Respondent agrees that there has been a "discharge," as defined under section 376.301(13), Florida Statutes, of hazardous substances and pollutants (petroleum or petroleum products) on the property prior to September 1, 2012. Such discharges have not been assessed, remediated, or abated. Respondent agrees there has been a "disposal," as defined under section 403.703(9), of hazardous waste into and upon the property prior to September 1, 2012. Respondent agrees that the property is a "facility," as defined under section 376.301(19). Respondent agrees that the property is a "hazardous waste facility," as defined under section 403.703(15). Environmental Testing Pursuant to a contract with the Department, on April 24 through 26, 2012, Ecology & Environmental, Inc. (E & E), performed a detailed inspection of the property to determine if former recycling activities conducted at the property have impacted soil and groundwater beneath the property. The inspection collected samples of soil, sediment, and groundwater. The inspection was conducted in accordance with guidance documents set forth by the United States Environmental Protection Agency regarding sampling locations, sample types, sampling procedures, use of data, data types, and field quality assurance/ quality control samples. Just before E & E issued a final report, Respondent purchased the property at a Hillsborough County tax deed sale. On November 12, 2012, E & E issued a 532-page Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Site Inspection Report (Report) detailing analytical results of soil, sediment, and groundwater sampling performed at the property. See Jt. Ex. 1. E & E concluded that the activities conducted prior to April 2012 impacted the soil, sediment, and groundwater at the property. The Department has adopted Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs), which are derived based on exposure to the human body. The SCTLs account for inhalation, ingestion, and absorption of contamination into people's bodies. The presence of hazardous substances above these levels presents a threat to persons who come into contact with the substances. If a site has no polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or arsenic exceeding the SCTLs, there is no requirement for the owner to complete an assessment or manage exposure at the site. The testing reveals that the following substances are present in the property's soil from both zero to two feet and two to four feet below land surface at concentrations above the Department's SCTLs: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, carbazole, benzo(a)antracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene toxic equivalents, and PCBs. The commercial/industrial SCTL for PCBs is 2,600 ug/kg. This target level is based upon human exposure to PCB contaminants eight hours per day. The residential SCTL, based on 24 hours of exposure per day, is 500 ug/kg. PCBs are found across the majority of the site at concentrations ranging from 940 ug/kg to 38,000 ug/kg, over times higher than the industrial SCTL and 76 times higher than the residential SCTL for soil of 500 ug/kg. The hazardous substances located in the upper two feet of land surface present the greatest potential for exposure due to potential inhalation, ingestion, and absorption of the substances. Some potential exposure pathways include foot traffic on the property stirring up dust which people present on site could then come into skin contact with or inhale. Any work done in or around the site that is intrusive in nature could present exposure pathways. In addition to soil contamination, the following hazardous substances are present in sediment on the property: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, silver, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and PCBs. The following hazardous substances and petroleum products are present in groundwater on the property at concentrations exceeding the Department's Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs): arsenic, barium, xylenes, carbon tetrachloride, isopropylbenzene, methyl tertiary butyl ether, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene. For one well sample, the 2012 investigation also reported an exceedance of PCBs of 1.2 ug/kg in groundwater. The presence of tetrachloroethylene and PCBs in groundwater is a specific concern at the property. PCBs are not readily soluble in water; however, tetrachloroethylene can act as a carrier for the PCBs and mobilize this contaminant to a greater extent vertically from the source area. This is a concern for the area surrounding the property given that the Floridan aquifer, which is a source of potable water for Hillsborough County, is located approximately 300 feet below ground surface in the surrounding area. Because Respondent has not completed a Site Assessment Report (SAR), the full extent of PCBs and other contamination in soil, sediment, and groundwater, including the contaminants' potential threat to the Floridan aquifer, is not known. Respondent did not present any evidence to contradict the findings and conclusions in the Report. Moreover, Respondent has stipulated that there has been a discharge of hazardous substances and petroleum products on the property prior to its purchase of the property in September 2012. Pre-Purchase Investigation of the Property by Respondent In order to minimize liability for petroleum contamination, Mr. McRae must have undertaken "all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and use of" the property before he purchased it, as required by section 376.308(1)(c). Mr. McRae failed to do so. Mr. McRae is the founder, manager, and registered agent of the company and has acquired at least 20 other properties through tax deed sales. He also has bought properties contaminated with petroleum prior to the purchase of the instant property. In addition, he has owned at least 30 gas stations and has hired environmental contractors to remove petroleum tanks for previous gas stations that he bought. Mr. McRae's grandson-in- law, Matthew Moralejo, has no official title with the company, but he helps in running the business, has communicated with the Department, and bought property, including the one at issue here, at Mr. McRae's direction. Mr. McRae and Mr. Moralejo acknowledge that, before the purchase, they conducted very little research into the property, searching only for things "easily accessible or identified with the property," such as code enforcement issues or liens. They conducted visual research of the property by driving by it and looking at its condition. When the property was purchased, "the place was a wreck" and "just full of overgrowth and junk." Good commercial practice in the purchase of property upon which potentially contaminating activities have occurred entails consultation with a person with appropriate knowledge and experience. Before purchasing the property, Mr. McRae did not consult with an environmental attorney or environmental consultant regarding the potential liability associated with property used as a metal recycling site. If Mr. McRae had hired an environmental consultant to assist him in assessing the likelihood of contamination at the property, it would have been standard practice to find public records about the property, including any prior enforcement actions taken against prior owners and operators of the property, all of which were public record. A consultant likely would have recommended that Mr. McRae conduct a site assessment in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-780. Section 376.308(1)(c) requires that in determining whether all appropriate inquiry was undertaken by a purchaser of contaminated property, it is necessary to consider the "specialized knowledge or experience of the defendant, the relationship of the purchase price to the value of the property if uncontaminated, commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property, the obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect such contamination by appropriate inspection." Mr. McRae has no specialized knowledge of sites contaminated with hazardous substances. However, as noted above, he has extensive experience regarding the regulation, assessment, and remediation of petroleum-contaminated sites. He has bought multiple properties through tax deed sales, and he has owned at least 30 gas stations. He has hired environmental contractors to remove petroleum tanks from properties he owned. He also is familiar with the Early Detection Incentive Program instituted by the Department, under which the Department remediates petroleum- contaminated sites. The purchase price of the property in 2002 was $200,000.00, the purchase price in 2012 was $133,100.00, and the taxable value of the property in 2015 was $408,106.00. Past information about the property was reasonably ascertainable. Ownership history of the site is available from the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser's Office, Hillsborough County Clerk of the Circuit Court, and Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (EPC). Information regarding regulatory actions taken at the property also was reasonably ascertainable. There were many documents in existence at the time Respondent purchased the property that showed contamination was present on the property. They included a 1995 warning letter from the EPC to previous owners of the property detailing petroleum contamination present on the property, a 1996 EPC request for a previous owner to submit a plan to address onsite soil contamination, and a field investigation conducted by the Department in April 2012, or five months before Respondent purchased the property. There is no evidence that the documents referenced above were not "reasonably ascertainable information." Although a visual inspection by a lay person would not disclose the presence of contamination at the property, Mr. McRae should have known to seek information regarding past enforcement history and site investigation performed at the property. Post-Purchase Actions After buying the property, Respondent dug up debris including tires that were approximately four feet below the soil surface. After removing debris from the contaminated soil, Respondent spread the disturbed soil. To make the property more attractive to prospective tenants, Respondent then spread up to four inches of gravel around the property. This amount of gravel did not cover the entirety of the contaminated area and did not break the exposure pathway that the contaminants presented to people on the property. According to a Department expert, two feet of clean fill over the contaminated area would have been an acceptable intermediate step to break the exposure pathway. After spreading the gravel on the property, Respondent leased the property to three tenants: a landscape business; a portalet company; and a storage container facility. The portalet company and storage container tenants both use the property as storage facilities, including loading and unloading portalets and storage containers, when needed. The contaminants present in the soil present a potential for incidental exposure to workers on the site, especially given that workers are constantly stirring up dust by loading and unloading equipment on the property. Department Communications with Respondent On February 14, 2014, the Department sent Mr. McRae a letter informing him that the Department had information indicating that contaminants may have been released or discharged at the property. The letter referenced the 2012 E & E Report, which documented metals, volatile organic compounds, semi- volatile organic compounds, and PCBs in site soils, sediments, and/or groundwater above SCTLs, Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines, or GCTLs. The letter stated that failure to submit an SAR within 180 days of receipt of the letter, or by August 14, 2014, may subject Respondent to enforcement action to compel such compliance. Matthew Moralejo responded by email on July 17, 2014, and stated, in part, that "we have never conducted any type of business that would have led to the contamination of said property." The same day, the Department responded by email directing Mr. Moralejo to the Department's public database, OCULUS, that provides reports and correspondence regarding facilities regulated by the Department. The Department provided a link to the 2012 Report and the name of a contact person to discuss Respondent's liability as the current property owner, as well as possible cleanup programs that are available when the current owner is not the one causing the contamination. On September 29, 2015, the Department sent another letter, with attachments, to Mr. McRae. The Department stated that "[s]ome limited site assessment activities have been performed [by E & E] at the site historically; however, the work completed and the documents submitted to date do not constitute a complete [SAR] as required by Rule 62-780.600, F.A.C." The Department again requested an SAR, and, in the alternative, offered a meeting to discuss the issues associated with the letter. Again, the letter warned Mr. McRae that if an SAR was not filed within the timeframes required by the rule, he may be subjected to an enforcement action. In August 2016, Mr. Chamberlain, a Department geologist, met with Mr. McRae and Mr. Moralejo at the property. During the meeting, Mr. Chamberlain took photographs of the site and explained his concerns with the property. Specifically, he informed them that the SAR was still outstanding; and he recommended that Respondent hire an environmental consultant to assist them in the site rehabilitation process. In October 2016, Respondent hired an environmental consultant, Mr. Doherty. On November 29, 2016, the Department emailed Mr. Doherty reminding him that an SAR was due by December 13, 2016. Three days later, Mr. Doherty asked that he be given a six-month extension to file an SAR; the Department authorized only a four-month extension, or to April 3, 2017. Mr. Doherty never conducted any sampling at the property and he did not submit an SAR. Mr. McRae explained at hearing that the consultant "never did [any] work, so he didn't get paid." On May 25, 2017, the Department sent another letter to Mr. McRae stating that it had not received an SAR, and, as a final request prior to initiating enforcement action, requested that he provide a summary of all site assessments completed since September 29, 2015, complete installation of groundwater monitoring wells and conduct sampling within 90 days, and submit an SAR by October 23, 2017. Respondent did not comply with any of those requests. To date, an SAR has not been submitted and a site assessment has not been conducted. The Department then issued an NOV, as amended. Given the numerous letters and emails sent to Respondent, and various site inspections, the Department has incurred costs and expenses of at least $500.00 investigating this matter. Respondent does not dispute this amount. Respondent's Defense Respondent essentially contends it is an innocent third-party purchaser because it had nothing to do with the recycling activities conducted on the property during the 1990s. It argues that the clean-up costs requested by the Department equal or exceed the value of the property and are cost prohibitive. In its PRO, Respondent contends that if the Department reached a settlement with Mr. Dearing, whose company is responsible for the hazardous waste discharge in the 1990s, this should relieve Respondent from any responsibility. It asks that the Department use "compassion" in dealing with him.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Paul Joseph Polito, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 For Respondent: TD McRae, pro se Matthew Moralejo, pro se TD Del Rio, LLC 4608 East Columbus Drive Tampa, Florida 33605-3210
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 sustaining the charges in Counts I, II, and III of the Amended NOV. It is further RECOMMENDED that within 30 days of the final order, Respondent TD Del Rio, LLC, shall commence a site assessment and submit an SAR in accordance with rule 62-780.600. Respondent shall assess and clean up all hazardous substance contamination and petroleum contamination at the property in accordance with chapter 62-780 and the timeframes therein. It is further RECOMMENDED that within 90 days of the effective date of the final order, Respondent shall pay $500.00 to the Department for costs and expenses. Payment shall be made by cashier's check or money order payable to the "State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection" and shall include thereon the notations "OGC Case No. 17-1090" and "Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund." The payment shall be sent to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest District, 13051 North Telecom Parkway, Suite 101, Temple Terrace, Florida 33637. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of July, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Joseph Polito, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) TD McRae TD Del Rio, LLC 4608 East Columbus Drive Tampa, Florida 33605-3210 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact On June 17, 1994, Petitioner, City of Stuart (City), filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation, predecessor to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), for a permit to maintenance dredge Krueger Creek between the East Ocean Boulevard bridge and Tenth Street. The City proposed to suction dredge 7,500 cubic yards of sediment or spoil material to be placed on nearby retention sites for dewatering. The retention sites were vacant lots in a residential neighborhood. Some 2,500 cubic yards were to remain on the dewatering sites, and the remainder to be taken elsewhere. On June 20, 1994, the Department sent a completeness letter to the City, requesting additional information. On October 4, 1994, the Department received and approved a complete sediment characterization plan. By memorandum dated January 27, 1995, Ligia Mora-Applegate, an employee of the Department, sent out interim soil cleanup goals which were to be used by waste program administrators in determining final cleanup goals. The memorandum listed chemicals and the appropriate health-based goal for each chemical. For arsenic, the cleanup goal for an aggregate residential setting was .711 mg/kg. These goals had been developed by Dr. Stephen Roberts, a toxicologist employed by the University of Florida, under contract with the Department. On February 2, 1995, the Department received additional information from the City, including sediment analysis results, responses to hydrographic questions, a description of operational methods, and revised spoil retention locations. The Department reviewed the analyses submitted by the City. By memorandum dated February 27, 1995, Paul Wierzbicki, a Waste Cleanup Supervisor of the Department, advised Bruce Jerner, the Department employee who was reviewing the City's permit application, that Based on the analyses submitted it does not appear that the sediments will meet the guidance concentration of 0.7mg/kg as the cleanup criteria for soils. An alternative management plan should be proposed for the sediments. On February 28, 1995, the Department advised the City that arsenic concentrations did not meet the Department's guidance criteria for metals at the proposed spoil disposal sites. The Department recommended alternatives for disposal of the spoil material or the performance of a site specific risk assessment for the spoil sites. By letter dated March 14, 1995, Joseph Capra, the applicant's Project Engineer, advised the Department that the City disagreed with the Department's position that the arsenic levels exceeded the state standards based on Rule 17- 775, Florida Administrative Code which allows a maximum concentration of 10mg/kg of arsenic for the cleanup of petroleum contaminated soil at a soil thermal treatment facility. Mr. Capra asked the Department to reconsider its position and consider the application complete. Staff from the Department's waste cleanup section reviewed Mr. Capra's letter and forwarded the following response to Mr. Jerner by memorandum dated March 29, 1995: The allowable maximum concentration of 10mg/kg for Arsenic referred to in the letter applies to petroleum contaminated soils and since this has not been identified as a petroleum contamination site would not necessarily be appropriate in this situation. Site specific risk assessments have always been an alternative when maximum contaminate levels are not otherwise specified. This level for Arsenic may have been used in the past for non-petroleum contaminated sites in lieu of a risk assessment since it is some- what risk based, is established in rule for specific sites, and based on the lack of any other updated risk information; however, the Department has obtained updated risk inform- ation for arsenic which is currently being incorporated into 62-770, F.A.C., the Petr- oleum Cleanup Rule first, with a 62-775 F.A.C., update to follow. The difference in the exposure to aquatic organisms through sediments and direct human exposure by disposal of the dredged material on land has been explained to Mr. Capra along with some of the alternatives, to disposal in a residential area which may allow direct exposure, which may be accept- able to the Department based on further evaluation. The goal is not to jeopardize funding for the project but to provide reasonable assurance the disposal of the dredged material will not present a potential for harm to human health or the environment based on the latest technological information. Recommend Mr. Capra continue evaluating some of the disposal alternatives discussed, assuming Arsenic is the only contaminant of concern, such as: Evaluating background conditions at the original site or an alternate site. Using the material, within acceptable levels (<0.7mg/kg As), at the original site with disposal of the remainder at a lined landfill. Using material, with acceptable levels (<3.1 mg/kg As), at an industrial site with disposal of the remainder at a lined landfill. Using the material on the original site in such a manner as to prevent human exposure as long as ground water contamination is not an issue. Disposal at a lined landfill with approval from the operator. On April 5, 1995 the interim soil cleanup goals were revised and transmitted to the waste program administrators by memorandum from Ms. Mora- Applegate. The goal for soil cleanup with arsenic in a residential setting was 0.7 mg/kg (ppm). By letter dated April 24, 1995, the Department advised Mr. Capra: The data you submitted on February 2, 1995 was reviewed by the DEP Waste Cleanup Section using the 'Updated Interim Soil Cleanup Goals' which were faxed to you on April 7, 1995. These guidance concentrations are in fact the levels which will be used to evaluate the dredged material and its ultimate destination. The Department also advised that the spoil material could be placed at a residential site if the average background arsenic levels at the spoil site met or exceeded the average of the creek sediment samples. The City declined to provide additional information concerning the application. On August 15, 1995, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial denying the application for the following reasons: Pursuant to Section 403.918(2), F.S., a permit may not be issued under Sections 403.91-403.929 unless the applicant provides the Department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In determining whether or not the project is contrary to the public interest, the Department shall consider and balance the seven (7) criteria listed in Section 403.918(2)(a), F.S. This project is contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(23)(a), F.S. because the project will: adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Specifically, the proposed disposal of dredged material with arsenic levels of greater than 0.7 mg/kg on two residential lots presents a potential for human harm based on the Departments (sic) health-based levels. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that site specific backgrounds are greater than or equal to the levels of arsenic in the dredged materials. The Department received a letter of objection on April 21, 1995 from an adjacent property owner requesting denial of the permit unless additional sediment testing is done and a suitable method of disposal is proposed. Therefore, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project to maintenance dredge is not contrary to or clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. In drafting the notice of denial, Mr. Jerner relied on Ms. Mora-Applegate's memoranda dated January 27 and April 5, 1995, the memorandum from Mr. Wierzbicki dated February 27, 1995, and the memorandum from the waste cleanup section dated March 29, 1995. By memorandum dated September 29, 1995, John M. Ruddell, Director of the Division of Waste Management, sent the District Directors and Waste Program Administrators a list of the soil cleanup goals for Florida. The residential health-based cleanup goal for residential sites for arsenic was 0.7 mg/kg (ppm). In October, 1995, the Department took samples of the creek sediment. Based on the sampling by the City and by the Department, the average arsenic concentration was 1.8 ppm. On January 19, 1996, Mr. Ruddell sent the District Directors and Waste Program Administrators a memorandum concerning the use of the soil cleanup goals set out in the September 29, 1995 memorandum. Mr. Ruddell stated: The Soil Cleanup Goals are intended to be used only as 'goals' for cleanup decisions in corrective actions and should not be used by the agency as rule, standards or to deny or approve permits. The FDEP has found that most business/site owners do not normally have the money or the expertise to establish Site-specific Rehabilitation Levels (SRLs) as allowed by our cleanup Consent Order condi- tions. The soil cleanup goals are intended to be used for site screening purposes, for source removal evaluations, and as guidance during evaluation of remediation alternatives and design considerations for development of Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for a site. The soil cleanup goals can and should be used for cleanup decisions if the default assumptions fit the site-specific situation. * * * The evaluation process should take into consideration the following criteria: the site-specific background levels, the Method Detection Limits (MDLs), the soil cleanup goals, and the site contaminate levels. The site contaminant levels (criterion 4) for each Chemical of Concern (COC) would be compared to the highest value of the first three criteria. If the site contaminant levels are below the highest value, then no remediation is required for that contaminant. If the site contaminant levels are higher than the highest value, then remediation alternatives should be evaluated taking into consideration the specific nature of the site and the responsible party's ability to effectively manage the risk of a particular site contaminant level. FDEP may consider site-specific risk management alternatives that may further modify the guidance levels for the contaminant. These health-based soil goals are evaluated based on the nature and intended use of the site (e.g., residential or industrial) and usually only apply to the upper two feet of soil. If the contaminated soil can be permanently covered with more than two feet of clean soil or otherwise have the exposure pathways restricted, the site may not need further remediation if the contaminated soil is not a source of ground- water contamination. * * * The soil values may be used for other purposes (other media) if indeed the particular application fits the situation (e.g., sediments that upon dredging will be used as soil). Again, an analysis of the specific situation must be performed (i.e., ascertain land use, exposure duration, leachability concerns, background consideration, etc.). The January 29 memorandum also advised that the soil cleanup goal for arsenic on residential sites was changed to 0.8 mg/kg. This is not a significant change from the goal set out in Ms. Mora-Applegate's January 27, 1995 memorandum. The health-based soil cleanup goals for arsenic have not been adopted as rules, and the Department does not presently intend to adopt them by rule. The health-based goals for arsenic are used to define appropriate concentrations for arsenic regarding protecting public health. The levels are default numbers which an applicant may chose to accept by default. Alternatively, the applicant may elect to provide additional information in the form of a site-specific evaluation or of management strategies that would satisfy the Department. A site specific evaluation could result in a change from the default number to a greater or lesser number. Unless the applicant provides site-specific information, the Department will apply the health-based goals for arsenic.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Notice of Violation (NOV) and Orders for Corrective Action (OCA) filed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) against Respondents, Thomas Kerper (Kerper) and All Salvaged Auto Parts, Inc. (ASAP) , in DEP OGC File No. 02-0447 should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact 1. The real property located at 3141 Sharpe Road, Apopka, Florida, is owned by the heirs of Donald Joynt, who owned it for the 30 years prior to his death in 2002. The property consists of approximately 40 acres in the shape of a right triangle with the west side bordered by Sharpe Road, the south side by a potting soil business, and the northeast side (the hypotenuse of the right triangle) bordered by a railroad track. Prior to his death, Joynt used the property primarily for the purpose of operating a junkyard and recycling business ultimately entitled Don's Auto Recycling. 2. At some time before 2000, Joynt became desirous of selling his property. He offered it to a neighbor named José Luis Benitez for $600,000. Benitez counter-offered for between $350,000 and $400,000 because he thought it would cost $200,000 to $250,000 to clean the property up. Joynt rejected the counter-offer, and asked Benitez to help him find a buyer who would pay more than Benitez. At some point, Joynt listed the property with a real estate broker for $600,000. 3. In 1999, Kerper was operating an automobile parts salvage business at a location near Joynt's property. Kerper needed a new location to move his business and inventory. A real estate broker showed him Joynt's property. The broker told Kerper that the seller's broker said the property was clean and had no environmental problems. The broker also told Kerper that Orange County had recently purchased an easement for $300,000 to run a drainage ditch through the property to a local lake, which was true. While this gave Kerper some level of assurance, the broker advised Kerper to have an environmental assessment done before going forward with the sale. 4. After being shown the property by the broker, Kerper spoke with Joynt directly. It was agreed that they could save the real estate commission and split the savings by waiting until the listing expired. Joynt personally assured Kerper that there were no environmental issues, as evidenced by Orange County's purchase of the easement for a drainage ditch. In late March of 2000, after expiration of the real estate commission, Kerper and Joynt entered into an informal agreement allegedly written on a scrap of paper, which was not placed in evidence. Kerper testified that the agreement was for him to buy the property for $500,000, with $100,000 down, and the balance payable over time at seven percent interest. He also testified that the required $100,000 down payment would be payable in installments, with $25,000 payable whenever Joynt cleaned 25 percent of the site to make it usable by Kerper for his business operations. 5. When it came time for Kerper to move onto Joynt's property, Kerper discovered that Joynt had not done any clean-up or removed any of his property from the site. Used cars, car parts, and tires that belonged to Joynt remained throughout the site. According to Kerper, it was agreed that Kerper would help Joynt clean off the western half of the property, which was split approximately in half by a stream, while Joynt worked on cleaning off the eastern half of the property.” 6. Starting from the gate at Sharpe Road, Kerper began removing junk from the western side to the eastern side of the site for Joynt to remove from the property. Pieces of equipment and used car parts that had been left there by Joynt were removed from this section of the property. When enough space was cleared off, Kerper began setting up his auto salvage operations on the western side. He used a bulldozer to level the driveways and spread powdered concrete where the ground was soft. He also used the bulldozer to level an area near the scale house, which was on the western side of the property, but continued to be used by Joynt for Don's Auto Recycling business. In doing this work, his workers encountered steel reinforcement bars, which Kerper had them cut with a torch. Some tires and battery casings also were visible in the ground. Kerper had several truckloads of fill dumped in the area and installed a concrete pad for storing and dismantling automobiles. 7. In September or October of 2000, Kerper was evicted from his prior business location, and he had to move to Joynt's property regardless of its condition. As he increased business operations on the cleared spaces, Kerper continued to clear more space on the western side of the property. Another concrete pad was installed farther to the north. Eventually, Kerper was operating ASAP on approximately ten acres on the western side of the 40-acre site. 8. As Kerper continued to move north, his heavy equipment began encountering assorted kinds of buried material. When a buried propane tank exploded, Kerper stopped working his heavy equipment in the area and confronted Joynt. Joynt denied any knowledge of buried tanks and stated they must have been placed there by someone else. Joynt told Kerper he would let Kerper move his operations to the east side of the property when Joynt finished cleaning it up, and then Joynt would finish clearing the western side for Kerper. Kerper agreed, and continued making payments on the required down payment. According to Kerper, he eventually paid $90,000 of the down payment. 9. By August of 2001, Kerper began to have serious misgivings about Joynt's promises and the condition of the site, and he decided to seek advice. Kerper hired David Beerbower, vice-president of Universal Engineering, to perform an assessment of the northern portion of his side of the site (in the vicinity where the exploding tanks were encountered). During his assessment on August 20, 2001, Beerbower observed various automotive parts including numerous crushed fuel tanks, antifreeze containers, and motor oil containers being excavated from the upper three feet of soil. It was determined by Beerbower, and stated in his written report to Kerper, dated September 21, 2001, that these parts appeared to have been buried there several years ago. This determination, which DEP does not dispute, was based on the high level of compaction of the soil found around these items that could be attributed to either the passing of a significant amount of time or a bulldozer passing over the items. Since the excavations Beerbower observed were in a separate location from where Kerper had already bulldozed, the soil compaction around these items could not be attributed to Kerper's bulldozing. It was stated in Beerbower's letter that the “amount of buried automotive debris qualifies this area essentially as an illicit landfill." ad 10. Mark Naughton from the Risk Management Division of the Orange County Environmental Protection Division (OCEPD), which runs the petroleum storage tank and cleanup program for Orange County under contract with DEP, was also present during the time Beerbower conducted his assessment. Naughton agreed with Beerbower's assessment that Kerper is not liable for the assessment or remediation of this area. Naughton also advised Kerper to move ASAP off Naughton's property and to seek legal advice from attorney Anna Long, who used to be the Manager of OCEPD. 11. Meanwhile, according to Kerper, Joynt changed his position and began to maintain that it was Kerper's responsibility to clean up the western side of the property. Given the newly-discovered environmental condition of the property, Kerper did not feel it was in his best interest to purchase the property "as is," and contacted Long to help him negotiate to extricate himself from his arrangement with Joynt. While negotiations proceeded, Kerper began to scale down ASAP's operations in anticipation of relocating. Kerper began fixing up more whole automobiles for resale, and had a car crusher used in connection with ASAP's business begin crushing more cars for removal from the site for recycling. 12. Eventually, Long had Beerbower conduct another assessment of portions of Joynt's property to try to establish responsibility for contamination as between Kerper and Joynt. On 10 February 13, 2001, Beerbower took a surface water sample froma "drain pipe under the north driveway," a soil sample "where the car crusher was," and another soil sample from "the sandblasting area." The evidence was not clear as to the exact location of these samples, particularly the soil samples, as described in Beerbower's written report to Long dated March 11, 2002. But it appears that the "car crusher" refers to the location of Respondents' car crusher operation in the northern part of the site, just across the northern driveway; it appears that the sandblasting area refers to a location used by Joynt on the eastern side of the property, but located just east of the trailers used by Kerper for his offices. These samples were analyzed and found not to contain volatile organic compounds (VOC) or total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) in excess of Florida's cleanup target levels. 13. Kerper continued to operate his junkyard until the beginning of March of 2002. On March 5, 2002, Long filed a citizen's complaint with OCEPD on Kerper's behalf. While acknowledging that Kerper was operating on the site at the same time as Joynt in recent years, the complaint alleged Kerper's discovery that Joynt had been burying waste batteries, tires, and gasoline tanks on the property and covering the burial sites with broken concrete pieces. The complaint alleged that Kerper had been moving his personal property off of the site since August of 2001, when he backed out of his "lease to purchase" agreement 11 with Joynt, and would be "completely off the property by 3/10/02." 414. It is not clear exactly when Kerper and ASAP were completely off the property. The testimony and evidence on the point is inconsistent. Kerper, after some confusion, placed the date at March 9, 2002. His wife said it was March 2, 2002. An attorney representing Kerper and ASAP in an eviction proceeding filed by Joynt and his wife, filed a notice "that as of the evening of March 15, 2002, [ASAP had] vacated the property." In any event, the evidence seemed clear that Kerper and ASAP did not go on Joynt's property on or after March 15, 2002. 15. On March 15, 2002, DEP representatives inspected Joynt's property in response to Long's complaint. Kerper remained outside the front gate of the property and did not participate in the inspection. This inspection covered the entire property including the section that had been occupied by Kerper and ASAP. 16. doynt told the DEP inspectors that Respondents were responsible for a 55-gallon drum found tipped over on its side on the western half of the site and leaking a substance that appeared to be used oil from a hole in the side of the drum. DEP's inspectors righted the drum, which still was partly full of its contents. There also were several other unlabeled 55-gallon drums and 5-gallon containers "of unknown fluids"; a burn pile containing burned oil filters, battery casings, and electrical 12 wiring; other broken battery casings; and an area of dark-stained soil which appeared to be soaked with used oil. Joynt accepted responsibility for other contamination on the site, but told DEP that Kerper and ASAP were responsible for these items. Kerper denied the allegations. 17. As to the leaking oil drum, Kerper first contended that DEP did not prove that the overturned drum contained used oil. But the evidence was clear that DEP's inspectors were ina position to determine that the liquid was oily. Respondents also contended that the drum would have been empty, not still partly full, if Kerper or ASAP had left it on its side at the site when they vacated the property several days earlier. Kerper alleged that Joynt could have put the hole in the drum and turned it over shortly before the arrival of DEP's inspectors. But, as stated, it was not clear when Kerper and ASAP vacated the site, and it was not clear from the evidence that Respondents were not responsible. 18. Similarly, the other unlabeled drums and containers were in a part of the site occupied and used by Respondents. Despite Kerper's denials, it is not clear from the evidence that they belonged to Joynt or that they were placed where DEP found them after Respondents vacated the site. Testimony that Respondents had containers properly labeled "used oil," "antifreeze," and "gasoline" inside one of the trailers on the site did not negate the existence of unlabeled drums and 13 containers on the site. However, there was no proof whatsoever as to what the closed drums and containers held. But some were open, and DEP's inspectors could see that these held an oily substance (possibly hydraulic fluid), mixed with other substances. 19. As to the dark-stained soil, none of it was tested, and Respondents contended that it was just naturally darker in color or possibly wet from water or some other liquid, DEP's witness conceded could explain the color variation. (Natural reasons such as different soil or rainwater probably do not explain the color variations in the site.) Joynt told DEP's inspectors that the discoloration seen by them on March 15, 2002, was froma hydraulic hose on a piece of heavy equipment that burst earlier. The evidence was not clear who Joynt was saying owned and operated the equipment. But Respondents also blamed Joynt's employees for repeatedly blowing hoses on aged heavy equipment all over the site. It is found that the dark-stained soil probably was the result of one or more releases of hydraulic fluid or motor oil. However, the testimony and evidence was not clear that all of the releases were Joynt's doing and that Respondents bear no responsibility at all for the releases observed on March 15, 2002, in the areas where Respondents were operating. 20. Respondents were able only to produce documentation of proper disposal of 232 gallons of oily water through IPC/Magnum, 14 dated February 13, 2002, and 29 batteries through Battery World, dated March 8 and 14, 2002. 21. The testimony of Kerper and others was that Respondents generally removed gasoline from automobiles and placed it ina marked container for reuse within a day or two by Respondents and their employees. The testimony was that used oil and antifreeze generally also were removed from automobiles and placed in marked containers until proper disposition. The testimony was that batteries were removed from automobiles and that most were given to one of the employees to sell for a dollar apiece. There was no documentation to support this testimony. 22. There was testimony that, when Respondents had cars crushed, E & H Car Crushing Co., Inc., managed the collection and proper disposition of gasoline, used oil, and batteries. But the documentation placed in evidence contained no description of the wastes removed, but only provided a weight calculation of the materials removed from Respondents’ facility. 23. There was testimony that Gabriel Lynch, who was properly licensed, removed freon from automobiles at Respondents’ facility every two to three days, or upon request. Respondents would trade the freon Lynch recovered and used in his business, Gabe's Auto Tech, for repair work on Respondents' vehicles. However, no documentation of these transactions was produced. (Lynch testified that he did not know it was required that he provide documentation to Respondents.) 15 24. Runoff from where Respondents were operating on Joynt's property entered the stream running north-south through the center of the property. Neither Joynt nor Respondents had a stormwater permit or an exemption from stormwater permitting. 25. Kerper argued that his duties were limited to managerial responsibilities for ASAP, and that he was not at any time responsible for ASAP's day-to-day operations and did not conduct any activities that may or could have resulted in hazardous waste or petroleum discharge violations so as to be liable as an "operator." But the evidence was clear that Kerper was involved in ASAP's day-to-day operations. 26. While the evidence did not totally absolve Respondents from the allegations in the NOV, several people testified on Respondents' behalf as to their practice of properly disposing of hazardous materials generated by his business. For example, Rafael Rivera, a former employee, testified that Kerper would get mad at him if any gas or oil was spilled and left on the ground or was not disposed of properly. Meanwhile, it appeared that environmental problems at Joynt's site existed for years before the arrival of Respondents. Mrs. Sandra Lovejoy, a neighboring property owner for the past 30 years, testified that she had experienced problems with her water quality, such as a foul smell or funny taste, for many years before Respondents moved onto Joynt's property. An inspection was conducted by OCEPD in September of 2000, in response to Lovejoy's complaint regarding 16 fuel odor and a drinking well which was no longer in service. In part, OCEPD's written report on the complaint found "[m]any spots of surficial petroleum contamination . . . from gasoline, motor oil and other petroleum products leaking or spilled from the junk vehicles" at Don's Auto Recycling and included a recommendation "referring this site to the FDEP task force that has been put together to inspect and deal with junk yard facilities," although "[n]o Petroleum Cleanup issues were found at [that] time." For reasons not explained by the evidence, it does not appear that Don's Recycling was referred to any task force, or that OCEPD followed up on the reported contamination. 27. Respondents contend that this entire proceeding against them was part of a vendetta against Kerper for going to the local television station to expose the condition of the site, the failure of OCEPD and DEP to follow up on the September 2000, report and recommendation, and Orange County's purchase of a north-south drainage easement through the western portion of the property in 2000. The evidence did not prove this contention. However, it is clear that Joynt was responsible for the condition of most of the 40-acre site, not Respondents, and that Joynt shared responsibility with Respondents for the conditions alleged in the NOV. 28. While this case has been pending, Joynt's heirs have cooperated with DEP in cleaning up the site, and DEP acknowledged in its PRO that several items in the OCA--specifically, those 17 relating to Counts II, III, and VII of the NOV--are moot and unnecessary in light of Respondents' eviction from the property and subsequent cleanup operations by Joynt's heirs. It also is suggested that the corrective actions requested in DEP's PRO to address Counts IV, V, and VI of the NOV--relating to failure to document proper disposal of wastes--are unnecessary. It seems clear that, to the extent such disposals occurred, any available documentation would have been placed in evidence during the final hearing. Ordering that they be produced within 30 days of the Final Order, as suggested in DEP's PRO, would be a futile act. 29. Count VIII of the NOV alleged costs "of not less than $500. In its PRO, DEP requested recovery of $1,367.31 of costs. Some of these costs--$867.31--were itemized in the PRO. The balance appears to relate to the $500 alleged in the NOV. There was no evidence introduced at the final hearing as to any of these alleged costs, and the costs itemized in the PRO seem to represent travel costs of counsel for DEP.
Conclusions David J. Tarbert, Esquire Jason Sherman, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Albert E. Ford II, Esquire Webb, Wells & Williams, P.A. 994 Lake Destiny Road Suite 102 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order providing: 1. Under Count I of the NOV, Respondents shall be jointly and severally liable, along with Donald Joynt and Don's Auto Recycling, for cleaning up the releases of used oil evidenced by the discolored soils photographed by DEP's inspectors on 24 March 15, 2002 (DEP Exhibit 20, photographs 5 and 7 on page 2 of the exhibit). As such, they shall be responsible, along with Donald Joynt and Don's Auto Recycling, for implementation of DEP's Initial Site Screening Plan to assess and remove all contaminated soils resulting from those releases. If the results of the Initial Site Screening indicate that further assessment and/or remediation of the contamination is required, Respondents shall also participate, along with Donald Joynt and Don's Auto Recycling, in completing the required work, consistent with the "Corrective Actions for Contaminated Site Cases" (DEP Exhibit 16). 2. Counts II through VIII of the NOV are dismissed. 3. Respondents' Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs is denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Vane ya J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 19th day of December, 2003. 25
The Issue Whether Petitioner's site, Hughes Supply, Inc. located at 2920 Ford Street, Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida is eligible for restoration under Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Hughes is a Florida Corporation in good standing and authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The Department's facility no. 36-8519331 (the Facility), owned and operated by Hughes and the subject matter of this proceeding, is located at 2920 Ford Street, Ft. Myers, Lee County, Florida, and is a "Facility" as defined in Section 376.301(5), Florida Statutes. The Facility consisted of (a) two underground storage tanks (USTs), one 4000 gallons UST (gasoline tank) and one 8000 gallons UST (diesel tank), and (b) four monitoring well, and is a "petroleum storage system" as defined in Section 376.301(15), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Hughes held, and was the name insured of, an effective third party pollution liability insurance policy (No. FPL 7622685 - Renewal No. FPL 7621566) applicable to the Facility that was issued in accordance with, and qualified under, Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes. Hughes paid annual premiums exceeding $20,000.00 for the above insurance. In accordance with Sections 376.3072, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 769, Florida Administrative Code; the Department issued to Hughes a Notice of Eligibility pertaining to the Facility and the third party pollution liability insurance referred to in Finding of Fact 4 above. Lee County, Florida has a local program approved by the Department pursuant to Section 376.3073, Florida Statutes, to provide for the administration of the Department's responsibilities under certain sections of Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. Diesel fuel was placed into the diesel tank at the Facility on August 12, 1991, and no diesel fuel has been placed in the diesel tank at the Facility since that date. On Thursday, August 29, 1991, a contractor bidding on the removal of the tanks detected free product in one of the monitoring wells at the Facility and told Larry Carman, the Warehouse Manager for Hughes. Mr. Carman told Phillip Ross, the Branch Manager for Hughes, who in turn informed Gene Kendall, the Operations Coordinator for Hughes. All of this occurred on August 29, 1991. On Friday, August 30, 1991, an employee of IT Corporation, acting upon the request of Gene Kendall, sampled the four monitoring wells at the Facility and found six inches of free product in the northwest monitoring well. On Tuesday, September 3, 1991, Fred Kendall discussed the discharge with Bill W. Johnson, Supervisor, Lee County Storage Tank Local Program. During this discussion, Johnson learned that the diesel tank had not been emptied. Johnson advised Kendall that the diesel tank had to be emptied of its product and placed out of service. On Tuesday, September 3, 1991 Mr. Kendall completed the Discharge Reporting Form (DRF) pertaining to the discharge and mailed the DRF to Johnson on September 4, 1991. The DRF indicated August 30, 1992, the day that IT Corporation confirmed the discharge, as the day of discovery of the discharge. The discharge was diesel fuel as indicated by the DRF and a "petroleum product" as defined in Section 376.3-1(14), Florida Statutes. The discharge reported in the DRF constitutes a "discharge" as defined in Section 376.301(4), Florida Statutes, which constitutes an "incident" as defined in Section 376.3072(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and as described in Rule 17-769.600, Florida Administrative Code. On Wednesday, September 4, 1991, Mr. Kendall also mailed a letter to Johnson stating Hughes' intent to seek restoration coverage for the Facility, pursuant to Policy No. FPL 762285, Renewal No. FPL 7621566. On September 13, 1991 when Hooper, Inspector for the Lee County Storage Tank Local Program, inspected the Facility the diesel tank contained a total of 39 5/8 inches of diesel and water, of which 4 3/4 inches was water. On September 16, 1991 when Hooper again inspected the Facility, the diesel tank contained a total of 36 1/2 inches of diesel and water, of which 4 1/2 inches was water. On this date, Hooper advised Hughes that the diesel tank had to be emptied of its product. The inspection report issued on September 16, 1991 by Hooper advised Hughes that the Facility was not in compliance with Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code. On September 17, 1991, Hughes had the diesel tank emptied of all its product. Although Hughes was in the process of emptying the diesel tank by giving diesel away, at no time between August 30, 1991 and September 16, 1991 was the diesel tank completely empty of its product. Between August 30, 1991 and September 16, 1991 Hughes did not test the diesel tank to determine if the diesel tank was leaking and, if so, to pinpoint the source of the leak. There was no evidence that either the Department or Lee County Storage Tank Local Program personnel ever informed Hughes before September 16, 1991 that there was a time frame within which the diesel tank had to be emptied of all of its product, and placed out of service in order for Hughes to be in compliance and eligible for reimbursement for restoration under the FPLIRP. Likewise, Hughes did not request any information from the Department or the Lee County Local Program personnel concerning any time frames within which the diesel tank had to be tested for leaks or emptied of its contents to prevent any further discharge in order to be eligible for reimbursement for restoration under the FPLIRP. Between August 29, 1991 and September 17, 1991 Hughes bailed the monitoring wells at the Facility on a daily basis, removed the free product from the monitoring wells, and placed the free product in a sealed 55-gallon drum. When the discharge was discovered, Hughes made the decision to close the Facility by tank removal, and at this point did not intend to repair or replace the Facility. As a result of an inspection of the Facility by the Lee County Local Program personnel in May, 1991, Hughes was made aware that the Facility was not in compliance with Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code, since the gasoline tank had not been used in over three years, and there had been no closure of the gasoline tank. This noncompliance with Chapter 17-761, Florida Administrative Code, concerning the gasoline tank was also a portion of the noncompliance report filed by Hooper on September 16, 1991. The gasoline tank comes within the definition of "unmaintained" as defined by Rule 17-761.200(2), Florida Administrative Code. Both the diesel tank and the gasoline tank were removed on October 28, 1991 by a Florida licensed storage tank system removal contractor, and the Facility permanently closed by IT Corporation on October 29, 1991. In December, 1991, Hughes filed a tank closure assessment report pertaining to the removal of the diesel and gasoline tanks from, and closure of, the Facility. The tank closure assessment report was prepared by IT Corporation upon a request made by Hughes to IT Corporation on September 3, 1991 for a tank closure assessment proposal which was submitted by IT Corporation to Hughes on September 4, 1991. In April or May, 1992, Hughes filed with Lee County a contamination assessment report prepared by IT Corporation pertaining to the removal of the USTs from and closure of the Facility. Subsequent to discovery of the discharge. Hughes has expended approximately $60,000.00 as of June 10, 1992, on the Facility in connection with the USTs. Site rehabilitation costs for the Facility have been estimated in a range of $220,000.00 to $245,000.00 as of June 10, 1992. In the early part of 1991 water was present in the diesel tank, and approximately six months before discovering the discharge in August, 1991, Hughes had the water pumped out of the diesel tank. Hughes gave no explanation for the presence of water in the diesel tank. Neither the Department nor the Lee County Local Program personnel were notified of this unexplained presence of water in the diesel tank.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order denying Hughes application for restoration coverage under the Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Restoration Program. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 24th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-8334 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the Proposed Finding(s) of Fact:(1); 2-3(2); 4-5(3); 6- 8(4); 9(5); 10(6); 11(8,9); 12(10,11); 14(15,22); 15(10); 16(19); 18(10); 19(13); 20-21(7); 22-23(24); 24(21); 25(17); 26-29(20); 30(15); 31(16); 32(22); 33(23); 35(23); 36(7); 37(23); 38(24); 39(25); 40(26); 41(27); 42-43(27); and 44(15,22). Proposed Findings of Fact 13, 17 and 34 are neither material nor relevant to the conclusion reached in the Recommended Order. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. The following Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the Proposed Finding(s) of Fact:1-2(2); 3(3); 4-6(5); 7(6); 8(22); 9(7); 10(8); 11(9); 12(10); 13-16(11); 17(12); 18(13): 19(18); 20(17); 21-22(14); 23-24(15); 25-26(28); 27(16); and 28(23). COPIES FURNISHED: Scott E. Wilt, Esquire Maguire, Voorhis and Wells 2 South Orange Plaza Orlando, Florida 32801 Brigette A. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's site located at 13292 N.W. 118th Avenue in Miami, Florida is eligible for reimbursement of the costs of petroleum contamination cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Rinker Material Corporation ("Rinker") owns and operates a site known as the Rinker FEC Quarry located at 13292 N.W. 118th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33127 (the "site"). At the Site, Rinker operated three (3) one thousand (1,000) gallon tanks which stored waste oil, virgin oil and hydraulic fluid. The DER Facility ID Number for the Site is 138628827. On December 2, 1988, Petitioner, as part of a tank replacement program that it was attempting to conduct in compliance with the applicable state and county regulations, began excavating the three underground storage tanks at the Site. During the excavation, a visible sheen was discovered. At the time of the excavation on December 2, 1988, Alan Gillespie of the Dade County Environmental Resource Management (DERM) was present to conduct a closure inspection of the Site. The December 2, 1988 closure inspection was conducted for Dade County DERM in its own capacity and not as an agent for DER. The purpose of the December 2, 1988 visit by Alan Gillespie was to inspect the removal and closure of the three 1,000 gallon tanks containing, respectively, waste oil, new oil and hydraulic fluid. Mr. Gillespie's inspection indicated that, while there appeared to be no holes in the tanks, free product was visible. Mr. Gillespie noted in his inspection report, dated December 2, 1988, that the contamination was not caused by a tank leak, but, instead, by overspills caused by the pouring of waste oil into the tank, spilling locally around the riser and then contaminating the soil around the tank. Rinker took samples at the Site and submitted them to a laboratory for analysis. It is not clear when the laboratory report was returned, but it generally takes two (2) weeks to obtain the laboratory analysis. Upon receipt of the laboratory report, Rinker initiated its efforts to apply for participation in the Inland Protection Trust Fund for reimbursement or site rehabilitation. In order to participate in the Inland Protection Trust Fund, an applicant was required to submit an Early Detection Incentive Program Notice (the "EDI Form") to DER prior to midnight on December 31,. 1988. The back of the EDI Form states that the form must be filed with and received by DER during the 15 month grace period beginning July 1, 1986 and ending October 1, 1987. The EDI program was; originally scheduled to end on September 30, 1987. However, the deadline for filing was extended by the legislature to December 31, 1988. The EDI Notification Form was not amended to change the dates to reflect subsequent amendments to the reporting date made by the legislature. While the back of the EDI Application Form indicates that the notification form must be filed with and received by DER on or prior to the initial deadline, DER considered as timely all applications with a postmark on or before the extended deadline of December 31, 1988. Petitioner's EDI Form for the Site was prepared by William Voshell, environmental manager for Rinker. Mr. Voshell was out of the state during the last few days of December, 1988. Petitioner's EDI Form was reviewed and signed by William Payne as Vice President of Real Estate for Rinker, on Friday, December 30, 1988. William Payne was informed by Mr. Voshell that the EDI Forms needed to be sent out before the end of the year. A cover letter accompanying the EDI Form for the Site was signed for Mr. Voshell by his secretary, Linda Vasquez on December 30, 1988. After signing the EDI Form, William Payne returned the application to Linda Vasquez to "process to mail". He reminded her that it had to be mailed that day. Ms. Vasquez placed the EDI Form and the cover letter in the Petitioner's mail system on December 30, 1988. The Certified Mail Number P 533059801 appears on the envelope containing Petitioner's EDI Form. January 3, 1989 was the first business day of 1989. The envelope containing the EDI Form was postmarked January 3, 1989. A certified mail return receipt attached to the envelope containing the EDI Form and cover letter shows that the return was stamped by the post office on January 3, 1989. The postal receipt for the EDI Form and cover letter was returned to Rinker from the post office on January 3, 1989. DER received Petitioner's EDI Form for the Site on January 9, 1989. Petitioner's normal procedure is to internally meter regular mail and affix a postmark date. However, certified or registered mail is metered and taken to the post office for processing. Registered mail received in the Petitioner's mailroom on December 30, 1988 should have been metered and taken to the post office for processing the same day or at the latest the next business day (December 31st, a Saturday). After the EDI Form was filed but prior to the eligibility determination, Petitioner was required to submit Site characterization information and documentation of the Site conditions before the initiation of cleanup. The evidence did not establish the expense or costs incurred by Rinker in gathering this information. Prior to ruling on Petitioner's EDI application, DER, through DERM, conducted an eligibility inspection at the Site. Alan Gillespie of DERM conducted the EDI eligibility inspection on April 20, 1989. During an EDI inspection, the inspector examines and reports on the existing conditions of a facility including: recordkeeping, the age of the tanks and the conditions of the monitoring wells and whether there is any negligence involved with the contamination that has occurred. During the April 20, 1989 inspection, Alan Gillespie reported that the three 1,000 gallon underground tanks had been removed and replaced with a new aboveground petroleum storage system. On the EDI inspection report, Mr. Gillespie reported evidence of soil contamination and/or recent product loss and noted that such contamination was discovered at the time of tank removal. After completion of the April 20, 1989 inspection report, Mr. Gillespie's supervisor at DERM sent the report to DER in Tallahassee. In 1989, final Early Detection Incentive Program or Reimbursement Program eligibility determinations were made in Tallahassee by DER. At the time of the EDI eligibility inspection of the Site on April 20, 1989, the role of Dade County DERM was only to conduct an EDI inspection at the site and to forward the information to Tallahassee. Prior to making an eligibility determination on the Site, Patricia Dugan, Environmental Administrator of the DER Petroleum Cleanup Reimbursement Section, reviewed the EDI application, the inspections from DERM, documentation of the site conditions prior to initiation of cleanup and the envelope that the application came in. On November 23, 1989, DER issued an order finding the Site to be ineligible for participation in the Reimbursement Program. Initially, Petitioner's reimbursement application was deemed ineligible because of mixed contamination (i.e., the Site contained used oil) and because the application was deemed untimely. Subsequent to the date of the denial, certain legal decisions made it clear that, contrary to DER's position, sites containing used oil were eligible for participation in the Reimbursement Program. Thus, the only remaining predicate for DER's denial of Rinker's application is that the application was not timely filed. Because Petitioner's EDI application was postmarked on January 3, 1989, after the December 31, 1988 statutory deadline, the Petitioner's application was deemed untimely by DER. DER's policy of relying on the postmark date for purposes of determining timeliness was informally arrived at in 1987. DER has never promulgated a rule on this matter nor conveyed its interpretation to affected parties. Petitioner could have and would have internally placed a postmark date of December 30, 1988 on the envelope containing the EDI Form had it been aware of DER's policy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order approving Petitioner's application for eligibility under the state's reimbursement program. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of July, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 23rd day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3, 9 and 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17 and 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22, 36, 37 and 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37 and 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 40. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 41. Rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Rejected as argument rather than a finding of fact. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 24. Rejected as constituting argument rather than a finding of fact. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37, 38 and 39. 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. 23. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 8. 24. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 28. 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 29. 26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 30. 27. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 31. 28. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 32. 29. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 33. 30. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 34. 31. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 36. 32. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 35. 33. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37. 34. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 39. 35. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 36. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12. 37. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 14. 38. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 15. 39. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 36, 37 and 38. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Pettigrew, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33181 Janet E. Bowman Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale W. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is the reasonable cost to be reimbursed Petitioner, under the provisions of Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, for the development of a Monitoring Only Plan (MOP) program for the Dagam Oil Company (DEP Facility No. 138504146), at 331 23rd Street, Miami Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Panhandle Industries, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of consulting, engineering and construction. George M. Hidle, a professional geologist licensed in the State of Florida, is the president and sole owner of the Petitioner corporation. In September 1992, Dagam Oil Company, doing business as Sierra Fina, employed Petitioner to do environmental assessment work and prepare a Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) under the then existing Rule 17-770.630, Florida Administrative Code, for a site located at 331 23rd Street, Miami Beach, Florida (DEP Facility No. 138504146).4 That CAR was submitted to DERM (Metropolitan Dade County, Department of Environmental Resources Management) July 13, 1993. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1.) Pertinent to this case, the CAR provides the following background or historical information: . . . PHYSICAL SETTING . . . Sierra Fina is located at 331 23rd Street in Miami Beach, Florida . . . The facility is bordered to the north by Collins Canal, to the east by the light commercial properties, and to the south/southeast by property that once contained Chevron and Fina service stations. . . . * * * . . . FACILITY HISTORY AND OPERATION Sierra Fina was built in 1963. The station originally operated as a Sunoco service station with a 3 bay garage. Dagam Oil Company purchased the facility in March 1981 from Charles Rosenblatt. At the time the station had five underground fuel tanks. . . . * * * . . . PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Dagam Oil Company contracted with another environmental company in November 1988 to collect groundwater samples from . . . five monitoring wells at the facility. Groundwater samples were collected on November 9, 1988 and analyzed by EPA Method 602. Monitoring well MW-3 was also analyzed by EPA Method 610. All five of the wells had hydrocarbon contaminant concentrations in excess of state guidelines. . . . A discharge notification form was mailed to the DER and DERM on December 9, 1988, the date of receipt of the analytical results from the November 9, 1988 groundwater sampling event. . . . * * * . . . INITIAL REMEDIAL ACTIONS [IRA] [The F]ive underground storage tanks [and associated piping] were removed from the facility during March and April 1989 [, and replaced with four new cathodically protected underground petroleum storage tanks]. Approximately 400 cubic yards of contaminated soil was also removed at that time. On March 31, 1989 a composite sample of the soil was collected for analysis . . . Because of limited space at the station, the contaminated soil was hauled to a Metro Trucking Inc. storage yard located at 112th Avenue and 143 Street in Miami. The contaminated soil was landfarmed at this Metro Trucking facility for a period of seven months, during which time the soil was spread onto visqueen and tilled on a regular basis. On November 21, 1989 the soil was resampled and analyzed . . . Results of this second round of analyses met clean fill criteria. Also at the time of tank replacement, a sheen of free floating hydrocarbons was observed on water in the tank pit. A vac truck was used to skim this product from the pit prior to tank replacement. Approximately 2100 gallons of oily water were removed, transported, and disposed of by Cliff Berry, Inc. . . . Other than these IRA activities, no other assessment or remediation work had been performed at the facility until Petitioner was employed in September 1992. Petitioner's CAR concluded that: Soil and groundwater at Sierra Fina are contaminated with gasoline and diesel hydrocarbons. Excessively contaminated soil is confined to an area at the western end of the station building that is approximately 20 feet in width by 30 feet in length, extending down to a water table of between 6 and 8 feet below land surface. No free phase floating product is present on the groundwater underlying this facility. However, dissolved hydrocarbon contamination is present in the groundwater. A dissolved hydrocarbon plume is present in the western half of the site. This plume measures 80 feet in length by 60 feet in width and extends to a depth of less than 22 feet below land surface, yielding approximately 134,640 gallons of hydrocarbon contaminated water. Volume calculations are based on an average depth to groundwater of 7 feet below land surface and an effective soil porosity of 25%. The highest benzene (53.3 ppb) and total napthalenes (752 ppb) concentrations were detected in MW-12. * * * Groundwater within the Biscayne Aquifer beneath Sierra Fina is nonpotable because of salt water intrusion from the Atlantic Ocean. For this reason there are no private or public potable wells in the area. Contamination at Sierra Fina is limited onsite to the western half of the station, and poses no threats to sensitive receptors in the area, with the possible exception of Collins Canal. The cause of hydrocarbon contamination was never determined; however, the most probable source, i.e. previous petroleum tanks and lines, were removed in March and April of 1989. Based on these findings and the data presented about or elsewhere in this report, it is known that soil and groundwater contamination does exist at this facility in concentrations that exceed guidelines specified in Section 17- 770.730(5)FAC; however, the levels of contamination may not warrant the need for any extensive remediation activities at this site. Petitioner's CAR was approved by DERM on October 8, 1993, and Petitioner was directed to submit a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) within 60 days.5 At the time, Mr. Hidle (Petitioner) was aware that the levels of contamination were low or near target levels, and that it was likely that the contamination levels would decrease naturally over time. Consequently, Petitioner elected to seek approval of a Monitor Only Plan (MOP), as opposed to a RAP. Such choice was favored based on the nature and location of the contaminants. In this regard, it was observed that the soil contamination consisted of both gasoline and diesel fuel, with much of the contaminated soil abutting or underneath the building. Excavation and removal of the soil was not an alternative because it would undermine the structural integrity of the building. Moreover, given the fuel mix, vapor extraction was not a viable option. Given Petitioner's choice to pursue approval of a MOP, it gave notice to the Department and DERM on October 18, 1993, as well as November 12, 1993, and December 2, 1993, of its intention to undertake groundwater sampling and soil sampling on the site. Groundwater sampling was undertaken by Mr. Hidle between 1:30 p.m., November 30, 1993, and 2:30 a.m., December 1, 1993,6 at which time he drew water samples for laboratory analysis from 10 monitor wells (MW) and one deep well (DW). A duplicate sample was also retrieved at MWs 12R and 14, and equipment blanks were also obtained for laboratory analysis. Between 8:25 p.m., December 4, 1993, and 3:40 a.m. December 5, 1993,7 Mr. Hidle and a senior technician (Martin Hidle) augured 6 soil borings for use in preparing the MOP and collected one soil sample for laboratory analysis. Petitioner delivered the water samples to the laboratory (Envirodyne, Inc.) on December 2, 1993, and the soil sample on December 6, 1993, for analysis. The laboratory completed its analysis of the water samples on December 13, 1993, and of the soil sample on December 14, 1993, and rendered its written reports (analysis) to Petitioner.8 Upon receipt of the laboratory data, Mr. Hidle completed his preparation of the MOP. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) That MOP contained the following conclusions and recommendations: The initial dissolved hydrocarbon plume dimensions were based on data from groundwater sampling events of January and February 1993. Laboratory results from a more recent sampling event (11/30/93) indicate that plume size and hydrocarbon compound concentrations therein have decreased substantially (Table 4-2). Maximum groundwater contaminant concentrations decreased as follows: benzene from 53.3 ppb to 11.1 ppb; BTEX from 111.7 ppb to 20.6 ppb; total naphthalenes from 752 ppb to 246.1 ppb. During the contamination assessment program task a small area of contaminated soil was found to be abutting the western end of the station building (CAR, Fig. 3-1, p. 35). Because of the presence of diesel compounds in the groundwater, it was assumed during preparation of the CAR that the soil too was contaminated with diesel. In early December 1993 PI Environmental personnel installed six additional soil borings (Figure 3-1, SB-16 through SB-21) and collected one soil sample for laboratory analyses. The soil borings were augered in the immediate area of the previously defined contaminated soil plume, and soil samples were analyzed in the field by using a Foxboro OVA 128. Soil samples were collected vertically every two feet, beginning at one foot below ground surface and continuing until the water table was encountered. A soil sample was collected from boring SB-17 at a depth of six feet below land surface. A net OVA reading of 160 ppm was observed from a duplicate sample taken from the same depth. The soil sample was tested by EPA Methods 3540/8100 (diesel compounds) and 9073 (TRPH). Laboratory results indicated that all diesel compounds were below laboratory detection limits, and the TRPH concentration was below normal background readings. Soil contamination was reclassified as being gasoline in origin, because no diesel compounds were detected in the soil sample from SB-17. Section 17-770.200(2) Florida Administrative Code defines excessively contaminated soil, associated with gasoline contamination, as those that have a net OVA/FID reading equal to or greater than 500 ppm. From December 1993 sampling event, a maximum net OVA/FID reading of 316 ppm was obtained from a sample that was collected at five fee below land surface in SB-17. Based on these results, no excessively contaminated soil was found during the most recent sampling event. It is the recommendation of PI Environmental Inc. that a Monitoring Only Plan be implemented at Sierra Fina. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1) Absence in the study area of any potable water wells within the Biscayne Aquifer because of salt water intrusion from the Atlantic Ocean 2) Absence of free phase hydrocarbons 3) Absence of excessively contaminated soil 4) Substantial decrease in concentrations of dissolved hydrocarbon compounds within the groundwater during the last year, and 5) relatively low levels of hydrocarbon contamination in the groundwater, i.e., based on the November 30, 1993 sampling event, maximum benzene of 11.1 ppb, maximum BTEX of 20.6 ppb, and maximum total naphthalenes of 246.1 ppb. It is our recommendation that groundwater from monitoring wells MW-8, MW-12R, MW-6, and MW-17 be sampled on a quarterly basis. Groundwater from the source area wells, MW-8 and MW-12R, should be analyzed quarterly by EPA Methods 602 and 610. Groundwater from the perimeter wells, MW-6 and MW-17, should be analyzed quarterly by EPB Method 602 and semiannually by EPA Methods 602 and 610. Petitioner submitted the MOP to DERM on January 24, 1994. Pertinent to this case, it is observed that the MOP was a brief document, consisting of only 13 pages of textual material, much of which was a restatement of material contained in the CAR. The balance of the report consisted of 5 "Figures" (three of which were contained in the CAR and one of which is an updated version of a CAR Figure); 2 "Tables" (an update of the Water Table Elevation table contained in the CAR to include the November 30, 1993, data, and an update of the Summary of Groundwater Analyses contained in the CAR to include the November 30, 1993, and December 1, 1993, data); 6 "Geologic Log[s]" (a restating of the soil boring results noted in the field notes for December 4 and 5, 1993); copies of the laboratory (Envirodyne, Inc.'s) reports of groundwater analysis; and the laboratory's report on the soil analysis. In all, while apparently adequate and nicely presented, the MOP does not address a complex or unique issue, and does not evidence the expenditure, or need to expend, an inordinate amount of effort to produce. Petitioner's MOP was disapproved by DERM on May 11, 1994, for the following reasons: A complete round of groundwater analyses, no greater than six months old, is required. Therefore, all wells at this site must be sampled for EPA Method 418.1, and monitoring wells numbered MW-6, MW-9, MW-10, MW-11, MW-13, MW-16, and MW-17 must be sampled for EPA Method 610. Because diesel contamination is present at this site, soil OVA readings above 50 ppm are considered to indicate excessively contaminated soil. Based on this OVA readings obtained for your Contamination Assessment Report (CAR) and this MOP, excessively contaminated soil does exist at this site. Since this coil could be a continuing source of contamination, it must be removed prior to the approval of a MOP. Consequently, Petitioner was directed to submit an addendum to the MOP to address those issues. On June 1, 1994, Petitioner gave notice to the Department and DERM of its intent to collect groundwater samples to address issues raised by DERM's MOP review letter. These samples were collected by Mr. Hidle and a technician (Leo Iannone) between 1:15 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., June 15, 1994.9 Petitioner delivered the water samples to the laboratory (Envirodyne, Inc.) on June 16, 1994. The laboratory completed its analysis and delivered its written reports to Petitioner on or about June 23, 1994. Upon receipt of the laboratory data, Mr. Hidle completed the Monitoring Only Plan Addendum (Petitioner's Exhibit 8), and submitted it to DERM on July 5, 1994. The addendum addressed the additional groundwater analysis that was performed, and with regard to the diesel contamination it observed, as follows: Soil analytical results (MOP, Page 62) are below laboratory detection limits for EPA 610 compounds; however, because groundwater at this facility is contaminated with both gasoline and diesel, we are concurring with DERM by reclassifying excessively contaminated soil as any soil that exhibits net OVA/FID readings of 50 ppm or greater, per Chapter 17-770 FAC. OVA/FID soil analyses were performed in accordance to Panhandle Industries, Inc. approved Comp QAP. Net OVA/FID soil results obtained during the CAR program task are shown in Figure 1-5. A maximum net OVA/FID reading of 887 ppm was obtained during CAR soil assessment activities which ended on November 29, 1992. Figure 1-6 shows net OVA/FID results obtained during the MOP program task. These MOP analyses are current through December 5, 1993. A maximum net OVA/FID of 316 ppm was obtained during this latter event. As is shown in comparison of Figures 1-5 and 1-6, it can be seen that the size of the soil contaminant plume and OVA/FID net soil readings therein have decreased significantly since initiation of the CAR. Also, by observing Figure 1-6, which has a scale of 1" = 20', it is evident that very little soil, if any can be excavated without jeopardizing the structural integrity of the station building. Furthermore, there exist the possibility that some soil contamination may underlie the building itself; therefore, soil excavation would most likely result in only partial removal of the contaminated soil plume. The addendum concluded by recommending that the MOP be implemented as originally proposed, but with additional monitoring to assure a continuing decline in contamination. The addendum, like the MOP, was a brief document and contains only 6 pages of textual material. The balance of the addendum contains 6 "Figures" (all of which appeared in the CAR or MOP); 2 "Tables" (an update of the Water Table Elevations table contained in the MOP to include June 15, 1994, data, and an update of the Summary of Groundwater Analyses contained in the MOP to include the June 15, 1994, data); and the laboratory reports of groundwater analyses. As with the MOP, the addendum did not appear to address any complex or unique issues, and did not evidence the expenditure, or need to expend, an inordinate amount of time to produce. On August 16, 1994, and August 26, 1994, DERM and the Department, respectively, approved the "monitoring only" proposal. The request for reimbursement Petitioner submitted its reimbursement application on or about August 23, 1994, and it was apparently complete on or about April 18, 1996. (Petitioner's Exhibit 11). That application sought recovery of the following sums for the items noted: 6. REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN [MOP and MOP Addendum] PREPARATION . . . Personnel 31442.55 Capital Expense Items Rentals 1127.45 Mileage 68.05 Shipping 35.00 Well Drilling Permits Analysis 3680.00 Miscellaneous 1601.25 REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN PREPARATION TOTAL 37954.30 * * * 13. REIMBURSEMENT APPLICATION PREPARATION Supplementary Forms Personnel 795.00 Capital Expense Items Rentals 15.00 Mileage .80 Shipping 86.81 Well Drilling Permits Analysis Miscellaneous 60.75 APPLICATION PREPARATION TOTAL 958.36 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT REVIEW FEE 500.00 APPLICATION GRAND TOTAL 39412.66 By letter (Order of Determination of Reimbursement) of June 27, 1996, the Department responded to Petitioner's reimbursement request as follows: We have completed review of your Reimbursement Application for expenses incurred during the Remedial Action Plan/Monitoring Only Plan program task at this site and have determined that $13,198.70 of the total $39,412.66 requested is allowable for reimbursement. This amount will be paid to the person responsible for conducting site rehabilitation when processing is completed by the Comptroller's Office. Some adjustments to the amount of reimbursement requested have been made. The following list details these adjustments. Citations refer to the specific sections of the enclosed Reimbursement Application Summary Sheets: 1. $24,766.25 in Section 6A, $259.95 in Section 6C, $28.20 in Section 6D and $63.25 in Section 6I were deducted because the total personnel hours (413.15 hours) and the total cost of $39,412.66 claimed for performing a limited scope of work consisting of 78.34 hours of field activities, two rounds of analyses (59 samples) and two letter reports have been determined to be excessive. However, actual field activities (including a reasonable amount of preparation), two rounds of analyses and a reasonable amount of personnel time to prepare two letter reports have been allowed. 2. $162.50 in Section 6A, $9.00 in Section 6E and $331.15 in Section 6I were deducted for costs associated with providing backup for the Contamination Assessment reimbursement application. These costs are not reimbursable in this application which is for the Remedial Action Plan/Monitoring Only Plan program task. $184.80 in Section 6A and $394.56 in Section 6I were deducted for field supplies, ice, conducting database modifications and purchasing office supplies, which are considered to be overhead. These costs are not justified in addition to the loaded personnel rates which already include overhead and profit. $11.76 in Section 6I was deducted because the rate for reproduction ($0.99 per page) has been determined to be excessive. However, $0.15 (per page) has been allowed based on the predominant rate claimed in other reimbursement applications for similar rates. $19.56 in Section 13E was deducted for costs added to the application preparation claimed as a markup. Reimbursement for application preparation is limited to actual costs only. $17.02 was added to the application grand total to cover the cost of reproducing the reimbursement application and invoices and shipping the replacements to the Department. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12.) Petitioner filed a timely challenge to contest the Department's decision. That challenge disputed the Department's action, as set forth in paragraphs numbered 1 through 4 of the letter, but Petitioner did not then, or at hearing, dispute the Department's action with regard to the matters contained in paragraphs numbered 5 and 6 of the Department's letter. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13). Subsequently, at hearing, Petitioner withdrew its request for reimbursement regarding the items contained in paragraph 3 of the Department's letter. (Transcript, page 101). The claim for the cost of preparing the reimbursement application Petitioner's claim for the cost of preparation of the reimbursement application totalled $1,458.36 (including the certified public accountant review fee). The Department proposed to deduct $19.56 (in Section 13E), and to add $17.02 to cover certain costs, as noted in the Department's letter. (Petitioner's Exhibits 12 and 13). Petitioner offered no objection to the Department's decision and, therefore, Petitioner should be awarded $1,455.82, without the need for further discussion, as the cost of preparing the reimbursement application. The claim for the cost of preparation of the MOP and MOP Addendum Petitioner's application for reimbursement claimed 413.15 personnel hours ($31,442.55) were dedicated to the development of the MOP (329.42 hours/$25,500.95) and the MOP Addendum (83.73 hours/$5,941.60). (Respondent's Exhibit 7, and Transcript, pages 188-190). In its initial review, the Department approved 55.67 hours ($3,790.45) for the MOP and 41.92 hours ($2,538.55) for the MOP Addendum, for a total award of $6,329.00. Subsequently, the Department resolved to accept as reasonable, 89 hours ($6,308.00) for the MOP and 83.73 hours ($5,941.60) for the MOP Addendum, for a total award of $12,249.60 for personnel costs.10 The 83.73 hours ($5,941.60) agreed to by the Department for the MOP Addendum was the precise amount Petitioner requested in its reimbursement application; however, the 89 hours ($6,308.00) accepted by the Department for the MOP is clearly less than the 329.42 hours ($25,500.95) Petitioner had requested. With regard to the difference, the Department views the request as excessive. In contrast, Petitioner contends the time requested was reasonable. Here, the Department's view has merit. To support the reasonableness of the hours (labor) claimed, Petitioner pointed to the "Daily Time Log[s]" which were contained within the reimbursement application, and which it contended contain an accurate recording of the hours worked and the task performed. (Petitioner's Exhibits 11, and Transcript, pages 29 through 31). According to Mr. Hidle, all employees of the company were required to keep a notepad on which they were to record the job (customer), hours worked, and task performed. At some future date, perhaps up to a week or more, those entries were ostensibly transferred to the "Daily Time Log." (Transcript, pages 29 through 31, and page 84). Consequently, Mr. Hidle contends Petitioner's "Daily Time Log[s]" may be relied upon to accurately reflect the hours actually worked, and that those hours were reasonably expended. Here, considering the record, Mr. Hidle's testimony is rejected as not credible or, stated otherwise, inherently improbable and unworthy of belief. In so concluding, it is observed that there is nothing of record, either in the exhibits or testimony offered at hearing, that could possibly explain the dichotomy between the number of hours claimed for development of the MOP (329.42) and the number of hours claimed for development of the MOP Addendum (83.73). Notably, neither project was particularly complex, and the tasks performed were reasonably alike. Similarly, it is inherently improbable, given the limited field work and the product produced (the MOP), that production of the MOP could require 329.42 hours or, stated differently, eight and one-quarter weeks, at 40 hours per week. Finally, most of the entries for which substantial blocks of time are assigned contain only vague or general terms to describe the task, such as "literature review," "MOP/RAP preparation," "file review," and "schedule/plan/coordinate RAP/MOP." Such practice renders it impossible to determine what work was actually done, whether the work was duplicative, and whether the time was actually expended or reasonable. Given the record, it must be concluded that the proof offered by Petitioner to support the number of hours claimed for development of the MOP is not credible or persuasive, and that it would be pure speculation to attempt to derive any calculation or meaningful estimate based on such proof. In the end, Petitioner must bear the responsibility for such failure. While Petitioner's proof offers no credible basis upon which to derive the number of hours dedicated to the MOP and their reasonableness, Petitioner obviously dedicated time to the MOP, and to the extent the record provides a reasonable basis on which to predicate an award, it is appropriate to do so. Here, given the lack of credibility of Petitioner's "Daily time Log[s]," as well as the testimony of Mr. Hidle, to provide a basis on which to derive the number of hours actually worked, and then test those hours against the standard of reasonableness, the only option is to award the 89 hours or $6,308.00, which the Department agrees were reasonably expended. Finally, with regard to the miscellaneous cost items, as opposed to personnel hours, rejected by the Department's letter of June 27, 1996, it must be resolved that Petitioner failed to offer, at hearing, any compelling proof that the items rejected by the Department were reasonable expenditures incurred in development of the monitor only program. Consequently, the following sections of Petitioner's reimbursement application have been reduced by the sums stated: $295.95 deducted from Section 6C; $28.20 deducted from Section 6D; $9.00 deducted from Section 6E; and $800.72 deducted from Section 6I. The award for reimbursement Given the proof, Petitioner should be awarded the following sums, for the items indicated, as reimbursement for preparation of the MOP and MOP Addendum: Personnel $12,249.60 Capital Expense Items Rentals 867.50 Mileage 39.85 Shipping 26.00 Well Drilling Permits Analysis 3680.00 Miscellaneous 800.53 TOTAL 17,663.48 For expenses involved in preparation of the reimbursement application, Petitioner should be awarded the following sums for the items indicated: Personnel $ 795.00 Capital Expense Items Rentals 15.00 Mileage .80 Shipping 67.25 Well Drilling Permits Analysis Miscellaneous 77.77 APPLICATION PREPARATION TOTAL 955.82 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT REVIEW FEE 500.00 TOTAL FOR APPLICATION PREPARATION 1,455.82 In all, Petitioner should be accorded a total reimbursement of $19,119.30.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which awards Petitioner the sum of $19,119.30, as reimbursable costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of February, 1999.
