The Issue Whether the challenged agency statement is a rule as defined under Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes. If the agency statement is a rule, whether Respondent has violated Section 120.535(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to adopt the alleged agency statement as a rule. If the agency statement is a rule, whether it is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), is the administrative agency of the State of Florida which administers the relevant portions of Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and the rules pertaining thereto with regard to the reimbursement of actual and reasonable costs of cleanup of petroleum sites. Petitioner, American Factors Group, Inc. (AFG), is engaged in the business of financing storage tank clean-ups eligible for reimbursement pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, The Environmental Trust (TET), is affiliated with AFG. Certain principals of AFG are also trustees of TET. TET acts as the funder of the contractors and subcontractors performing rehabilitation activities at petroleum sites. Environmental Factors, a division of AFG, negotiates and enters into the financing contracts with the contractors and subcontractors. American Environmental Enterprises, which is affiliated with AFG, handles the financial transactions relative to the contracts in which Environmental Factors enters as a division of AFG. In other words, American Environmental implements the contracts on behalf of AFG. Under the reimbursement program, the invoices are submitted to DEP after the program task is completed or not more than once every six months for remedial actions. DEP will reimburse the applicant for the actual and reasonable costs incurred for site rehabilitation. The application is reviewed by DEP within sixty days of receipt. If additional information is needed, DEP will advise the applicant. DEP is required to deny or approve the application for reimbursement within ninety days of the date the additional information is submitted or at the end of the sixty-day review period if no additional information is requested. Because of backlogs in the past, DEP has taken longer than the statutory time frames to make a payment for reimbursement. In the financial arrangements between a contractor and AFG, the contractor is required to submit invoices to AFG upon the completion of the contractor's services. AFG advances the contractor a discounted amount based upon a percentage of the face value of the invoice. The contractor is also required to contribute a certain percentage of the invoice amount to a reserve trust account. The turn around time between AFG's receipt of the contractor's invoice and the advance of the discounted amount to the contractor is typically five to ten days. This financial arrangement between AFG and the contractors is known as factoring. Factoring is generally construed as the purchase of an asset, which may include an account receivable, from another person at a discount. An account receivable reflects the costs that a company charges for its service after that service has been rendered but has not been paid by the entity responsible for payment. Thus, when a contractor completes his rehabilitation task, the amount of his invoice that would be submitted to DEP for reimbursement is an account receivable. In determining how much the invoice is to be discounted, AFG will take into consideration the time value of the funds. In other words, AFG uses how long will it take for AFG to receive the invoice amount from DEP as a component in determining the percentage of discount. In the instant case, AFG is not actually buying the account receivable, but is buying the right to receive the payment for the account receivable when it is paid. AFG has recourse against the contractor through an indemnity and such recourse is secured by the contractor's contribution to a reserve trust account. AFG has been using this type of financing in Florida in the context of clean ups of petroleum sites since 1993. By letter dated September 10, 1993, Paul DeCosta, an attorney representing AFG, requested Lisa Duchene of the DEP to advise him how certain activities contemplated by AFG in financing expenses for reimbursable environmental cleanups would be treated by DEP pursuant to Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. By letter dated November 4, 1993, E. Gary Early, counsel for AFG, advised Bill Sittig of DEP of his understanding of a discussion between Mr. Sittig and representatives of AFG on October 21, 1993. The discussion concerned DEP's position on certain aspects of the financing arrangements that AFG contemplated using for the environmental cleanups. On January 18, 1994, Mr. Early wrote to Lisa Duchene, outlining AFG's plan for providing capital for site rehabilitation, and requesting that she advise him if there were any obvious problems with the proposed financing structure. Rule 62-773.350(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code prohibits the reimbursement of costs associated with interest or carrying charges of any kind with the exception of those outlined in Rule 62-773.650(1), Florida Administrative Code. In November, 1994, Mr. Early, Ms. Duchene, and Charles Williams, Environmental Administrator for DEP's Bureau of Waste Cleanup, had a telephone conversation concerning factored invoices. Mr. Early was advised the following by DEP staff: That the difference between the amount that a contractor accepted in payment for his services, which was a discounted amount after factoring, the difference between that and the face value of the invoice which was claimed and marked up in the application was determined to be a carrying charge or interest, which is specifically disallowed for reimbursement in the reimbursement rule. This position had been formulated at meeting of DEP representatives prior to the telephone call. The statement was limited to the scenario that Will Robbins of AFG had outlined in an earlier meeting with DEP staff. The statement of DEP was an informal opinion of how DEP would propose to deal with an application involving AFG and the scenario described if such an application should be submitted to DEP. In determining whether DEP would also treat the discounted amount as a carrying charge in other transactions of other entities involving factoring, DEP would have to deal with it on a case by case basis. By memorandum dated April 21, 1995, Bruce French, an Environmental Manager with DEP, set forth DEP's policy regarding factored and/or discounted reimbursement applications. The memorandum was issued to provide guidance to DEP reviewers when considering applications that involve factoring and reimbursement fees. The memorandum provided: Regarding reimbursement applications where the program task organization structure of the applicants may involve any combination of a general contractor, management company, funder and responsible party and any other parties with claims in applications from these entities, only incurred costs of the general contractor and subcontractors including allowable markups are to be considered for reimbursement. Specifically, invoices from subcontractors, vendors, suppliers, and/or the general contractor which were paid a factored (e.g., discounted) amount by a third party capital participant (e.g., funder) represents the actual amount incurred by that entity and subsequently by the general contractor. Additionally, the memorandum gave an example of factoring involving the payment of factoring fees, and explained what amounts would be allowed in the scenario. The factoring scenario described in the memorandum was not the same scenario that AFG representatives described to DEP. Petitioners have not challenged the validity of the April 25, 1995, memorandum as a rule.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent’s request for an administrative hearing was timely filed by virtue of the doctrine of equitable tolling.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida limited liability company engaged in the construction business. Its offices are located at 2474 Ambassador Avenue, Spring Hill, Florida. To enforce this requirement, the Division performs random inspections of job sites and investigates complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation rules. On June 6, 2018, James Acaba, a Division compliance inspector, conducted a compliance investigation at a job site in Lutz, Florida. Mr. Acaba observed two individuals working at the job site: Respondent’s owner, Mr. Smith; and Mr. Smith’s step- son. Mr. Smith claimed he had an exemption for himself. Mr. Acaba ascertained that Mr. Smith’s exemption expired on January 19, 2017. Mr. Acaba determined that: Mr. Smith’s step-son was working for $12.00 an hour; had been working for Respondent for about a week; and did not have workers compensation coverage. On June 6, 2018, a Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation purposes were hand-served on Mr. Smith at the job site. The Stop-Work Order contained an Order of Penalty Assessment, which explained how a penalty is calculated, but gave no specific amount pending a review of Respondent’s financial records. Mr. Smith was advised to provide the requested business records within 10 business days or by June 16, 2019. Mr. Smith requested information on how to have the Stop- Work Order removed. Mr. Acaba explained to Mr. Smith several options available to him to have the Stop-Work Order released: obtain a workers’ compensation policy; engage an employee leasing company; or terminate the step-son’s employment. On June 14, 2018, Mr. Smith provided Mr. Acaba a letter reflecting Respondent’s “reduction in (its) workforce.” On June 15, 2018, Mr. Smith secured the reinstatement of his exemption to work for Respondent. However, Mr. Smith did not provide the requested business records. On November 10, 2018, the Division served an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (Amended Order) at the address Mr. Smith provided during the June 6, 2018, job site encounter. This Amended Order provided the total penalty amount of $35,769.16. According to Mr. Smith, his girlfriend, Samantha Nigh, signed for the Amended Order on November 10, 2018, saw the large amount of the penalty assessment, and “decided not to show” it to Mr. Smith. Ms. Nigh did not testify during the hearing. The Amended Order contained a Notice of Rights, which stated that, if Respondent wished to contest the penalty, a petition seeking a hearing had to be filed with the Division within twenty-one calendar days of the Amended Order. It also stated that the petition “must be filed with Julie Jones, DFS Agency Clerk, Department of Financial Services, 612 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0300.” The Amended Order included the following: FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WIHTIN TWENTY-ONE(21) CALENDAR DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THIS AGENCY ACTION CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THIS AGENCY ACTION. This meant that a petition had to be filed, and in the hands of the Agency Clerk no later than December 3, 2018. Although the actual due date was Saturday, December 1, 2018, Respondent could have filed the petition by the close of business on Monday, December 3, 2018. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18.106.103. Mr. Smith did not provide the date on which he became aware of the Amended Order. However, once he was aware of it, Mr. Smith knew the 21-day period to file a petition had expired, and admitted at hearing “it was already too late.” On December 14, 2018, 33 days after the Division served the Amended Order, and 11 days after the actual due date, the Division received Respondent’s hearing request. As a result of the late filing, the Division issued an Order to Show Cause (OTSC) on January 10, 2019. The OTSC required Respondent to show cause why the December 14, 2018, hearing request should not be dismissed as untimely. In the written response to the OTSC, Mr. Smith asserted that his brother, Edward Unger, “was only on the job site for the one day,” and Mr. Unger could “provide proof of employment elsewhere further (sic) showing he was not of our employment at the time.” Additionally, the response provided that “due to [an] emergency family situation where Byron Smith, owner, had to take a minor leave of absence to be with a close family member who had emergency open heart coronary bypass surgery. . ., the days and dates got scrambled with emotions clouding what needed to be done promptly.” The Division construed this conversation as possibly excusing the late filing and forwarded the matter to DOAH to resolve that narrow issue. During the hearing, Mr. Smith testified that his girlfriend, Ms. Nigh, prepared the OTSC response, but that his signature was on the document. Mr. Smith never clarified or corrected that Mr. Unger was his brother or step-son, and he merely reiterated the family problem and personal issues, without further detail or explanations, as his excuse. Lastly, Mr. Smith admitted that at the time Mr. Acaba observed the two working on June 6, 2018, he was breaking the rules, but “it was a huge penalty.” There is no credible evidence that Mr. Acaba gave Respondent’s owner, Mr. Smith any information that would cause him to miss the deadline for filing the petition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order dismissing Respondent’s request for a hearing as untimely. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 31st day of May, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Mattie Birster, Esquire Department of Financial Services Office of the General Counsel 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Byron K. Smith, Jr. Smith's Interior Finishes, LLC 17829 Laura Lee Drive Shadyhills, Florida 34610 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, L.B. King, Jr., violated certain rules relating to petroleum contamination site cleanup criteria promulgated by Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), whether he should be required to pay an administrative fine and investigative costs and expenses incurred by the Department, and whether he should take corrective action, as described in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice of Violation) issued on June 15, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record presented by the parties, and those allegations in the Notice of Violation which are undisputed, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is the owner and operator of non-residential property (doing business as King Oil and Tire) located at 16776 Southeast U.S. Highway 19 (at Main Street and Ward Street) in Cross City, Florida. He has owned the property since June 30, 1982. Since July 1978, eight regulated petroleum storage tanks were situated on the property. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 761.200(20), (45), (53), and (65). The Department has assigned facility identification number 15/8839661 to the site. During the intervening time period since Respondent assumed ownership, six of the tanks and their associated piping have been closed or removed, including tank 4 in August 1997 and tanks 5 and 6 in March 2004. Tank 4 was a 1,000 gallon diesel underground storage tank system (UST) originally installed in July 1982, tank 5 was a kerosene UST installed in July 1978, while tank 6 was a waste oil UST installed in July 1978. Only tanks 7 and 8 still remain in service. After tank 4 and the associated piping were closed in August 1997, Respondent conducted a closure assessment in the area of tank 4 and performed soil and groundwater analytical sampling in the area of its former piping run. He then filed a Tank Closure Assessment Report (TCAR) with the Department on August 19, 2003. The TCAR revealed groundwater contaminants above the Department's Cleanup Target Levels (CTLs) for Methylnapthalene in two respects and for Naphthalene. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-777.170(1)(a), Table I. Because of the presence of contamination on the site, on September 3, 2003, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he submit a Discharge Report Form (DRF) and initiate a site assessment, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600, and that he file a completed site assessment report by July 10, 2004.3 Subsection (1) of that rule requires that "[w]ithin 30 days of discovery of contamination, the responsible party shall initiate a site assessment." On September 29, 2003, the Department received the requested DRF. During a tank closure inspection of tanks 5 and 6 performed on March 4, 2004, the Levy County Health Department, acting on behalf of the Department, discovered stained soils in the fill area of tank 6. On May 18, 2004, the Department received a TCAR dated May 7, 2004, for the closure of tanks 5 and 6. The TCAR documented the results of laboratory analytical tests on groundwater samples, which revealed groundwater contaminants above the Department's CTLs for Methylnapthalene in two respects. On May 24, 2004, the Department received from Respondent a copy of a DRF (dated March 9, 2004, as amended on April 9, 2004) for the contamination related to tanks 5 and 6. The DRF was the last report filed by Respondent concerning tanks 5 and 6. On the same date, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he initiate site assessment activities for the discharge related to tanks 5 and 6, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(1). On July 14, 2004, the Department sent Respondent another letter requesting (a) completion of a site assessment and (b) the submission of a Site Assessment Report (SAR) for the discharge from tank 4 (SAR-97), which complied with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(8). (The SAR-97 was originally due on July 10, 2004, but had not yet been filed.) In order to be deemed complete, a SAR must contain all of the information detailed in subsection (8). Also, the letter requested that a SAR for the 2004 discharge (SAR-04) be completed no later than August 1, 2004, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(7). That subsection requires in relevant part that "[w]ithin 270 days of discovery of contamination, the responsible party shall submit to the Department or to the FDEP local program for review two copies of a [SAR] " On July 15, 2004, or the day after the above letter was mailed, the Department received a copy of the SAR-97 from Respondent. The report was then referred to the Department's Petroleum Cleanup Section for its review. By letter dated August 27, 2004, the Department advised Respondent that SAR-97 was under review. The letter also changed the due date for the SAR-04 from August 1, 2004, to November 9, 2004. On September 15, 2004, the Department received correspondence from Respondent requesting an extension of time in which to submit his SAR-04. On December 10, 2004, the Department approved the request and authorized Respondent to file a SAR-04 no later than March 1, 2005. On April 12, 2005, Respondent filed with the Department a Site Assessment Report Addendum (SARA) for the 1997 discharge (SARA-97). The report was dated March 1, 2005. On May 25, 2005, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he file two copies of a supplement to the SARA-97 no later than July 5, 2005, to address certain deficiencies noted in that report, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770-600(11). That subsection provides that "[i]f the [SAR] is incomplete in any respect, or is insufficient to satisfy the objectives of subsection 62- 770.600(3), F.A.C., the Department or the FDEP local program shall inform the responsible party pursuant to paragraph 62- 770.600(9)(b), F.A.C., and the responsible party shall submit to the Department or to the FDEP local program for review two copies of a [SARA] that addresses the deficiencies within 60 days after receipt of the notice." The same letter also requested that a disposal manifest be provided for the tank and piping closures. On July 11, 2005, the Department received a second SARA-97 from Respondent's consultant. On July 14, 2005, it also received the disposal manifest documentation for the closure of tank 4 and its piping. These were the last reports filed by Respondent. On October 4, 2005, the Department sent Respondent a letter requesting that he provide two copies of a third SARA for the 1997 discharge to address deficiencies noted by the Department in the second SARA. The letter indicated that the third SARA was to be filed no later than November 23, 2005. The Department also requested that he provide a completed financial affidavit to justify Respondent's claim that he was financially unable to complete the remaining required cleanup corrective actions at his property. On November 29, 2005, Respondent requested an extension of time to complete the third SARA-97. (The reason for the requested extension was that Respondent's insurance carrier would not give authorization for the work.) On January 12, 2006, the Department advised Respondent by letter that his request had been denied and that he must submit either the third SARA or a financial affidavit, as previously requested, no later than February 15, 2006. In its response, the Department indicated that it did not "consider generic delays by contractors or insurance carriers as good cause for an extension." To date, neither filing has been made. By failing to file the requested third SARA for the 1997 discharge, Respondent has contravened the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-770.600(11) and 62- 770.800(3), which require that within 60 days after notice, a responsible party submit a SARA to address deficiencies noted in a SAR. Respondent's conduct also implicates Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.800(5), which makes it a violation of two Florida Statutes for a responsible party to not submit requested information within the time frame specified. Since March 1, 2005, which was the due date on which a report was to be filed, Respondent has failed to submit an approved SAR for the 2004 discharge, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(7), which in turn contravenes Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.800(3) and (5). To date, Respondent has failed to complete site assessment activities for both the 1997 and 2004 discharges, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-770.600(10). That provision states that "[s]ite assessment activities shall not be deemed complete until such time as a [SAR] is approved." To date, Respondent has failed to timely and completely assess and remediate the contamination at his property, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-770. That chapter contains the criteria which apply to the cleanup of a site contaminated with petroleum products. During the course of its investigation of this matter, the Department has incurred expenses "in the amount of not less than $500.00." As mitigating evidence, Respondent offered into evidence Respondent's Exhibits 2-15, the majority of which pertain to his insurance policy and the pending litigation with his carrier, Mid-Continent Casualty Company (MCC), or the priority score funding process, which is the process by which contaminated properties are scored or rated for purposes of determining eligibility to receive state cleanup funds when the responsible party is financially unable to do so. Although evidence regarding the insurance policy and pending litigation was deemed to be immaterial to the issues of establishing Respondent's liability for the violations and responsibility for undertaking the corrective actions necessary to satisfy the violations, the undersigned ruled that it could be used by Respondent as mitigating evidence, if relevant, for the purpose of seeking to reduce the administrative penalty. Respondent's Exhibits 8, 9, and 11 indicate that after he reported the 2003 discharge to MCC, in 2003 the carrier denied coverage for that discharge (on the ground "any 'confirmed release' must commence after the retroactive date of the policy (4/3/98)"). However, MCC initially accepted coverage for the 2004 discharge and authorized Respondent's environmental consultants to conduct a site assessment. The documents further show that in December 2005, or before the 2004 site assessment had been completed and a SAR prepared, MCC reversed its position and denied coverage for the 2004 discharge on the ground there was no "Confirmed Release," as defined by the policy. Respondent then filed his lawsuit seeking a determination that the carrier was responsible for cleanup costs. Respondent asserts that he has expended more than $50,000.00 in pursuing the lawsuit, which is much more than the administrative penalty being assessed by the Department. Respondent points out that prior to the time MCC reversed its position as to coverage for the 2004 discharge in December 2005, he had filed a DFR, TCAR, disposal manifest, SAR- 97, and two SARAs for the 1997 discharge, and a TCAR and DFR for the 2004 discharge, all of which indicate a good faith effort on his part to comply with the assessment requirements. As noted above, the final reports prepared by Respondent's consultant were a second SARA-97 and a disposal manifest for the 1997 discharge, which were filed with the Department in July 2005, and a TCAR and DRF for the 2004 discharge filed in May 2004. Respondent's Exhibit 10A recites language in Coverage B of the insurance policy, which provides in part that MCC "will pay Clean-up Costs by an Insured for environmental damage that an Insured is legally obligated to pay . . . ." Respondent argues that if he acknowledges by affidavit or other proof that he does not have the ability to pay for cleanup costs, he fears that under the above language, MCC would not be "legally obligated to pay." This is because Section 376.3071(7)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that when a responsible party does not have the ability to pay for all of the cleanup costs, the Department "may" enter into an agreement with the responsible party to undertake all or part of the site rehabilitation after "taking into consideration the party's net worth and the economic impact on the party." Respondent contends that if he files an affidavit under this statute, MCC would then be relieved of any responsibility under the policy, and his rights in the lawsuit would be jeopardized. Respondent further points out that several other provisions in the insurance policy prohibit him from completing the assessment until the litigation is concluded. For example, one provision (Section II.B) provides that "No Clean-up Costs, charges, and expenses shall be incurred without the Company's consent," while another (Section II.C) provides that "An Insured shall not admit or assume any liabilities or settle any Claim(s) without the Company's consent." Respondent asserts that these provisions prevent his consultant from conducting any further work on the site without MCC's consent, and if he does so, he will lose the right to reimbursement under the policy. Finally, Exhibits 3 through 6 show that Respondent's property has been assigned a site ranking score of ten points, and that the Department is currently funding sites that are eligible for state restoration funding only if they have scores of 37 points and higher. Thus, Respondent argues that a delay in remediation of the site is not unreasonable. Except for the two discharges at issue in this case, there is no evidence that Respondent has a history of non- compliance or that he gained any direct economic benefit by virtue of the discharges. Although no reports have been filed since July 2005, through counsel, Respondent has kept the Department abreast of his efforts to establish liability on the part of MCC so that the site assessments can resume.
The Issue Whether GMD Carpet, Inc., failed to comply with coverage requirements of the workers’ compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing provisions of Florida law, specifically Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, which require that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent, whose principal is Emmanuel Simone, Jr. (Mr. Simone), is in the business of providing carpet installation services. At all times material to this case, Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was legally obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for Mr. Simone and four other individuals employed by GMD. On or about May 21, 2004, Petitioner became aware that Mr. Simone and another GMD employee were working a carpet installation job in Broward County, Florida. Upon inquiry, Petitioner accurately determined that GMD had not furnished the required coverage, and that there was no valid exemption from the coverage requirement. Accordingly, on May 21, 2004, a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order was properly entered. Thereafter, Petitioner reviewed Respondent's payroll records, which revealed that GMD employed three other individuals under circumstances which obliged Respondent to provide workers’ compensation for these employees. Based upon Respondent's payroll records, Petitioner recalculated the penalty assessment to be imposed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 440, and issued an Amended Order in the amount of $1,916.65 on May 25, 2004. Respondent did not intend to violate the law. Rather, he mistakenly believed that he held a valid exemption; that his wife was not an employee, but rather a helper; and that the three other carpet installers were subcontractors to whom he had no insurance-related obligations. It is undisputed that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty prescribed by law in the amount of $1,916.65 based upon Respondent's records and applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order confirming the Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $1,916.65, as set forth in the Amended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 15th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers’ Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Emmanuel Simone, Jr. Debra Simone GMD Carpet, Inc. 717 North 31st Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florid a 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner's site is eligible for state- administered cleanup under Respondent's Early Detection Incentive Program.
Findings Of Fact Nana's Petroleum, Inc., owns and operates a service station at 251 East Main Street, Pahokee, Florida. The facility is located within two or three blocks of Lake Okeechobee, which is a Class I drinking water supply. On October 19, 1988, Petitioner applied pursuant to the Early Detection Incentive Program for state assistance due to a suspected discharge of gasoline at the facility. The application indicated that a monitoring well had approximately one-quarter inch of product in it, but that the source of that contamination, though suspected to be from a leak in a line, was unknown. As of the date of the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner still had not performed an investigation to determine the source of the contamination. Failure to investigate the source of a discharge results in the possibility of the discharge continuing. A continual discharge results in the loss of more product from the system, increases the threat to drinking water supplies, and creates other environmental concerns. A discharge of fuel has the ability to harm people or property due to the resulting contamination of groundwater. Once the contamination has reached the groundwater, it can migrate to adjacent surface waters or potable water wells. The failure to stop a discharge, therefore, results in a greater threat to groundwater and to drinking water due to the greater amounts of product in the groundwater. Inventory is taken by inserting a calibrated pole into the storage tank and measuring the level of product in the tank. Due to the angle of the pole, fluctuations in volume due to heating and cooling of the product, and other factors, accuracy is only possible to 1/8 of an inch. One-eighth of an inch equates to 17 gallons in a 10,000-gallon tank. Inventory is accurate only for determining whether large or medium leaks are occurring and is not accurate for the detection of small leaks. Reviewing inventory records is not an acceptable method of investigating the source of a discharge. Only in the last few months has Petitioner been making monthly monitoring system checks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's Early Detection Incentive Notification Application. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of February, 1990. 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 February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-5912 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 9 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4-8, 10-17, 20, and 21 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 18 and 19 have been rejected as unnecessary for determination. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Thornton 315 Southeast 8th Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 33472 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399
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 issues are: (a) whether the accident on December 12, 1995, involving a shrimp trawler, the Atlantic Sun, resulted in a discharge of pollutants into the Atlantic Ocean and caused natural resource damages; and, if so, (b) what amount does Petitioner William A. Harden owe the Department of Environmental Protection for investigation costs incurred in investigating the break up of the Atlantic Sun and for natural resource damages resulting from the accident.
Findings Of Fact On December 12, 1995, the commercial fishing vessel, the Atlantic Sun, went aground on the south jetties in the Atlantic Ocean at the entrance to the channel of St. Mary's River. The shrimp trawler broke apart on the jetties near Fernandina Beach, Florida. Debris from the wrecked ship washed onto the beaches near the jetties. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) arrived at the scene of the accident and removed Roger Cummings, Captain of the Atlantic Sun, and Daniel Boone, an owner of the vessel, from the scene of the wreck. The USCG informed the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) about the accident on December 12, 1995. Michael Lehman, FMP officer, met the USCG officers investigating the accident when they brought Captain Cummings and Mr. Boone to shore. Captain Cummings stated that the ship had 1200 to 1300 gallons of diesel fuel in its tanks when it hit the jetties. The water was too rough for Officer Lehman to investigate the accident scene that night. Officer Lehman and another FMP officer went to the site of the wreck on the morning of December 13, 1997. On his way to the accident scene, Officer Lehman's boat ran through a sheen of diesel fuel from Eagan's Creek to the end of the jetties. Officer Lehman found the Atlantic Sun upside down at the end of the rock jetties. There was a strong smell of diesel fuel at the site of the wreck. Diesel fuel ran down both sides of the jetties. The fuel was bubbling up on both sides of the wrecked ship. On December 14, 1995, the flow of fuel from the capsized vessel was still not contained. Officer Lehman estimated that approximately 500 gallons of fuel had been discharged into the ocean. He based this estimate on his personal observation at the accident scene, personal experience as an investigator of pollutant discharges, and witness statements. USCG officers estimated that the Atlantic Sun discharged 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel. The diesel fuel sheen on the water surface eventually affected a large area. It covered the entrance to St. Mary's River Channel from bank to bank. The fuel flowed west and inland from the ship wreck. It covered much of Cumberland Sound. It affected coastal waters from the accident site to Ft. Clinch State Park Beach and south approximately two miles. Special management areas which were affected are: Ft. Clinch State Park, Cumberland National Seashore, and Ft. Clinch Aquatic Preserve. By December 16, 1995, Officer Lehman could no longer see fuel coming from the area of the wreckage. By that time, the spilled fuel had dissipated. The accident occurred within one statute mile seaward of the coastline of the state of Florida. The two FMP officers worked a total of 18 hours during the course of their investigation. The cost to Respondent for the two officers' time was $244.80. The FMP officers used a single engine boat in their investigation for five hours. The single engine boat cost Respondent $100.00. They used a twin engine boat for six hours to conduct the investigation. The twin engine boat cost Respondent $240.00. The FMP officers drove a total of 76 miles in patrol vehicles. At $0.20 per mile, the total cost for mileage was $15.20. The FMP officer spent $5.00 developing pictures which were taken during their investigation. Respondent incurred clerical expenses during the investigation in the amount of $33.60. Respondent's total cost for the investigation was $638.60. Respondent assessed Petitioner with damages to natural resources. The damages were based on the total amount of pollutants discharged into Florida's coastal waters as a result of the Atlantic Sun going aground on the jetties. The amount of pollutants was 500 gallons of diesel fuel. Impact to special management areas was also taken into consideration in determining the natural resource damages. Respondent utilized a statutory formula to assess Petitioner with natural resource damages in the amount of $8,008.47. Respondent sent Petitioner a final agency action letter advising him of the total assessment in the amount of $8,647.07.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order assessing Petitioner $638.60 in investigative costs and $8,008.47 in natural resource damages. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (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 February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kisha R. Pruitt, Esquire Kathelyn M. Jacques, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Daniel Boone Boone and Harden Atlantic Sun Post Office Box 438 Darien, Georgia 31305 William A. Harden Boone and Harden Atlantic Sun Route 3, Box 3158 Townsend, Georgia 31337 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether CJC Properties, Ltd. (CJC), is eligible for state restoration funding assistance under the Petroleum Contamination Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program for one or more discharges of gasoline at DEP Facility No. 378943938 (“the facility”).
Findings Of Fact The Facility CJC is a Florida Limited Partnership. It is the current owner of property located at 5691 U.S. Highway 27 North, in Tallahassee. Prior to CJC’s acquisition of the property, the property was owned by Carolyn J. Chapman, John W. Chapman, Jane Chapman Latina, and Carolyn Chapman Landrum (“the Chapmans”). The property was leased to various entities and operated as a gas station. The tanks and dispensers remained in service until November, 1995. The last operator of the facility was Lake Jackson 76, Inc. There were five underground petroleum storage tanks at the facility. Before 1991, one of the tanks at the facility was used for regular, leaded, gasoline. When leaded gasoline was phased out, the tank was used for unleaded gasoline. Site Assessments and Sampling Data On November 30, 1995, the Chapmans employed Petroleum Contractors, Inc., to remove the five storage tanks. During the tank removal, Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists, Inc. (“EGS”) performed an assessment to determine whether the facility was contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. The Underground Storage Tank Removal Report prepared by EGS noted that all five tanks appeared to be intact. Soils in the tank pit wall and bottom were not discolored. No significant contamination was observed directly below the tanks. Soil from the tank pit was stockpiled on the site. EGS observed no significant signs of contamination of this soil. The soil stockpile was also screened with a Flame Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). No organic vapors were detected. An OVA detects any organic vapor, but is used as a screening tool to find petroleum vapors. Department rules require that an OVA reading be performed both unfiltered and filtered. The filtered reading screens out everything but methane and is “subtracted” from the unfiltered reading to determine the presence of petroleum vapors. Twenty-four soil samples were taken from various depths at nine locations in the tank pit. These samples were tested using an OVA. Nine of the soil samples, taken from four locations, had corrected OVA readings indicative of petroleum contamination. EGS concluded that “soil contamination detected in the tank pit is likely the result of a leak in the piping” between the dispensers and the tanks. Soil samples were also taken from three borings in the vicinity of the dispenser island and OVA-tested. In boring D-2, organic vapors were detected from the surface to a depth of approximately seven feet. The OVA readings from D-2 declined with depth. EGS reported that “some contamination was detected beneath a dispenser; however, it does not ‘appear’ to significantly extend below six (6) feet.” EGS did not report both filtered and unfiltered OVA readings for the soil samples taken from the dispenser area, as it had done for soil samples taken from the tank pit and the stockpile. For the dispenser area soil samples, EGS reported a single OVA reading for each sample, without indicating whether the reading was “corrected” after filtering. For this reason, the Department contends that these data are unreliable. CJC points out that EGS stated in the text of its report that the soil samples were filtered. CJC also argues that, because the filtered OVA readings for soil samples taken from the tank pit area were not different from their unfiltered readings, the OVA readings for the soil samples from the dispenser area would not have changed after filtering. The preponderance of the evidence is that the contamination in the dispenser area was petroleum. Based on EGS’ findings during the tank removal in November 1995, Petroleum Contractors, Inc., filed a Discharge Reporting Form on December 1, 1995, stating that there had been a discharge of unleaded gasoline at the facility. In January 1996, the Chapmans applied to participate in FPLRIP based on the discharge reported on December 1, 1995. By order dated January 26, 1996, the Department determined that the reported discharge was eligible for state-funded remediation assistance under FPLRIP. In 1997, another consultant, Levine Fricke Recon (LFR) conducted a site assessment at the facility and submitted its Interim Site Assessment Report to the Department. As part of its own soil sampling at the site, LFR collected a “direct push” soil boring in the dispenser island area, near the place where EGS had reported organic vapors. The boring data showed no petroleum vapors until the interval 16-to-20 feet below ground surface. LFR also collected and analyzed groundwater samples from the site. It reported that a sample taken from beneath the former diesel dispenser contained lead. Because lead occurs naturally in soils, its presence in a water sample does not confirm that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. In 1998, LFR conducted a second assessment of the facility site. It installed and sampled four shallow monitoring wells, designated MW-1S through MW-4S, and three deep monitoring wells, designated MW-2D through MW-4D. Groundwater samples from MW-3S and MW-3D were analyzed for lead, ethylene dibromide (EDB), and 1,2-Dichloroethane. All three substances are usually detected in a groundwater sample contaminated with leaded gasoline. On August 28, 1998, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment II to the Department, which shows lead and EDB were found in a sample taken from MW-3S, but not 1,2-Dichloroethane. LFR did not conclude or express a suspicion in either of its two assessment reports that leaded gasoline had been discharged at the facility. The deadline for submitting a Discharge Reporting Form or written report of contamination was December 31, 1998. A site assessment report received by the Department before January 1, 1999, which contained evidence of a petroleum discharge, was accepted by the Department as a “report of contamination.” The petroleum discharge information received by the Department before January 1, 1999, consisted of the Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, the FPLRIP claim, the Interim Site Assessment Report, and the Interim Site Assessment Report II. Post Deadline Site Assessment Data After the statutory deadline, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment III. This report includes January 1999 groundwater sampling data from four monitoring wells which show the presence of low levels of EDB. When EDB is found in a groundwater sample, it is a common practice to re-sample the well from which the sample was taken. Of the wells that showed the presence of EDB, only MW- 10D was re-sampled, after January 1, 1999. There was no EDB present in the groundwater when MS-10D was re-sampled. In June 2000, as part of the remediation of the contamination at the facility, an area of contaminated soil was removed to a depth of 14 feet. The area of soil removed included the former dispenser area. In January 2003, the Department notified CJC that the $300,000 FPLRIP funding cap would soon be reached. In March 2003, CJC signed a Funding Cap Transition Agreement, acknowledging that “At no time will the DEP be obligated to pay for cleanup of this discharge any amount that exceeds the funding cap.” CJC further acknowledged that it “is responsible for completing the remediation of the discharge in accordance with Chapter 62-770, F.A.C.” In 2005, CJC re-sampled one of the monitoring wells for lead and EDB. Neither substance was present. The site is not currently being actively remediated. Periodic groundwater sampling indicates that concentrations of contaminants are dropping. No further active remediation has been proposed. The cost to complete remediation is a matter of speculation. The record evidence is insufficient to make a finding about future remediation costs. Eligibility Determinations On September 2, 2003, CJC submitted a PCPP Affidavit to the Department, seeking state funding under PCPP. On October 30, 2003, the Department denied CJC eligibility for PCPP funding on the basis that the contamination was covered under FPLRIP and, therefore, was excluded from funding under PCPP. The Department has never granted PCPP eligibility for the cleanup of a discharge previously being funded under FPLRIP. Apparently, in 2005, CJC hired Glenn R. MacGraw, an expert in the assessment of petroleum-contaminated sites, to review the EGS and LFR assessments. In a letter to CJC’s attorney dated August 19, 2005, MacGraw expressed the opinion that “at least 2 discharges have occurred on this site, one in the former tank area, and one in the former dispenser area.” MacGraw’s opinion that there had been a discharge of leaded gasoline was based on the detection of EDB and lead in the groundwater. He also thought the presence of methyl tetra-butyl ether (MTBE) in groundwater samples taken from the tank pit area showed a tank leak of unleaded gasoline. CJC requested FPLRIP funding for the other alleged discharges at the facility. On March 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter formally stating its disagreement that there were other reported discharges and denying eligibility for FPLRIP funding. On March 30, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Ineligibility under PCPP. The amended order added a second ground for denial, that the reported discharge was not shown to have occurred before January 1, 1995. Whether There Was A Second Discharge Eligible for Funding CJC argues that the presence of lead and EDB in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3S shows that there was a discharge of leaded gasoline at the facility. However, LFR reported that the well screen for MW-3S had probably been damaged during installation, because a significant amount of filter sand was observed in the purge water. The Department contends, therefore, that the source of the lead detected in the groundwater sample from MW-3S could have been (naturally) in the soil that entered the well. The Department also discounts the detection of EDB in the groundwater sample because EDB is an ingredient of some pesticides and can show up in groundwater when pesticide has been applied to the overlying land. Furthermore, EDB was not detected in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3D, a deeper well located near MW-3S. MacGraw does not think the EDB came from a pesticide application, because the EDB contamination at the site occurs in an elongated “plume,” in the former dispenser area, whereas one would expect to see EDB distributed evenly over the site if the source was a pesticide application. MacGraw mapped the plume of EDB by using data obtained after the discharge reporting deadline. Michael J. Bland, a Department employee and expert in geology and petroleum site assessment, believes the data from the facility are insufficient to confirm the presence of EDB or its distribution. LFR reported in its Interim Site Assessment that no significant soil contamination was found near the dispenser island. Groundwater samples from MW-3D, a deep monitoring well near MW-S3, showed no EDB, lead, or 1,2-dichlorothane. Bland opined that, if the detection of EDB in the shallow well was reliable, EDB would have been detected in the deep well, too, because EDB is a “sinker.” EDB is persistent in groundwater, so when it is not detected when a well is re-sampled, reasonable doubt arises about the detection in the first sample. Of all the wells sampled in 1999 that showed EDB, only MW-10D was re-sampled in 2003. When the well was re-sampled, there was no EDB. CJC contends that EDB was not found in the re-sampling of MW-10D because of the soil removal in 2000, but the Department contends that the soil removal would not have affected the presence of EDB in MW-10D, because the well is significantly down-gradient of the area of soil removal. It was undisputed that the presence of 1,2- dichoroethane in MW-S3 was not reliably determined. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the contamination reported in the dispenser area is the source of contamination which persists at the facility. The reported contamination only affected the top six feet of soil. The soil removal to a depth of 14 feet in that area in 2000 should have fully remediated the reported contamination. The data upon which CJC relies in claiming eligibility under FPLRIP or PCPP for a second discharge are, at best, incomplete and ambiguous. CJC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. CJC also failed to prove that the reported contamination in the dispenser is associated with a discharge that still exists to be remediated with state assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that CJC is ineligible to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program for the discharge reported to the Department on December 1, 1995, and that CJC has not demonstrated eligibility to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program for any other discharges. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Since 1984, the Department has been the state agency charged with the responsibility to establish rules and regulate underground pollutant storage facilities in Florida. In 1988, the Legislature added the administration of the newly enacted Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program to the Department's duties. The program was to be established on or before January 1, 1989. The Applicant is the owner of a petroleum storage system in Jacksonville, Florida. Since 1984, it has been subject to the rules regarding underground pollutant storage facilities promulgated by the Department. On September 18, 1989, an odor indicative of possible petroleum contamination was discovered at the site during the installation of monitoring wells. A Discharge Notification Form was sent to the Department by the Applicant on October 23, 1989. The form advised that there were no leaks in the system. It was suggested that the odor may have resulted from surface spill at the site over a number of years. In response to the notification, an inspection of the site was completed by the Department on December 5, 1989. The inspection revealed the following on-site violations: Registration requirements were not being met. The forms had not been updated to include the presence of monitoring wells and overfill protection at the facility. Two underground tanks had not been properly abandoned. Inventory and reconciliation records had not been properly maintained, as required by rule since 1987. This violation was reviewed, and discussed in detail with on-site representatives of the Applicant. The monitoring wells were not installed by the time deadlines set forth in the Department's rules regarding stationary tanks. Since the wells were installed in September 1989, samples had not been taken for visual signs of petroleum contamination. The purpose of the system is to allow the owner of the storage tanks to learn if there is a leak in the tanks that can be quickly controlled to limit contamination. The day after the inspection, the Applicant applied for a determination of eligibility for participation in the restoration coverage portion of the new Florida Petroleum Liability Insurance and Liability Program. An affidavit was signed stating that all of the Department's rules regarding stationary tanks were being complied with by the Applicant. Six days after the inspection, the Department sent the Applicant written notice of the results of the inspection. The Applicant was given time frames and instructions for correcting the listed violations that could be corrected. A contamination assessment and clean up were also required in the letter. This letter did not address the issue of eligibility for the restoration funding program because that was a matter unrelated to the inspection results. On March 7, 1990, the Department determined the facility was ineligible for participation in the restoration funding provided by the Florida Petroleum Liability and Coverage Program. The following reasons were given: Failure to properly abandon underground storage tanks, pursuant to Section 17-61.050(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to maintain inventory records, reconciliations, and significant loss/gain investigation as per Section 17-61.050(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Failure to install monitoring system and overfill protection by the dates set forth in Section 17-61.06(2)(c)2, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to properly monitor leak detection system, pursuant to Section 17-61.050(5)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The 10,000 gallon fuel oil tank and the 3,000 gallon waste oil tank present at the facility were abandoned in March 1990. The notice issued by the Department after its inspection in December 1989, gave the Applicant sixty days after receipt of the notice to properly abandon the tanks. The Applicant substantially complied with this requirement after the written notice was received. Although the Applicant failed to maintain the inventory records, reconciliations, and significant loss/gain investigations required by the Department rules, some of these violations had been corrected prior to the Department's inspection in December 1989. Correct inventory recordkeeping was discussed during the inspection, and the need to immediately implement the proper recordkeeping practices was emphasized in the post-inspection notice of violations. All of the recordkeeping violations were not cured until August 1990. The records kept by the Applicant during the noncompliance period from 1984 to August 1990, did not provide a substantially equivalent degree of information regarding possible leak detection or prohibited discharges as the required recordkeeping procedures. Two underground stationary storage tanks on the site have been part of the Applicant's petroleum storage system since 1970 and 1975, respectively. The monitoring wells and overfill protection for these tanks should have been in place by December 31, 1987. Neither monitoring system was installed until September 1989. The Applicant began the contract negotiations for installation in September 1988. The Applicant did not demonstrate that the facility contained an alternative procedure between December 31, 1987 and September 1989, that provided a substantially equivalent degree of protection for the lands, surface waters, or groundwaters of the state as the established requirement for monitoring wells and overfill protection. In December 1989, the Department's notice advised the Applicant that the monitoring wells should be sampled monthly for visual signs of petroleum contamination. Since April 1990, the Applicant has been completing the monthly sampling in the monitoring wells as part of its leak detection system, as required by the Department's rule regarding underground stationary tanks.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for restoration coverage in the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program at the Jacksonville location. DONE and ENTERED this 28 day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this _28_ day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner are addressed as follows: Rejected. Improper interpretation of law. As for the facts in the first sentence, they are accepted. See HO #8. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO #9. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9 and #11. Rejected. Contract to fact. See HO #11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12 and #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Improper shifting of duty ad legal responsibility. Rejected . Improper application of law. The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #4 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #9. Accepted. See HO #4 and #10. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #10. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Accepted. See HO #3 and #12. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #4 and #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Not established by evidence. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: William Chadeayne, Qualified Representative 8933 Western Way, Suite 16 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Janet E. Bowman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2017), by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order (“SWO”) and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Amended Penalty Assessment”); and, if so, whether Petitioner correctly calculated the proposed penalty assessment against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence admitted at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that requires employers to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. The Department is also responsible for conducting random inspections of jobsites and investigating complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation rules. At all times material to this matter, Native Cuts was a for-profit limited liability company engaged in business in the State of Florida. Native Cuts was organized as a business on January 19, 2010, and engaged in the business of construction and landscaping. Earl Lee, Jr. and Virginia Brown are Respondent’s managers. Earl Lee, Jr. is Respondent’s registered agent, with a mailing address of 316 North Lake Avenue, Leesburg, Florida 34748. Investigation On July 27, 2017, the Department’s investigator, Chuck Mays, conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 27746 Cypress Glen Court, Yalaha, Florida 34797. At that time, Mr. Mays observed three men performing work. Mr. Mays testified that one man was observed operating a Bobcat utility vehicle (small tractor) to transport dirt from the front to the back of the structure, which was under construction. The two other men were removing debris, e.g., cut tree limbs, from the jobsite. Mr. Mays approached the man on the Bobcat and identified himself as an investigator. Mr. Mays began interviewing the Bobcat driver who reported that he and the other two workers at the jobsite were employees of Native Cuts, which the two men confirmed. Mr. Mays ultimately identified the three men at the jobsite as Rodolfo Ramirez, Mitchel Pike, and Dave Herrington. Based on his observations, Mr. Mays determined that the three men were performing construction-related work. Mr. Mays called Respondent’s manager, Mr. Lee, who identified the three men working at the jobsite as his employees. Mr. Mays asked Mr. Lee about the rate of pay and the length of employment for the employees and Mr. Lee referred Mr. Mays to Virginia Brown to obtain the information. Ms. Brown confirmed the three employees, and a fourth employee who was not present at the jobsite. Following the interviews on July 27, 2017, Mr. Mays researched the Division of Corporations system and established that Native Cuts was an active business. He then conducted a search of the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”) and found Respondent did not have workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Mays also conducted a further search of CCAS and discovered that Mr. Lee previously had an exemption, which expired on October 30, 2016. Based on his investigation and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Mays issued SWO No. 17-246-D4, and posted it at the jobsite. On July 28, 2017, Mr. Mays met with Ms. Brown at her home and personally served the SWO and Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (“Business Records Request”). The Business Records Request directed Respondent to produce business records for the time period of July 28, 2015, through July 27, 2017 (“Audit Period”), within 10 business days from the receipt of the Business Records Request. On August 11, 2017, Respondent provided business records, including bank statements, checks, and receipts. The records were deemed sufficient to apply a 25-percent discount to Respondent for timely production of records. Penalty Calculation Generally, the Department uses business records to calculate the penalty assessment. Lynne Murcia, a Department penalty auditor, was assigned to review the calculation of the penalty assessment for Respondent. To calculate the penalty assessment, the Department uses a two-year auditing period looking back from the date of the SWO, July 27, 2017, also known as the look-back period. Penalties for workers' compensation insurance violations are based on doubling the amount of insurance premiums that would have been paid during the look-back period. § 440.107(7)(d), Fla. Stat. Ms. Murcia testified as to the process of penalty calculation. Ms. Murcia reviewed the business records submitted by Respondent, as well as notes, worksheets, and summaries from the original auditor.1/ Based on her review of the records, Ms. Murcia identified the individuals who received payments from Respondent as employees during the Audit Period. Ms. Murcia deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. In the penalty assessment calculation, the Department consulted the classification codes and definitions set forth in the SCOPES of Basic Manual Classifications (“Scopes Manual”) published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”). The Scopes Manual has been adopted by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Classification codes are assigned to occupations by the NCCI to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. Rule 69L-6.028(3)(d) provides that "[t]he imputed weekly payroll for each employee . . . shall be assigned to the highest rated workers' compensation classification code for an employee based upon records or the investigator's physical observation of that employee's activities." Based on Mr. Mays’ observations at the jobsite, the Department assigned either NCCI classification (“class”) code 0042, entitled “Landscaping, Gardening, & Drivers” or class code 9102, entitled “Lawn Maintenance-Commercial or Domestic & Drivers.” The class code 0042 “applies to work involving new landscaping installations whereas class code 9102 applies to work involving maintenance of existing landscaping and/or lawn maintenance.” Mr. Mays testified that class code 0042 is considered construction work, whereas class code 9102 is considered nonconstruction work for workers’ compensation purposes. Generally, if a business provides proper payroll records to support a division, the appropriate code and correlating rate would apply based on the work performed. If the payroll records are not maintained to support the division of the work performed between class code 0042 and class code 9102, the highest rate of the two classifications is applied to the employee. Ms. Murcia testified that class code 0042 and class code 9102 were applied to Native Cuts employees due to the mixed work performed (Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance) by Respondent. However, class code 9102 was applied to most of the employees. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L- 6.027, the total penalty was calculated based on periods of non- compliance for employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation. Since Mr. Lee’s exemption expired on October 30, 2016, the calculation for his work performed was limited to the period after the expiration of his exemption, November 1, 2016, through July 27, 2017. Regarding records designated as cash payments, the Department determined that the Native Cuts’ records and receipts did not validate the payroll and expenses that corresponded with the company’s cash withdrawals. Pursuant to rule 69L- 6.035(1)(k), the Department included 80 percent of cash withdrawals as wages or salaries to employees. Penalty Calculation for Imputed Payroll The Department determined the calculated penalty for Rudolfo Ramirez, David Harrington, and Mitchel Pike, the workers who were identified at the jobsite as employees on July 27, 2017. Mr. Lee was also included in the calculation of penalty for the imputed payroll. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll for these employees during the investigation period, thus, the Department used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these employees. The Department correctly assigned a class code of 0042 and calculated a penalty of $149.20 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these employees. The Department also calculated the penalty for Ms. Brown, who was not at the jobsite but participated in the investigation on July 27, 2017. The Department applied a classification code 9102 to Ms. Brown. However, the evidence presented at hearing demonstrated Ms. Brown maintained records for the business and was the person identified as maintaining the wage rate information for employees. The evidence of record does not support a finding that Ms. Brown provided any landscaping or construction services to Respondent. Ms. Brown’s work, at best, could be described as clerical work. The Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Ms. Brown. Thus, the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the imputed payroll related to Ms. Brown should be included for purposes of calculating the penalty. The Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the penalty in the amount of $19.60 attributed to Ms. Brown should be included in the penalty assessment. Penalty Calculation for Uninsured Labor Ms. Murcia testified that the class code 0042 was applied to the general category of uninsured labor, as the work performed could not be determined from the payroll records. Thus, the highest rate, class code 0042, of the two classifications for work performed by Native Cuts, is applied to these individuals. The Department correctly calculated a penalty of $17,015.10 for these employees. Penalty Calculation for Remaining Employees In addition to the penalty calculated for the imputed payroll (excluding Ms. Brown) and uninsured labor, the Department applied the appropriate class code for the work performed and correctly calculated the penalty for Native Cut employees2/ in the amount of $52,350.10. Total Penalty Calculation Ms. Murcia calculated a total penalty of $69,534.34 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of its employees during the audit period. The amount of the penalty should be reduced by the amount attributed to Ms. Brown in the amount of $19.60. Thus, the total penalty amount that should be assessed against Native Cuts is $69,514.40. Mr. Lee paid a $1,000.00 down payment for the penalty assessed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, assessing a penalty of $68,514.74 against Native Cuts Property Management, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 31st day of May, 2019.
