The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of sections 479.07(1)(2)(4)(6), 479.11(1)(2) and 479.02, Florida Statutes. Whether subject signs violate State and Federal laws and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact The following described signs are located in unzoned areas and violate set back requirements each being closer than 660 feet from the nearest edge of the road right-of-way: Highway: I-10 Mile West Junction 19; Location: 1/2 Mile West Junction 19 Copy: Standard Oil Gas This Exit Highway: US 19 Location: 200 feet from West Exit to I-10-North of I-10 Copy: Standard Oil Gas Highway: I-10 Location: 4 7/10 Miles East of Junction US 19 & I-10 Copy: Gas Next Exit on Left - Chevron Notice of violation regarding subject signs were properly sent by the Department of Transportation and received by Respondent. No application was made nor permit for the erection of subject signs issued and the signs had no permit tags placed on them. The Respondent admitted that he had not applied for permits and that the signs were placed nearer than 660 feet from the nearest edge of the road right-of-way and that they were not within the statutory allowance from Respondent's business. Respondent contends that the signs are needed by the general public who travel the road on which his signs are erected, that it is important to his business interests to have these signs and that the federal and state laws should not deprive the public from the benefit of such signs.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondents should pay the administrative penalty, investigative costs, and attorney’s fees and undertake the corrective actions that are demanded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (the “Department”) as set forth in the Final Amended Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the state of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 376 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Germain is a licensed Florida attorney. From May 2006 to January 2013, Germain was the record owner of the real property at 1120 West Main Street, Leesburg, Lake County, Florida (the “Germain property”). Leesburg’s is an active Florida corporation that was incorporated in January 2013 by Germain. Germain is Leesburg’s sole corporate officer and sole shareholder and has managerial authority over the Germain property. John Doe 1-5 is a placeholder designation used by the Department for the purpose of covering all potential entities to which Germain might transfer the property. No other such entity materialized. Background A gas station was operated on the Germain property continually from the 1920s through the late 1980s. During the 1980s and perhaps for a longer period, C.E. Griner operated the gas station under the name Griner’s Service Station. Griner’s Service Station had at least three underground storage tanks (“USTs”) used to store leaded and unleaded gasoline. In 1989 or 1990, Griner ceased operation of the gas station and the USTs were filled with concrete and abandoned in place. The Germain property has not been used as a gas station since that time. In 1990, the Department inspected the Germain property and prepared a report. The inspection report noted that the USTs at the Germain property “were not cleaned properly prior to filling with concrete.” The report also noted that the tanks were not properly abandoned in place. No evidence was presented to explain in what way the tanks were not properly abandoned, or to indicate whether the Department took any enforcement action based on this report. In 1996, Gustavo Garcia purchased the Germain property from Griner. In May 2006, Germain purchased the property from Garcia. Another gas station, operating for many years under several names (now “Sunoco”), is located at 1200 West Main Street, across a side street and west of the Germain property. Since 1990, one or more discharges of petroleum contaminants occurred on the Sunoco property. There were also gas stations at the other two corners of the Main Street intersection, but no evidence was presented about their operations or conditions. In March 2003, apparently as part of a pre-purchase investigation, testing was conducted at the Sunoco property that revealed petroleum contamination in the groundwater. Soil contamination was not reported. S&ME, Inc. (“S&ME”), an environmental consulting firm, subsequently submitted a discharge report to the Department’s Central District Office in Orlando. Later in 2003, S&ME conducted an initial site assessment for the Sunoco property. In the report it produced, S&ME noted that it found concentrations of petroleum contaminants in the groundwater that were above the Department’s Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (“GCTLs”). The concentrations exceeding GCTLs were in samples taken from the eastern side of the Sunoco property, closest to the Germain property. In 2004, S&ME completed a Templated Site Assessment Report for the Sunoco property. Groundwater samples from the eastern portion of the Sunoco property again revealed petroleum contamination exceeding GCTLs. Garcia, who owned the Germain property at the time, allowed S&ME to conduct soil testing on the Germain property. The soil samples were taken by direct push methods and were tested with an organic vapor analyzer (“OVA”), which revealed toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, naphthalene, 1-methyl naphthalene, and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons exceeding the Department’s Soil Cleanup Target Levels (“SCTLs”). In 2005, another private environmental consulting firm, ATC Associates, Inc. (“ATC”), performed a Supplemental Site Assessment on the Sunoco property and produced a report. As part of its assessment, ATC installed three monitoring wells on the Germain property and collected groundwater samples. These groundwater samples revealed petroleum constituent concentrations that exceeded GCTLs and were higher than concentrations found in groundwater samples taken under the Sunoco property. Both the 2004 and 2005 site assessment reports concluded that the groundwater in the area flowed from the southeast to the northwest; that is, from the Germain property toward the Sunoco property. Germain referred to a figure in S&ME’s 2004 report that he claimed indicated a southeasterly flow of groundwater from Sunoco toward the Germain property. However, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that groundwater flow in the area is generally northwesterly from the Germain property toward the Sunoco property. Based on the results of its testing, ATC concluded in its site assessment report that the groundwater contamination on the eastern portion of the Sunoco property had migrated from the Germain property. ATC also took soil samples from the Germain property. It screened the soil samples with an OVA and reported petroleum contamination exceeding the Department’s SCTLs. Petroleum contamination in soil typically does not travel far horizontally. It remains in the vicinity of the source. Therefore, the soil contamination found on the Germain property indicates an onsite source of the contamination. All of the assessment reports were filed with Seminole County, presumably with the Department of Public Safety, Emergency Management Division, which is the local entity with which the Department contracted to inspect and manage petroleum facilities in the area. These reports were public records before Germain purchased his property. A June 2005 Memorandum from Seminole County informed Bret LeRoux at the Department’s Central District Office that ATC’s 2005 site assessment report indicated the Germain property was the source of petroleum contamination. The Memorandum recommended that the Department contact the owner of the property about the contamination. The Memorandum was filed at the Department. After the Department received the Memorandum, it requested and received the site assessment reports from Seminole County. The Department did not notify Garcia or the public about the contamination in 2005. The Department did not notify Germain about the contamination until August 2007. All Appropriate Inquiry The principal factual dispute in this case is whether Germain undertook “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and use of” the Germain property before purchasing it, as required by section 376.308(1)(c)1/: [A person acquiring title to petroleum- contaminated property after July 1992] must also establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she undertook, at the time of acquisition, all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and use of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice in an effort to minimize liability. Before he purchased the Germain property in 2006, Germain knew that it had been a gas station for a number of years. Garcia told Germain that the USTs had been filled with concrete and were “within the law.” Germain was also aware that the Sunoco USTs had recently been excavated and that there was a problem with the tanks and possible contamination there. Germain said he spoke with neighbors about the property, but he did not say what he learned from them. Before the purchase, Germain conducted a visual inspection of the property and saw “several little metal plates” in the parking lot. Germain claimed it was only later that he learned that some of the plates were covers for groundwater monitoring wells. Germain said he visited and reviewed files at a Lake County office, but he was not specific about which county offices he visited. He also went to the Leesburg Historic Board to review property records. Germain’s testimony was not clear about what records he saw on these visits. Germain did not go to the office of the Seminole County Department of Public Safety, Emergency Management Division, to view records pertaining to the Germain property. He did not claim to have gone to the Department’s Central District Office in Orlando. In other words, Germain did not go to the offices of the agencies responsible for regulating petroleum USTs. Nor did Germain say that he talked to any knowledgeable employee of these agencies by telephone about possible contamination issues on the Germain property. While at a Lake County office, Germain searched the DEP website and saw two documents that indicated the USTs on the Germain property had been closed in place. One of the documents indicated a cleanup status of “no contamination.” Germain claimed that he relied on these documents to conclude that the property was clean. The Department explained that the phrase “no contamination” is used in its database as a default where no contamination has been reported and no discharge form has been filed. It is not a determination based on a site investigation that the site is free of contamination. However, the Department had received information that the Germain property was contaminated, so its explanation of the “no contamination” status for the Germain property was unsatisfactory. Germain does not practice environmental law. He neither claimed nor demonstrated knowledge or experience with the legal or factual issues associated with petroleum contamination. Germain did not present evidence to establish that he followed “good commercial or customary practice” in his investigation of the property as required by section 376.308(1)(c). 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. Germain did not consult with an environmental attorney or environmental consultant regarding the potential liability associated with property used as a gas station. If Germain had hired an environmental consultant to assist him, the consultant would have known where to find public records about the gas station, including any soil and groundwater analyses. An environmental consultant would have seen the site assessment reports and other public records that indicated petroleum contamination on the Germain property. A consultant would likely have recommended a Phase I environmental site assessment (“ESA”). A Phase I ESA entails, generally, determining past uses of a property, inspecting the property for visible indications of potential contamination, and reviewing aerial photographs, historical documents, and public records related to the property and its surroundings. A Phase II ESA would follow if potential contamination is discovered and usually includes taking soil and groundwater samples. In considering whether all appropriate inquiry was undertaken by a purchaser of contaminated property, section 376.308(1)(c) directs the court or administrative law judge to take into account: any specialized knowledge or experience on the part 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. Germain did not have specialized knowledge regarding the regulation of petroleum USTs. However, as a lawyer, he was familiar with the practice of employing or working with professionals with specialized knowledge in order to achieve the objectives or solve the problems of his clients. If Germain’s legal assistance had been sought by a client to solve an environmental problem, Germain would have declined to proceed because he did not possess the requisite knowledge or he would have sought the assistance of an environmental lawyer or environmental consultant. In purchasing the Germain property, Germain did not undertake the reasonable steps a lawyer must take for a client. No evidence was presented about the relationship of the purchase price to the value of the Germain property. Germain did not show that the site assessment reports and other documents discussed above were not “reasonably ascertainable information.” Although a visual inspection by a lay person would not have disclosed the presence of contamination at the property, an environmental consultant would have recognized the groundwater monitor wells and would have known to seek information about the reason for their installation and the groundwater sampling results. Taking all relevant considerations into account, Germain failed to show that he made all appropriate inquiry before he purchased the Germain property. Germain transferred the property to Leesburg’s in January 2013 in part to limit his potential personal liability for petroleum contamination. The Germain property is Leesburg’s primary asset. Because Leesburg’s took title to the Germain property after the NOV was issued, it had full knowledge of the contamination and cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser. Post-Purchase Investigation In August 2007, the Department sent Germain a letter informing him that the Department had reason to believe his property was contaminated with petroleum and requiring him to conduct a site assessment pursuant to rule 62-770.600(1).2/ In September 2007, the Department sent Germain the 2004 and 2005 site assessment reports. Germain did not conduct a site assessment. At the final hearing, the Department did not state whether it had made any effort to take enforcement action against Griner, whom the record evidence indicates was the owner of the gas station when the discharge occurred. In 2012, the Department issued Germain a notice of violation for failing to conduct a site assessment and remediation. After Germain transferred the property to Leesburg’s, the Department issued the Final NOV to add Leesburg’s as a Respondent. The Final NOV seeks penalties of $10,000 against Germain, and $10,000 against Leesburg’s. While investigating this matter, the Department incurred expenses of $11,380.37 in investigative costs. Confirmation of On-site Contamination Despite the site assessment reports that documented contamination on the Germain property, Germain disputed the Department’s claim that the property was contaminated. The Department conducted testing and completed a Site Investigation Report in 2010. Because Germain would not allow the Department onto his property, the Department installed groundwater monitoring wells adjacent to the Germain property to the west and south, and collected groundwater samples. The Department confirmed the northwesterly flow of groundwater documented in previous reports and found elevated levels of petroleum contaminants above GCTLs, including benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, total lead, EDB, and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons. Monitoring wells west of, or downgradient of, the Germain property showed high levels of groundwater contamination, while monitoring wells to the south and southeast, or upgradient of the property showed no signs of contamination, indicating that the source of the groundwater contamination was on the Germain property. Based on the site assessments and its own investigation, the Department determined that the Germain property is the source of petroleum contamination detected along the eastern portion of the Sunoco property. Germain and Leesburg’s did not present any expert testimony to support their claim that the Germain property is not contaminated or that the contamination migrated to the Germain property from offsite. A preponderance of the record evidence shows that the Germain property is the source of the petroleum contamination found in the onsite soil and groundwater, as well as in groundwater on the eastern portion of the Sunoco property.
The Issue The issue is whether the challenged two working day notice provision of existing Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged by law with regulation of the liquefied petroleum (LP) gas industry. Sections 570.07(16)(k), 570.07(23), 527.055, and 527.06, Florida Statutes. Petitioner bears the name "1st Propane of Bushnell," a registered fictitious name of Par-Gas, Inc. Petitioner is a Category I liquefied petroleum gas distributor, licensed and regulated by the Department. There are approximately 460 licensed LP gas dealers in Florida. Florida’s licensed LP gas dealers include one-man operations, mom and pop family-owned businesses, regional marketers and national multi-state marketers. LP gas operations in Florida are unique compared to other states, in that Florida has many small volume users. The Department issues the Category I LP gas dealer license only to entities, not to individuals. The license permits the licensee gas company to transport LP gas, fill LP gas containers, sell LP gas containers, and to service, install, or repair appliances or equipment that use LP gas. Most LP gas dealers own the LP gas tank or cylinder installed at the customer location. Accordingly, when the dealer delivers LP gas to its customer, it is filling or refilling its own container; unless the customer owns the container, then the dealer fills the customer’s container. LP is a by-product of the oil refining process. The most common LP gas in Florida is propane. LP gas has a boiling point of minus 44 degrees Fahrenheit. The very cold LP gas is stored in the container under pressure of approximately 145 pounds per square inch (PSI).1 LP gas expands approximately 270 times as it changes from a liquid to a vapor. LP gas vapor is one and one-half times heavier than air. Because LP gas is heavier than air, when released into the air, LP gas vapor drops, pools and accumulates in low areas. It will not disperse in areas where there is no wind movement. A spark from static electricity, electric motors, automobile fan motors, exhaust pipes, catalytic converters, air conditioning compressors or lit cigarettes will ignite LP gas, causing explosion or fire. LP gas is more volatile than natural gas. Unlike natural gas which is delivered to the customer by pipe, LP gas is typically stored at residential, commercial or school installations in a pressurized container. Two kinds of LP gas containers are tanks and cylinders. Other LP gas system components include the regulator, valves, interior and exterior piping, meter, and appliances. The National Fire Protection Association, Standard 58, LP Gas Code 2001 Edition, ("NFPA 58") makes the container owner responsible for ensuring his containers are suitable and qualified for service. LP gas tanks are typically horizontal and much larger than LP gas cylinders. Tanks used in residential and commercial applications, generally range in size up to 1,000 gallons. Tanks are deemed permanent installations. Cylinders are generally upright and have a specified lifetime, after which they must be re-qualified by the owner. Cylinders are deemed temporary or portable installations. LP gas cylinders and tanks are both “liquefied petroleum gas equipment” within the meaning of Chapter 527, Florida Statutes. Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, governs LP gas container disconnections in Florida. The genesis of Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, dates back to the 1940’s and 1950’s and a State Regulation2 that allowed only the LP gas tank owner, or those authorized by him, to disconnect a tank from a customer’s system. In 1958, Florida’s Attorney General, Richard Ervin, became concerned that the Regulation could be applied in an anti-competitive manner, but in 1959, the Regulation was amended to allow one gas company to disconnect another company’s tank whether or not it was authorized, provided advance notice was given to the gas company owning the tank. In the 1970’s this “advance notice” concept was continued and again adopted, this time in an administrative rule promulgated under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. In 1990, The Department of Insurance (“DOI”) promulgated Rule 4B-1.008, Florida Administrative Code, under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.3 In 1994, DOI’s Rule 4B-1.008, Florida Administrative Code, was properly transferred to the Department without changes. The Department properly filed Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, for adoption without changes as required by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 1S-1, Florida Administrative Code, effective March 15, 1994. When the Rule was initially adopted in 1990, David Rogers wrote a letter4 to DOI on behalf of The Florida Propane Gas Association (“The Association”) recommending rule language which became Rule 4B-1.008, Florida Administrative Code. The same language lives on in challenged Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Association specifically recommended the Rule language “in the interest of safety to the propane industry and consumers” and because the Rule allowed “orderly disconnects to be made in a safe manner.” As stipulated by the parties at final hearing, Rogers’ October 31, 1990, letter is the Association’s past and present position on Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code. Other states have tank disconnect rules similar to Florida’s Rule, and other states have modeled their disconnect rules after Florida’s Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code. No company has ever challenged Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, except Petitioner. Petitioner challenges only the two working day notice requirement of Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, alleging it is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. Petitioner alleges that the “Department has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority because Section 527.06, Florida Statutes, does not specifically include nor contemplate or require notice to cylinder, tank and system owners prior to a disconnection;” that the existing rule enlarges, modifies and contravenes the specific provisions of Sections 527.06 and 527.07, Florida Statutes, in that neither statutory provision requires or authorizes a 48-hour/two working day pre-disconnection notice to an LP gas tank or system owner”; that the existing rule is arbitrary and capricious in that the pre-disconnection notice requirement has no relation or connection to any health, safety or welfare concerns; and that the Rule does not promote the health, safety or welfare of the public and, therefore, cannot be supported by competent substantial evidence. Petitioner also alleges that application of the two working day notice requirement has an anti-competitive effect on the LP gas market. Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, pertains to disconnecting LP gas containers. No statute prohibits a person or gas company from disconnecting another gas company’s LP gas container. However, Section 527.07, Florida Statutes, prohibits a person or gas company from filling, refilling, using, or delivering another gas company’s LP gas container without authorization from the gas company that owns the container. Section 527.07, Florida Statutes, reads: No person, other than the owner and those authorized by the owner, shall sell, fill, refill, deliver, permit to be delivered, or use in any manner any liquefied petroleum gas container or receptacle for any gas or compound, or for any other purpose. Section 527.07, Florida Statutes, is one of the statutes implemented by Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, the other being Section 527.06, Florida Statutes. As a practical matter, when a gas customer wants to change LP gas companies, his new choice of companies cannot use his existing gas company’s LP gas container unless authorized by the existing company, which owns the installed container. So, if the customer does not own his own container5 and authorization to use the existing company’s container is not obtained, the existing container will have to be disconnected so the new company can install its own container. Section 527.07, Florida Statutes. When one gas company disconnects another gas company’s container in order to install its own container, it is called a “switch-out” or “changeover.” Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, determines when the disconnect notification must occur. When disconnected, a LP gas container is either empty (out-of-gas)6 or it contains LP gas. If the tank is empty, the tank owner must be notified within 24 hours after the empty tank has been disconnected. See Rule 5F-11.047(2), Florida Administrative Code. Thus, no advance notice is required when the customer is out-of-gas. However, if the existing container contains gas (hereinafter referred to as a “gas-filled container”),7 Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires the new, incoming gas company to give two working days advance notice to the existing gas company/tank owner that it intends to disconnect the existing container after two working days. Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, reads: No person, firm or corporation, other than the owner and those authorized by the owner, shall connect or disconnect any cylinder, tank, or system containing liquefied petroleum gas, except in an out- of-gas situation, unless due and sufficient notice has been given by any person, firm or corporation to the owners of any cylinder or tank, prior to disconnecting or connecting such cylinder, tank, or system. Due and sufficient notice shall be received by the owners at least two (2)working days prior to installing the cylinder, tank, or system of said person, firm, or corporation, and shall be evidenced by a signed receipt. Acceptable evidence of receipt of notification shall be a signed certified mail receipt, signed receipt of hand delivery or facsimile transmission receipt. If after two working days the cylinder, tank, or system has not been disconnected by the owner, the said person, firm or corporation may then disconnect downstream of the system regulator or meter. It shall be mandatory that the person, firm or corporation who so disconnects any such cylinder or tank, whether empty or full, upon the premises of a consumer, does so in a manner that renders the cylinder or tank tight with valves turned off, the cylinder or tank service valve plugged with brass or steel fittings, and all other cylinder, tank or system openings properly plugged. In addition, any cylinder, tank, or system disconnected must be done so in a manner that is in compliance with the requirements of NFPA 58. (Emphasis supplied). The advance notice requirement only applies to gas-filled containers. After receiving two working days notice, the existing company/tank owner has several options: 1) The tank owner/company can disconnect and remove its gas-filled container from the property within the two working days; 2) swap containers with the incoming company, exchanging the existing container with a similar container delivered to its storage yard by the incoming company; 3) sell the existing gas-filled container to the incoming company or the consumer; 4) coordinate a switch-out with the incoming company; or 5) if it knows and trusts the safety training of the incoming company’s personnel, it can authorize the incoming company to disconnect its tank and put it in an agreed-upon safe location at the customer property until it can be picked up in a reasonable time. Disconnecting a gas-filled container is an inherently dangerous activity even though the person doing the disconnect has been properly trained. If the existing gas-filled container is sold or swapped to the incoming gas company, the inherently dangerous disconnect is not required. By contrast, after a gas- filled container is disconnected it must be temporarily stored on the customer property if it is not immediately removed. As established by testimony of the Department’s safety expert even trained persons sometimes store gas-filled containers on customer property in an unsafe and improper manner. Even LP gas companies’ employees are known to violate the two working day notice requirement leaving another company’s gas-filled container, unplugged, unprotected hazardous, unsafe condition on the consumer’s property. The two working day notice requirement of Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides sufficient time for the two gas companies to work out the switch-out or terms of transfer. Less than two working days' notice would not be sufficient to promote the safe handling of LP gas and proper installation of LP gas equipment. The Department presented the testimony of a Suburban Propane (“Suburban”) employee, Tom Ross. Ross is Suburban’s Florida regional manager. Suburban is a multi-state marketer and is the third largest propane company in Florida. Suburban’s 29 Florida locations are licensed by the Department and serve 80,000 customers. Suburban has twice as many LP gas containers in the field in Florida as any other region due largely to the fact that Florida has a lot of small volume users. Ross testified that training of personnel to perform disconnect varies, some companies providing better training than others. Suburban prefers to disconnect its own gas-filled tanks primarily because it knows the training its employees have received, and has no idea what kind of training a competitor company’s personnel may have received. Ross testified that as it relates to Suburban, Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, promotes the safe handling of propane gas. The two working day notice requirement gives Suburban the opportunity to evaluate the safety/liability of the situation and the potential safety/liability involved in moving the tank. Safety/liability issues related to the disconnect and removal of the gas-filled tank may make it advantageous for the existing tank owner to negotiate a tank swap with the company taking over the account. In that circumstance, no disconnect is required. The Department presented the testimony of Mike Ivestor. Ivestor is the operations manager of Quality Propane in Havana, Florida, a small mom-and-pop, independent LP gas company. Ivestor knows his own employees have been properly trained, but he cannot be sure how well all his competitors train their employees. Ivestor has a good relationship with most, but not all, competitors in his market. There are some LP gas companies Ivestor would not want to disconnect his company’s tanks. In the past, competitor gas companies have disconnected Quality Propane tanks and left them on a customer's property in unsafe condition. Two working days allows Ivestor sufficient time to coordinate with the incoming gas company a time to disconnect his tank so as to not interfere with the new installation or disrupting service to the customer. If Ivestor knows the incoming company, he may authorize it to disconnect his gas-filled container and temporarily store it in an agreed-upon place at the customer property which Ivestor knows is safe. Ivestor is concerned about his company’s liability when he has no control over who, when, or how his gas-filled tank is disconnected and set aside. Petitioner and the Department stipulated that if one gas company disconnects another company’s gas-filled container and relocates it on the customer’s property, it creates liability for the owner of the container. Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, is a safety rule, not a rule that regulates competitiveness. Further, the two working days' notice promotes proper installation and transporting of LP gas equipment. Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, states that it implements Section 527.06, Florida Statutes. The Florida Legislature provided in Section 527.06(1), Florida Statutes, that: The department may adopt rules necessary to effectuate any of the statutory duties of the department in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare and to promote the safe handling of liquefied petroleum gas and proper installation, storing, selling, utilizing, transporting, servicing, testing, repairing, and maintaining of liquefied petroleum gas equipment and systems. The department shall adopt rules reasonably necessary to assure the competence of persons to safely engage in the business of liquefied petroleum gas, including, but not limited to, the licensure, testing, and qualifying of such persons for the protection of the health, welfare, and safety of the public and persons using such materials. These rules shall be in substantial conformity with generally accepted standards of safety concerning the same subject matter and shall not extend, modify, or conflict with any laws of this state or the reasonable implications of such laws.” The Florida Legislature also provided in Section 527.06(2), Florida Statutes that: (2) The department shall promulgate and enforce rules setting forth minimum general standards covering the design, construction, location, installation, and operation of equipment for storing; handling; transporting by tank truck, tank trailer, or pipeline; and utilizing liquefied petroleum gases and specifying the odorization of such gases and the degree thereof. The rules shall be such as are reasonably necessary for the protection of the health, welfare, and safety of the public and persons using such materials and shall be in substantial conformity with the generally accepted standards of safety concerning the same subject matter. Petitioner and the Department each presented testimony of Vicki O’Neil in their respective case-in-chief. Ms. O’Neil has been Bureau Chief of the Bureau of LP Gas Inspection since August 1994. She oversees Bureau licensing, training, investigations, examinations, and the marketing assessment program. Ms. O’Neil testified that the Department’s interpretation of Section 527.06(1), Florida Statutes, is that the Department may take reasonable steps necessary to ensure the public’s safety through the rule-making process, and that the safe handling of LP gas is in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. This has been the Department’s interpretation of Section 527.06, Florida Statutes, since 1994 when responsibility for LP gas regulation was transferred from the DOI to the Department, along with Ms. O’Neil. As established by Ms. O’Neil's testimony, the Department’s policy is that proper installation, storing, selling, utilizing, transporting, servicing, testing, repairing, and maintaining of LP gas equipment and systems is in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare and that Rule 5F-11.047, Florida Administrative Code, is an exercise of the Department’s power and duty to promote those public interests. The Department’s policy is that Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, is a safety rule necessary to promote the safe handling of LP gas. Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, is a safety rule, which is in substantial conformity with the published standards of the National Fire Protection Association and is also in substantial conformity with generally accepted standards of safety. As a result of the two working day notice requirement, the incoming and outgoing LP gas companies can dialogue about the proposed disconnection, repairs, safety, or hazardous conditions that might exist. The dialogue may also result in the two companies swapping tanks; thus, the inherently dangerous process of disconnecting the tank is avoided altogether. In light of recent terrorist events in this country, law enforcement has taken a heightened interest in LP gas and gas-filled LP gas containers. Security bulletins from various federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Transportation, show the potential for terrorist groups to target commercial LP gas tanks and hazardous material storage facilities. There is a potential for theft of even small quantities of these materials for the purpose of making weapons of mass destruction. Each Category I LP gas dealer must have one “master qualifier” at each business location. Each Category I LP gas dealer must also have one “qualifier” for each 10 employees performing LP gas work. A gas company employee does not have to be a qualifier or a master qualifier to connect or disconnect LP gas containers for the company. Any gas company employee can disconnect gas-filled containers if he or she has been trained by the gas company to do so. These employees are not required to receive training or testing from the Department. The gas company must only document employee training in their company files. The Department generally does not know if a company employee is actually performing disconnects correctly or not, nor whether the employee has ever been disciplined by the employer for safety violations. The quality of employee training varies from company to company. For this reason, some LP gas companies prefer to have their own trained employees disconnect their tanks. Even though companies train their employees, some have been known to leave disconnected gas-filled containers in unsafe, hazardous condition on a customer’s property. As established by testimony of Ernest Barany, an employee of the Department within the Department’s Bureau of LP Gas Inspection for seven years and current supervisor of the Department’s LP gas inspectors, the Rule’s two working day notice requirement applies to LP gas containers in residential and commercial locations, LP gas dispensers, and containers installed in school facilities. Further, the two working day notice requirement of the Rule promotes public safety and the safe handling of LP gas. The two working day notice requirement of the Rule promotes the proper installation, storage, selling, and transporting of LP gas equipment. A customer’s existing gas company usually has superior knowledge of safety conditions at the LP gas installation because it installed the container and/or the entire LP gas system; has been delivering LP gas into the container; has maintained and/or repaired the system; and knows about any "red-tag" situations that exist on the LP gas system. In the LP gas industry, a red tag is a warning of an unsafe or hazardous condition in a LP gas system. The red tag is a paper tag hung by a wire from the tank cover or an appliance or other system component to warn all persons who see it that there is a problem or unsafe condition in the system. A gas company/tank owner will red-tag its LP gas container, appliance, or other system component when a temporary repair has been made or when the gas company knows of a defect in the system. A common temporary repair requiring a red tag is when the on-and-off valve leaks gas that can be detected at the threads between the handle and the body of the valve. The leak can be temporarily stopped by fully opening the valve and then with hand pressure turning the valve counterclockwise a little harder. A red tag would then be put on the tank saying "don’t refill until a permanent repair is made." Next, when the tank goes empty the repair can either be made on site or by changing the container on a scheduled basis. Customers sometimes remove a red tag after it is placed on the system by the current gas company. If the red tag is removed, the new, incoming LP gas company coming to disconnect the gas-filled container would not be aware that the system has a problem, defect, or temporary repair unless the existing gas company/tank owner has informed them. Accidents have occurred because customers have removed red tags without the knowledge of the gas company. The two working day notice requirement allows the existing company to address safety matters that are unknown to the incoming company, thus promoting a safe transfer of gas service. A switch-out or changeover requires more that just safely disconnecting the gas-filled container. If a gas company does not disconnect and remove its own gas-filled container, the gas-filled container must be disconnected and temporarily stored on the consumer’s property by the new incoming company. A disconnected gas-filled container is more dangerous than a disconnected empty container. Gas-filled containers temporarily stored on the customer’s property present a variety of safety concerns. If a gas-filled cylinder is disconnected and stored on its side at the customer location, liquid propane coming into contact with the safety valve can cause the valve to fail and leak. A gas filled cylinder can fall over creating a hazardous situation if it is punctured, or falls, and begins to roll or hits a person or vehicle. Failure to comply with Rule 5F-11.047(1), has resulted in at least one fatality in Florida because the tank was stored improperly on the customer property. Sometimes there is no safe place to temporarily store a gas-filled container on the customer property. In metropolitan markets there are unique safety concerns requiring that a gas-filled container be removed immediately upon disconnection. In some metropolitan areas there are limited property lines on residential tanks, underground tanks, commercial tanks that are stacked up behind strip malls with no place to move them, and tanks that are installed around schools or parks that could be tampered with by children. Without advance notice the tank owner cannot address these safe/liability concerns and responsibility for mishaps fall squarely on him. The two working day notice requirement gives the tank owner time to review customer records, evaluate the situation, and coordinate the disconnection and removal of its gas-filled tank. Sometimes the terrain makes safe temporary storage impossible or immediate removal of the tank required. In flood plain areas, local ordinances require the container to be chained or bolted down or bracketed to a wall. Vehicular traffic conditions at some locations require that a gas-filled container be protected behind a barrier. If the location requires that the new container be installed behind the existing barrier, the disconnected gas-filled container may end up stored in an un-barricaded area. The gas company that owns the existing installed container, has an investment in it, has serviced the customer location, and often will know whether or not there is a safe place to temporarily store the disconnected gas-filled container on the property. Two days' advance notice allows the existing gas company time to assess the safety situation unique to a customer location, thus promoting a safe transfer of gas service. Some LP gas containers are buried underground and must be excavated so the incoming gas company can install its own container underground. A crane, back-hoe, or other special equipment may be required to unearth and move the tank. The existing tank owner may also have to locate existing utilities and obtain governmental authorization or permits to excavate the tank. Some localities require the tank owner to notify local fire or building officials or apply for permits to move the container. If the tank is buried, other buried utilities on the property must be located before excavation. A gas-filled container sometimes must have the gas pumped out of it before the tank can be transported on Florida roads. This usually requires special equipment and two different kinds of trucks. The existing tank owner also has to schedule his employees to do the work. The Rule gives the tank owner the time to work out the logistics and scheduling of equipment to draw the gas out of the tank before it can be transported from the consumer’s property. In 1958, Florida’s tank disconnect rule was called LP Gas Regulation 11, of the Fire Marshall’s rules. LP Gas Regulation 11, Circa 1958 reads: No person, firm or corporation, other than the owner and those authorized by the owner so to do, shall connect or disconnect or transport or carry any means of conveyance whatsoever, any cylinder or tank containing Liquefied Petroleum Gas, whether in the liquid or vapor state. Thus, in 1958 all disconnects were prohibited unless authorized by the tank owner. A tank owner could monopolize a customer’s LP gas system by simply withholding authorization for the disconnect. The Insurance Commissioner at the time asked for an opinion from the Attorney General because he was troubled that a natural gas supplier was disconnecting LP gas containers without authorization from the owner. Voicing public safety concerns, the Attorney General opined that: Serious problems of public safety are involved in the disconnecting of L.P. gas cylinders and tanks and the above rule has its legitimate purpose in insuring public safety. I am of the opinion that this regulation can be legitimately enforced against the private utility in question, however, it must be applied in terms of public safety and not in such a manner as will unreasonably restrict competition. Acknowledging the serious public safety concerns related to LP gas tank disconnections, Attorney General Ervin also saw the potential evil of construing Regulation 11 to prohibit tank disconnections “under any circumstances.” “Advanced reasonable notice” was the cure. Attorney General Ervin opined: Said rule should not be construed to prohibit the private utility from disconnecting the L.P. gas tanks and cylinder under any circumstances. If after reasonable notice to the LP gas dealer said dealer does not disconnect his cylinders or tanks, the private utility should be permitted to disconnect them if it does so in a manner which leaves the tanks or cylinders in a safe condition. If the private utility should persist in failing to give reasonable notice and in leaving the tanks and cylinders in an unsafe condition, the State Fire Marshal may hold a hearing . . . and issue a cease and desist order. Subsequent to the Attorney General’s July 3, 1958, Opinion, on February 27, 1959, Regulation 11 was amended after Public Hearing. The revised, adopted Regulation 11 provided for “due and sufficient” notice to the tank owner prior to disconnecting his tank. Thus, in similar fashion to Rule 5F-11.047(1), Florida Administrative Code, if the notified tank owner did not disconnect his tank after a reasonable time, the tank could be disconnected by the company desiring to install its own tank.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated Sections 455.227(1)(a) and 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Maples is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida. He holds license no. PE 10214, and he practices engineering in the Panama City, Florida, area. During all times pertinent Mr. Maples held an active license and practiced pursuant to it. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes. The Board exists pursuant to Section 471.007, Florida Statutes, and is authorized to discipline engineers under its authority by Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. Mr. Maples signed and sealed three pages of sprinkler system plans for the Wellness Center at Gulf Coast Community College (Wellness Center), located in Panama City, Florida. These plans were admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. No date can be observed on the seal on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. It either is illegible or a date was never placed upon it. Hydraulic calculations, which use drawings as a source document, and which appear to coincide with Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, were dated November 15, 2001. It is deduced, therefore, that Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 was drawn on or about November 15, 2001. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on April 1, 2005. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the plans and calculations for the Wellness Center demonstrated negligence in the practice of engineering. That charge resulted in an final hearing conducted by Administrative Law Judge Stephen Dean on August 11, 2005. That case number was DOAH Case No. 05-2049PL. On October 13, 2005, Judge Dean recommended that the Complaint be dismissed. One of the allegations of negligence in 05-2049PL, related to a charge that inadequate water would be supplied to the hydraulically most demanding (HMD) area in the event of a fire. It was alleged, and proof was elicited, that a single 1 and 1/4-inch pipe traveling from a riser, across the men's shower area to the women's shower area, would be insufficient. This pipe is identified on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 as a line between Node 45 and Node 25. This pipe leads to a "T" intersection and further piping carries water, when activated, to the women's shower area. The matter of whether adequate water would be supplied to the HMD devolved into whether the plans called for one 61- foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe, or two 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipes. Because there was no pump provided on the drawings, and in fact there was no plan to install a pump, two 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipes were necessary to provide sufficient water in case of fire. As was illuminated in Case No. 05-2049PL, calculations were made, based on the drawings, in order to ensure that the HMD area will receive 1500 square feet of coverage per sprinkler head required by the contractor. The coverage required by the contractor exceeds that required by National Fire Protection Association-13 standards. HMD calculations are made at a point most remote from the source of water. The hydraulic calculations are produced through the use of a commercially produced computer program. Calculations from Case No. 05-2049PL became Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 in this case. At the hearing in Case No. 05-2049PL, the allegation that the fire sprinkler plans signed and sealed by Mr. Maples would not provide adequate water pressure to the HMD area was rejected by Judge Dean. This is because Mr. Maples claimed that the plans, when viewed in light of the calculations, actually depicted two 61-foot long pipes, 1 and 1/4-inch and Judge Dean, while determining that the depiction was inadequate for that purpose, found in essence that adequate water would be provided to the HMD. Mr. Maples works closely with Chris Thomas, a sprinkler contractor whose license does not permit him to design a fire suppression system that consists of more than 49 heads. Their working arrangement is such that it would be expected that Mr. Thomas would understand Mr. Maples' drawings even if they were not as complete as they would be if the drawings were made for a contractor other than Mr. Thomas. In fact, Mr. Thomas participated in the production of the drawings signed and sealed by Mr. Maples. More than one set of drawings were used for the Wellness Center project. The project came under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Education. That agency approved the plans and the Florida State Fire Marshal approved the plans, although it is not certain that the plans those agencies approved were Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. There were errors in the data entry on the hydraulic calculations. The building was completed prior to the time Case No. 05-2049PL was heard on August 11, 2005. Using the plans drawn by Mr. Maples, Mr. Thomas's foremen for the Wellness Center installed a single pipe between Node 45 and Node 25. On a weekend subsequent to the hearing in Case No. 05-2049PL, Mr. Thomas went to the Wellness Center and discovered that only one 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe had been installed in the area represented to be between Node 45 and Node 25. Mr. Thomas immediately installed a second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe. Mr. Maples never went to the site and, accordingly, was unaware at the time he testified in Case No. 05-2049PL, that only one pipe had been installed. The Administrative Complaint lists five statements made by Mr. Maples in Case No. 05-2049PL that are alleged to express "an opinion publicly on an engineering subject without being informed as to the facts relating thereto." The five statements are further alleged to describe testimony that was, "untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional statement or testimony." As noted above, the statements do not cite with particularity to the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. The five statements read as follows: Respondent testified at the hearing that the line on the plans appearing as a single pipe, in fact, represented two pipes, 61 feet long with 1 1/4 inch diameters, running over the men's showers. Respondent testified at the hearing that the intent to install the sprinkler system with two pipes over the men's showers was obvious to anyone with experience in fire sprinkler systems. Respondent testified that he had signed and sealed revised plans showing a second parallel line over the men's showers. Respondent testified that the second 61 foot long 1 1/4 inch diameter pipe was represented in his calculations by a 3 foot length of pipe. Respondent testified that he used pipe lengths in the supporting calculations that match the pipe lengths shown in the plans. The actual testimony of Mr. Maples that addresses the pipes follows below. The initial questions were posed by Mr. Maples' attorney, Mr. Peters at page 260, line 13, of the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. . Q. Okay. Now, the bulk of this allegation was that the hydraulically demanding design area did not have sufficient water pressure. Let's talk about that. Does the most hydraulically demanding area in this project show that it was receiving sufficient water pressure and distribution? A. Yes, the calculations show that specifically. Q. Do you have any concern that the most hydraulically demanding area is being under served? A. I do not. Q. Do the plans -- while they may not be perfect -- do they reasonably and competently show sufficient water pressure getting to the most hydraulically demanding area? A. Yes. (At this point there was a recess. Subsequently, the interrogation continued.) * * * Q. So do the plans and do the calculations show that there's sufficient water getting to the most challenging -- A. Yes, it does. Q. Okay. And let's take a minute to just make sure we review our nodal system. (At this point the Court interjected and moved the questioning away from the nodal system. The nodal system had been reviewed earlier in the hearing.) * * * Q. How is that? Okay. There is a segment called 20 to 25, which is an inch-and-a-quarter, 61 feet long. A. Correct. Q. And is there a parallel pipe in the same plane that runs along that same segment? A. Yes. Q. How can you tell that from this drawing and this set of calculations? A. I can tell on the calculations, because it tells me from 25 to 30, there's a connection. It tells me that 30 is connected to a three-inch main. Q. All right. Can you show these calculations and -- go over them with us and show us how you see that from these documents? A. Where is my set? Q. Right there. That's yours. THE COURT: Let me ask you this, sir. I see where it says that it's connected to that. But by [sic] my question is, it says that it's only 3-feet long. THE WITNESS: Three feet. Yes, sir. Let me -- can I address that? THE COURT: Surely. THE WITNESS: That is -- I will say an input error on it. But I want to tell you that it doesn't make any difference into the function of the system. BY MR. PETERS: Q. Tell us why not. A. It says 25 to 30 tells me there's a line, a connection to a 3-inch -- to node 30. What that tells me is that 3-inch line is feeding this row of sprinklers right here. Even though it says 3 feet, what it does, it has a short segment of line that just gushes water through there and makes those sprinklers flow a whole lot more than it needed. All right. When you put the right length, you put 61 feet in there, it comes back to just about what this line does, and it cuts the sprinkler flow down in those three areas. But it doesn't effect [sic] the function of the system because it doesn't effect [sic] the head loss in the main system where the pressure goes in the 3-inch line. Q. Head loss. Take a minute to try to explain that. A. The water -- it doesn't effect [sic] the pressure that the sprinklers are getting. What it does, when you put 61 feet in there, those three sprinklers that where it shows a 3-feet [sic] connection, it cuts them down from sprinkling a whole lot more water that's needed back to what's required. But as you go along this -- as you go along this line, go along this line where the 3-inch line is up here, at each place on the 3-inch line, there's a branch that goes towards the sprinklers. And each branch line is calculated separately. And the most demanding branch line is what puts the pressure that's required -- the flow -- required a 3-inch line. So what the 3-foot did, it made these three sprinklers right here flow considerably more, because it was just a little short piece of pipe and didn't have any friction loss going down through there. But it didn't effect [sic] -- it didn't effect [sic] the system head. Because that had less head loss than this one did. So when you put -- BY THE COURT: Q. Head loss is effected [sic] by, what? A. The length of pipe. Flow -- the length of pipe and size of pipe. Q. So will a longer piece of pipe -- assuming all the pipes are the same diameter -- does the pipe -- does the head loss on a short piece, is it greater than a long piece? A. Oh, no. Head loss on short pieces are considerably less than a long piece loss. The further it travels, the more pressure it loses. Q. Okay. And the pressure loss is transmitted, if you will, back to the 3-inch main? It effects [sic] the -- A. It effects [sic] what the flow comes from a 3-inch main. The 3-inch main effects [sic] it, because the three-inch main has the water supply, and has the pressure that's pushing it. Q. So the calculation for this system -- A. Yeah. Q.-- even though there's an error, the error is not a critical error? A. No, sir, it does not effect [sic] the function of the system. Q. It doesn't effect [sic] the function of the system. Thank you. A. What it does, it shows a little more water flow. THE COURT: Okay. DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. PETERS: Q. So do the plans -- does it need a pump to get water to this area? A. No, sir. THE COURT: Now, let me ask you a follow up on that. THE WITNESS: All right. THE COURT: After Mr. Schmidt put his input in, and he was basically engaged to do exactly what he did, and that was, to go through the plans, catch any things that he was concerned about, and turn that back to the general contractor so the general contractor could go back to the people he needed to go back to? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: The general contractor came back to you, and you did whatever was necessary to generate the second set of plans that you-all put in, which is your Respondent's 1? MR. PETERS: Well, although Respondent's -- can I ask him a couple of questions? THE COURT: Sure. BY MR. PETERS: Q. Respondent's 1, this is the one that shows the second line, the parallel lines, right? A. Yes, if this is the plan we're looking at, it shows the second -- physically shows -- separated it so anybody could see. THE COURT: It also shows the point of service. THE WITNESS: Yes, it also shows a different point of service. It shows --bring it back up to the 5. BY MR. PETERS: Q. But these don't bear your signature. A. This particular set doesn't. We signed some, but I don't know where they are. That came from Gulf Coast College there. Q. All right. All right. In terms of what this case is directly about, then, do the plans provide pipes with adequate diameters for water pressure to provide protection for the area most remote from the main riser? A. Absolutely. Q. Do the plans provide -- do the plans need to show a pump to increase water pressure for the pipe design use? A. No. Q. And did you use pipe lengths in the supporting calculations that match the pipe lengths shown in the plans? A. Yes. (At this point Mr. Peters addresses another matter. Thereafter, Mr. Campbell proceeded with his cross-examination on Page 268, line 25.) * * * BY MR. CAMPBELL Q. Mr. Maples, there was no testimony about phantom pipes in that previous case, was there? A. No. Q. And you would admit that if there was no pipe underneath this Node 25 pipe, that this fork of six sprinkler heads would not adequately be served by 1-and-a-quarter inch diameter pipe; isn't that correct? A. That's correct, with a caveat. The NFPA 13 has a section that says on the density .1 in a 1500 square feet [sic] area, if it is - - if it says ceiling heights less than 20 feet, and this is 10, that you can reduce the area of sprinkling by 40 percent. So that means, if we did that, we would do 900 square feet, and that would be adequate. Now, if you went strictly by NFPA 13 -- Q. But that's not what you drew here. You drew or attempted to draw 1500 square feet. A. That's what we were told to do. But that's not in accordance with NFPA 13. NFPA 13 is less. And we agree NFPA 13 rules. Q. Now, you initially said this was your initial set of plans before you got any input such as being told to do 1500 square feet; is that correct? A. No, no, I was told to do that to start with. Q. All right. Was that part of the specifications on this job? A. I didn't see it. That was --according to the contractor, that was the specifications from Schmidt or whoever they were. Q. All right. Now, looking at the Respondent's 1 you did not sign. A. That one is not signed, but I know there were some that were signed. Q. Doesn't it appear that in these entries for pressures and static pressures, at some point, there was a whiteout and a reentry on the first page of the sheet? A. I can't tell you that. It may have been. Q. All right. Now, in fact, you have got two separate entries of written information where some of those are different. For instance, the required pressure is different -- A. Yes, because it's a different system. This is one that's not in contention right here. This was the gym. It's got the same static pressures and flows, but this is a different set of calculations of the gym. This has not been -- that was for the gymnasium, just to see if there was enough water. They asked us to do that. Q. Now, is the gymnasium a part of the Wellness Center? I thought that was what the Wellness Center was. A. Well, it's part of the Wellness, yes. But it's a separate part. But this has never been in contention. Q. Well, now, on the set of plans, your initial set of plans, there were no such double entries? A. No, they didn't ask for it then. Q. And this separate set of entries here for the gym -- well, this -– yeah -- is still used by the same riser and the same -- A. Yes, sir. Q. -- point of service. A. Yes, sir. Q. So there would be a separate set of calculations somewhere for the gym; is that what you're saying? A. My understanding, they asked Chris to do a set of calculations just so they would have plenty of water at the gym. That's never been in contention. Because one thing, it's located right at the riser. Q. Now, isn't it a fact, if someone never looked at the calculations but only looked at page 2 of Exhibit P-1, that where the node 25 seems to go up to node 45, there is only one line indicating one pipe? A. Depending on who looks at it. Anybody familiar with the calculations and sprinkler systems would know. Q. If they saw no calculations whatsoever, they just looked at this sheet -- A. I would assume so. If it was Joe Blow out there that knew nothing, he would have probably been, you know -- Q. He would think there's one pipe there. A. Who would do that? Q. So the basis of your statement that anyone that knew that there had to be more than one pipe is -- anyone with experience in fire protection systems would know you could not feed -- A. That's correct. Q. -- 6 heads 60 feet down from the 3-inch pipe on a one -- A. An inexperienced person, probably, correct. Q. Well, now, an experienced person would know automatically you couldn't feed it that way, right? You would have to have a second pipe; that's what you're saying? A. Well, you would have to go by the calculations. I didn't say that. Q. But if you didn't go by the calculations, if you didn't know anything about the calculations, would it be obvious to anyone with experience in fire protection sprinkler systems that at the end of 60 feet of a one-and-a-one-quarter-inch pipe you could not support 50 pounds pressure -- support 6 heads on 1 inch pipe? A. I wouldn't say that. Because if I was an experienced person in fire protection and installation, I would look at that, and I would look for something else to see if there was something else. Q. So that sheet of plans by itself is insufficient even with someone with experience in fire protection? A. No, I didn't say that. I said I would be looking for something else. Q. You said you would be looking for something else. A. He would know that there was something supporting it. And especially a licensed contractor that's licensed to design sprinklers, too. He would obviously know. The statement set forth in paragraph 7, of the Administrative Complaint does not appear in the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. Mr. Maples said nothing about showers. He did not say that the single pipe represented two pipes each of which was 61 feet long. What he said was that the calculations told him that there is a parallel pipe in the same plan as the pipe shown on the drawings. He said he could tell that because the calculations showed from Node 25 to 30 a connection to a 3- inch main. Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was confusing and difficult to follow but not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. He was not giving fact testimony but was expressing an opinion. The statement set forth in paragraph 8, of the Administrative Complaint does not appear in the Transcript in Case No. 05-2049PL. Mr. Maples never said that the "intent to install the sprinkler system with two pipes over the men's showers was obvious to anyone with experience in fire sprinkler systems." What he said was, that, "Anybody familiar with the calculations and sprinkler systems would know." He further said that if someone familiar with sprinkler systems would know that two pipes were necessary looked at the plans without the calculations that he "assumed" they would know there should be two pipes. With regard to the statement set forth in paragraph 8, when offered to agree with the statement, ". . . an experienced person would know automatically you couldn't feed it that way, right? You would have to have a second pipe; that's what you are saying?" Mr. Maples declined. In response to the question he said, "Well, you would have to go by the calculations. I didn't say that." Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. He was not giving fact testimony but was expressing an opinion. The statement alleged as paragraph 9 does not appear in the Transcript. With regard to other plans, he said in response to a question about Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 that, ". . . it shows the second--physically shows--separated so any body could see." He noted that Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 did not bear his signature but said that he had signed some similar plans. There is no proof in the record that his testimony in this regard was untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. The allegation in paragraph 10 of the Administrative Complaint was that Mr. Maples said that the second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch diameter pipe "was represented in his calculations by a 3 foot length of pipe." Mr. Maples never uttered that statement. In response to a question from Judge Dean, with regard to the 3-foot long pipe, Mr. Maples said, "That is--I will say an input error on it." Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was confusing and difficult to follow but not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. The allegation in paragraph 11 of the Administrative Complaint was that Mr. Maples said that, "he used pipe lengths in the supporting calculations that match the pipe lengths shown in the plans." This allegation approximates a verbatim statement made by Mr. Maples. However, he had earlier noted, and thus qualified the statement when he stated that there was input error. Mr. Maples' testimony in this regard was not untruthful, deceptive, or misleading. The allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint at paragraphs 7 and 8, were fairly alleged as the opinions of Mr. Maples. The opinions alleged are in essence that a person with experience in the fire suppression business could determine from the plans and calculations that a second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch pipe would run parallel to the pipe shown from Node 25 to 45. After an exhaustive study of the plans and calculations in this case, the Administrative Law Judge has not been able to conclude that the testimony as to the second pipe is borne out by Petitioner's Exhibit 2 or the calculations that are Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Moreover, Judge Dean found that the intent to have two pipes, "was not adequately shown in the original drawings." The foremen sent by Mr. Thomas to install the system did not conclude that two parallel pipes were required. They installed only one. An expert called by FEMC, Larry Simmons, an expert in professional engineering, stated unequivocally in this case that using Mr. Maples' drawings and calculations, he could not determine that a second 61-foot long, 1 and 1/4-inch pipe was called for by the plans. Judge Dean was not misled by Mr. Maples' testimony in Case No. 05-2049PL, with regard to the pipe. This was indicated by his acknowledgement in Finding of Fact 8 in his Recommended Order that the intent to have two pipes, "was not adequately shown in the original drawings." Judge Dean was not called as a witness so that he could reveal if he was misled based on the information that became available after the hearing in Case No. 05-2049PL. It was not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Maples was "untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional statement or testimony." As will be discussed in detail below, Mr. Maples engaged in misconduct in the practice of engineering by expressing an opinion publicly on an engineering subject without being informed as to the facts relating thereto.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board find that Respondent Lester M. Maples did not violate Section 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes, but that he offered an opinion publicly on an engineering subject without being informed as to the facts relating thereto in violation of the prohibitions contained in Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that he be reprimanded, placed on two years' probation, and ordered to pay an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 28th day of April, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Alvin L. Peters, Esquire Peters & Scoon 25 East 8th Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Doug Sunshine, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Sabal Trail is entitled to the proposed Environmental Resource Permit and Easement to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands to construct a natural gas pipeline.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, WWALS, is a Georgia not-for-profit corporation registered with the Florida Department of State as a Foreign Not For Profit Corporation. Its mailing address is in Hahira, Georgia. WWALS’ mission is to advocate for conservation and stewardship of the Withlacoochee, Willacoochee, Alapaha, Little, and Upper Suwannee River watersheds in South Georgia and North Florida. WWALS stated in its petition that it has a total of 85 members, 36 of whom reside in Florida. The total number of WWALS members was not established at the final hearing. If members that joined WWALS after it filed its petition for hearing are included, WWALS has about 40 members living in Hamilton County and Suwannee County. Sabal Trail is a Delaware limited liability company that is registered to do business in the State of Florida. It is the applicant for the authorizations that are challenged by Petitioner. The Department is the state agency charged with administering the Environmental Resource Permitting program under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-4 and 62-330. The Department is also the state agency authorized by chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21, to review and authorize certain uses of state- owned submerged lands. General Project Description Sabal Trail proposes to construct an interstate natural gas pipeline. The primary purpose of the pipeline is to support electric power generation in Florida. The pipeline would start in the vicinity of a Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company station in Tallapoosa County in Alabama. The portion of the pipeline in Florida would cross twelve Florida counties, entering the state in Hamilton County and terminating in Osceola County. The pipeline would include 232.75 miles of 36-inch diameter pipe for the Mainline Route, 13.1 miles of 36–inch diameter pipe for the Hunter’s Creek Line, and 21.5 miles of 24- inch pipe for the Citrus County Line. The pipe used would be made of high-strength ductile carbon steel. The project would include construction and operation of three compressor stations and three meter and regulation stations in Florida. There would also be access roads, pig launcher and receiver stations, mainline valves, and pipe storage/work areas. Most of the pipeline would be installed using a conventional “cut and cover” technique, which means a trench is excavated, sections of pipe are placed in the trench and connected, and the trench is backfilled with soil excavated from the trench. However, waterbodies along the route, including the Suwannee River and Santa Fe River, would be crossed using Horizontal Directional Drilling (“HDD”). The HDD method involves boring a pilot hole beneath the waterbody and then enlarging the hole with one or more passes of a reamer until the hole is large enough to pull a prefabricated pipe segment through the hole. The pipeline would be installed more than 40 feet beneath the Suwannee River and Santa Fe River. During HDD operations, drilling fluid or “mud” is used to lubricate the drill head, and remove cuttings from the hole. Drilling mud is a non-toxic, naturally occurring, bentonite clay, which is commonly used for drilling water wells. The pipeline will require a permanent 50-foot right-of- way. Because the construction would require digging trenches through wetlands, drilling under riverbeds, and construction of stormwater management systems for the various stations, an environmental resource permit from the Department must be obtained for the work. Because some construction is over state- owned submerged lands, authorization from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund is also required. Route Selection The pipeline route was selected based on environmental and cultural resource factors and co-location opportunities with existing utility rights-of-way. The proposed route was modified many times to reduce environmental impacts and respond to landowner requests. The pipeline runs parallel to two existing natural gas pipelines that cross the Santa Fe River. The closest major spring to the pipeline route would be Madison Blue Spring, 1.7 miles away. The route is closer to some smaller springs, but it would not cross near spring vents or areas of concentrated spring flow. The pipeline would cross above the Falmouth Cave system. However, the pipeline would be only four-to-six feet beneath the land surface. The cave system is more than 100 feet below ground. Sabal Trail reduced or eliminated impacts to wetlands and waterbodies along the pipeline route, but the project would result in unavoidable temporary and permanent losses of portions of wetlands along the route. The functional loss of wetland functions, as calculated under the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (“UMAM”), would be offset by Sabal Trail’s purchase of credits from approved wetland mitigation banks. Petitioner’s Objections The primary concern of WWALS and its members is the possibility of environmental impacts arising from the construction of the pipeline in karst terrain. Karst terrain, which is limestone undergoing dissolution and characterized by the formation in the limestone of holes, cracks, fissures, conduits, and sinkholes, is common in North Florida and throughout the State. Although fragile in particular locations, karst terrain is able to support large linear facilities in North Florida such as Interstate 10, Interstate 75, and railroads, which bear loads of many tons without collapses occurring in the underlying limestone. Sabal Trail conducted geophysical tests, evaluated the potential for sinkhole formation, developed drilling best management practices, and prepared a karst mitigation plan to address potential adverse circumstances that might arise during construction of the pipeline. The pipeline design specifications provide reasonable assurance that the formation of a sinkhole along the path of the pipeline would not cause it to break. It is in the interests of Sabal Trail to build and operate the pipeline so that breaks or disruptions of service do not occur. There are existing natural gas pipelines that were constructed under the Suwannee River and Santa Fe River. A geologist with the Florida Geological Survey testified that he was unaware of any adverse impacts that have been associated with these other pipelines. WWALS presented no evidence of adverse impacts that have been caused by similar pipelines in similar areas. Petitioner’s members are afraid the pipeline will cause adverse impacts because of its construction in karst terrain, but with the exception of four WWALS members whose properties would be crossed by the pipeline, the concerns expressed by members about how they would be affected were vague and speculative. Not all of the potential pipeline impacts described by WWALS members were vague or speculative, but the members’ injuries were vague and speculative. For example, it was not adequately explained how a sinkhole, if one were to occur along the route of the pipeline, would affect them. WWALS expressed concerns about water quality, but the use of drilling mud and grout for the HDD operations is unlikely to affect the residential water wells of any member or non- member. Nor would it affect the water quality of the rivers under which the pipeline is installed, because the amount of drilling mud and grout is so small in relation to groundwater volumes. WWALS expressed general concerns about fish and wildlife impacts, but no member identified any particular wetland impact caused by construction of the pipeline that would directly affect him or her and Petitioner presented no competent evidence to refute the UMAM assessment or the reasonableness of the proposed mitigation. No competent evidence was presented about the possibility that HDD drilling under the rivers could result in adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Some WWALS members testified they use and enjoy the rivers and surrounding area, but the concerns about adverse impacts to their use and enjoyment were speculative, being based on the proposition that a sinkhole or other disruption of the limestone will be caused by the construction of the pipeline and it will cause a change in the rivers or land to a degree that their use and enjoyment of the rivers or land will be materially diminished. Petitioner did not establish the connection between pipeline impacts and interference with members’ use of area waters. One member testified he has an organic farm and believes it would be adversely affected by air pollution from a proposed compressor station for the pipeline, but there is a separate permit associated with the air quality impacts of the pipeline. Air quality is not a cognizable issue in this proceeding. A few members believe there could be impacts that would adversely affect their business interests, which are not interests that this proceeding was designed to protect. Although a substantial number of WWALS members have substantial interests in the use and enjoyment of the waters and environment of Hamilton County and Suwannee County, a showing of potential injury to those interests was only established in the record for four WWALS members--the four who own land that the pipeline will cross. Four members is not a substantial number when compared to the total number of WWALS members living in Hamilton County and Suwannee County, which is about forty. Public Interest For projects located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such activities significantly degrade or are within an Outstanding Florida Water, are clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the criteria set forth in rule 62-330.302. Rule 62-330.302(1)(a) lists seven public interest factors to be considered and balanced: 1 Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. Petitioner presented no competent evidence to refute the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the pipeline project would not result in adverse impacts on public health, safety, or welfare. Beyond general, undisputed evidence about the characteristics of karst geology, no competent evidence was presented by Petitioner to show that a karst-related impact could occur that would affect its members. Petitioner presented no competent evidence to refute the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the pipeline would not cause adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Petitioner presented no competent evidence to refute the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the project would not cause adverse impacts to navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Petitioner presented no competent evidence to refute the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the project would not cause adverse impacts to fishing or recreational values or marine productivity. It is undisputed that some of the pipeline impacts and the pipeline, itself, will be of a permanent nature. Petitioner presented no competent evidence to refute the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the proposed pipeline would not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources. Petitioner presented no competent evidence to refute the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the proposed pipeline would not adversely affect the current condition and relative value of environmental functions being performed in the area that would not be fully mitigated. Considering the seven public interest factors listed above, the proposed pipeline is not contrary to the public interest. The Suwannee River and Santa Fe River have been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. Any activities that would affect them must be shown to be clearly in the public interest. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, demonstrating that a project is clearly in the public interest requires greater assurance that all permitting requirements will be complied with. Sabal Trail showed clearly that it will comply with all permitting criteria. Rule 62-4.242 prohibits the degradation of water quality in an Outstanding Florida Water. Sabal Trail and the Department showed the construction and operation of the pipeline would not degrade the water quality of the Suwannee River or Santa Fe River. Rule 18-21.004(1)(a) requires that activities on sovereignty submerged lands not be contrary to the public interest. Rule 18-21.003(51) defines public interest in this context as: Demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic cost of the proposed action. Therefore, to obtain authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands easement, an applicant must create a net public benefit. Sabal Trail and the Department demonstrated the project creates a net public benefit because it would not have adverse environmental impacts that would not be fully mitigated and the project addresses a need determined by the Public Service Commission for additional natural gas transportation capacity into Florida, enhancement of natural gas supply diversity and reliability, and increased competition for natural gas transportation services. WWALS contends the proposed project would conflict with rule 18-21.004(2)(a), which requires that all sovereignty submerged lands be primarily managed to maintain “essentially natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming.” However, WWALS presented no competent evidence to show that any sovereignty submerged lands would lose their essential natural conditions, that fish and wildlife propagation would be diminished, or that traditional recreational uses would be interfered with. The proposed project complies with the requirement of rule 18-21.004(2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order that approves issuance of Environmental Resource Permit No. 0328333-001 and grants an easement to use sovereign submerged lands to Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC, for the Sabal Trail Natural Gas Pipeline. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard S. Brightman, Esquire Timothy M. Riley, Esquire H. French Brown, IV, Esquire Hopping, Green and Sams Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Gus McLachlan Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC Suite 300 400 Colonial Center Parkway Lake Mary, Florida 32746 John S. Quarterman, President WWALS Watershed Coalition, Inc. Post Office Box 88 Hahira, Georgia 31632 (eServed) Jack Chisolm, Esquire Sidney C. Bigham, III, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) William R. Wohlsifer, Esquire Leighanne C. Boone, Esquire William R. Wohlsifer, P.A. 1100 East Park Avenue, Suite B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Jonathan P. Steverson, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Craig Varn, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Did the site in question fail to meet monitoring and retrofitting requirements within the schedules established under Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, and thereby not be eligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program?
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 was enacted as Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, and codified primarily in Section 376. 071, Florida Statutes. It provides for the expeditious cleanup of property contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum product. As part of the SUPER Act, the legislature created the program which is of direct relevance in this litigation. The EDI Program, Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes,, provides for state cleanups of sites contaminated as a result of a discharge from a petroleum storage system. Petitioner now owns and operates a facility at Route 1, Box 167 Jay, Florida. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The facility contains two underground petroleum storage tanks which were installed on or before 1970. (T8, 9). Monitoring wells were installed for the tanks in December, 1988. (T7). Monitoring wells are pipes which are installed in the ground around a tank excavation to allow for detection of leaks from the tanks. (T8).
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the site owned by Petitioner be determined to be ineligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program, pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-15SO (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Mr. Thomas L. MCNAUGHTON MCNAUGHTON's Store Route 1 Jay, FL 32565 Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether DNR should establish an exceptional drilling unit or units in order to prevent waste and to avoid the . . . risks . . . from . . . an excessive number of wells, Section 377.25(2), Florida Statutes (1983)? The respondents expressly declined to raise any question as to the petitioners' standing or party status.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner W. J. Jordan and apparently all the other petitioners are owners of mineral rights under the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 13, Township 5 North, Range 29 West, Santa Rosa County, Florida. T. R. Miller owns the mineral rights under the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 13 and has leased them to Smackco. Near the center of the southeast quarter of Section 13 (the existing unit) respondent Smackco drilled the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well. NOT COMMERCIALLY PRODUCTIVE Smackco drilled the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well down to the Norphlet formation and went 49 feet further, into the Norphlet sands, before giving up its efforts to extract oil from the well. Although Smackco did find a mixture containing 28 to 30 percent hydrocarbons, the hydrostatic head precluded commercial production. If the well had come in, royalties would have inured to the benefit of petitioners, T. R. Miller, and the owners of the mineral rights under the southern half of the existing unit. Although the evidence showed that extracting oil from the L. W. Roberts 13-4 well was not commercially feasible now, it did not establish that the price of oil will never rise to the point that production would make economic sense. ADDITIONAL DATA At least three other oil wells have been drilled at the Mount Carmel Prospect in Township 5 North, Range 29 West, Santa Rosa County, Florida. In keeping with applicable statutes and rules, these wells are also located at or near the center of their respective quarter sections. Except where no governmental sections are laid out (offshore or in Spanish land grants), or where all rights affected by a change are in one ownership, DNR has adhered to the concededly arbitrary use of quarter sections as drilling units. Information gained from the wells drilled at the Mt. Carmel Prospect, and from seismic tests performed there formed the basis for uncontroverted expert opinion that a sandy mass, known to geologists as the Norphlet structure, lies almost three miles below the earth's surface; and that a pool of oil floats on salt water within the Norphlet structure, as shown in the Appendix to this order. The L. W. Roberts 13-4 is on the northern edge of the pool that the geologists hypothesize. The geophysicist's testimony that the Jay fault running northwest southeast and the smaller almost perpendicular fault running off to the northeast lie approximately as depicted in the Appendix was also uncontroverted. These faults may act as walls keeping oil on one side. The faults themselves do not hold oil. THE NEXT WELL If a new well were drilled in the center of the northwest quarter of Section 16, at a point one half mile due south of the L. W. Roberts 13-4, see Appendix, it would be near the western edge of the pool of oil, if the geologists are right. (If the geologists are wrong, drilling there might mean hitting the fault zone, as happened with the Franks Pittman well.) Drilling a quarter mile north, at the center of the first proposed drilling unit, would reduce the risk of hitting the fault, and might make commercial production of a substantial amount of oil possible. DRAINAGE LIKELY Smackco's geophysicist conceded that hydrocarbons at the L. W. Roberts 13-4 and hydrocarbons under the northwest quarter of the existing unit "very possibly" will migrate to a well in the center of the proposed drilling unit, if hydrocarbons are extracted in large quantities there. A well of the kind and to the depth contemplated can be expected to drain 160 acres more or less. The geologists cannot know precisely what the situation is three miles down on the basis of the information they have at hand. They may be mistaken now about the location of oil just as they were when they recommended earlier well sites in the Mt. Carmel Prospect.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DNR deny Smackco's petition for exceptional drilling units. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: James Reddick, Esquire and Dan Stewart, Esquire Suite 5 808 Caroline Street, Southeast Milton, Florida 32570 J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esquire and Spencer Mitchem, Esquire Beggs & Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576-2950 Charles J. Hardee, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Department of Natural Resources Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303 * NOTE: Original Recommended Order has an appendix map which is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office.
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 to be determined is whether the applicant, Kanter Real Estate, LLC (Kanter), is entitled to issuance of an Oil and Gas Drilling Permit, No. OG 1366 (the Permit).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Kanter is a foreign limited liability company registered to do business in the State of Florida. Kanter owns 20,000 acres of property in western Broward County, on which it seeks authorization for the drilling of a vertical exploratory well. The exploratory well is to be located on a five-acre site that is subject to an ERP (the Well Site). The Department is the state agency with the power and duty to regulate activities related to the management and storage of surface waters pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and to regulate oil and gas resources, including the permitting of activities related to the exploration for and extraction of such resources, pursuant to chapter 377, Florida Statutes. Miramar is a Florida municipal corporation located in Broward County, Florida. Broward County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with jurisdiction extending to the Kanter property and the Well Site. The Application On July 2, 2015, Kanter submitted its Application for Permit to Drill (Application) to the Department. The proposed Well Site is on land to which Kanter owns the surface rights and subsurface mineral rights. The Application contemplates the drilling of an exploratory well to a depth of approximately 11,800 feet. The Application is not for a production well. The well is to be drilled, and ancillary activities are to be performed on a fill pad of approximately five acres, surrounded by a three-foot high perimeter berm on three sides and the L67-A levee on the fourth. The pad is the subject of an ERP which, as set forth in the Preliminary Statement, is not being challenged. The pad is designed to contain the 100-year, three-day storm. The engineering design incorporates a graded area, berm, and containment with a water control structure and a gated culvert to manipulate the water if necessary. The entire pad is to be covered by a 20 mil PVC liner, is sloped to the center, and includes a steel and concrete sump for the collection of any incidental spills. The pad was designed to contain the full volume of all liquids, including drilling fluid, fuel, and lubricating oil, that are in tanks and containers on the facility. The Application includes technical reports, seismic data, and information regarding the geology and existing producing oil wells of the Upper Sunniland Formation, which Kanter filed for the purpose of demonstrating an indicated likelihood of the presence of oil at the proposed site. The third Request for Additional Information (RAI) did not request additional information regarding the indicated likelihood of the presence of oil at the proposed site. After it submitted its response to the third RAI, Kanter notified the Department of its belief that additional requests were not authorized by law. As a result, the Department completed the processing of the Application without additional RAI’s. On November 16, 2016, the Department entered its Notice of Denial of the Oil and Gas Drilling Permit. The sole basis for denial was that Kanter failed to provide information showing a balance of considerations in favor of issuance pursuant to section 377.241.1/ There was no assertion that the Application failed to meet any standard established by applicable Department rules, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30. In particular, the parties included the following stipulations of fact in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation which are, for purposes of this proceeding, deemed as established: The structure intended for the drilling or production of Kanter’s exploratory oil well is not located in any of the following: a municipality; in tidal waters within 3 miles of a municipality; on an improved beach; on any submerged land within a bay, estuary, or offshore waters; within one mile seaward of the coastline of the state; within one mile seaward of the boundary of a local, state or federal park or an aquatic or wildlife preserve; on the surface of a freshwater lake, river or stream; within one mile inland from the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean or any bay or estuary; or within one mile of any freshwater lake, river or stream. The location of Kanter’s proposed oil well is not: within the corporate limits of any municipality; in the tidal waters of the state, abutting or immediately adjacent to the corporate limits of a municipality or within 3 miles of such corporate limits extending from the line of mean high tide into such waters; on any improved beach, located outside of an incorporated town or municipality, or at a location in the tidal waters of the state abutting or immediately adjacent to an improved beach, or within 3 miles of an improved beach extending from the line of mean high tide into such tidal waters; south of 26°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s west coast and south of 27°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s east coast, within the boundaries of Florida’s territorial seas as defined in 43 U.S.C. 1301; north of 26°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s west coast to the western boundary of the state bordering Alabama as set forth in s. 1, Art. II of the State Constitution; or north of 27°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s east coast to the northern boundary of the state bordering Georgia as set forth in s. 1, Art. II of the State Constitution, within the boundaries of Florida’s territorial seas as defined in 43 U.S.C. 1301. 19. The proposed oil well site does not contain Florida panther habitat and is located outside of the primary and secondary habitat zones for the Florida panther. 21. There are no recorded archaeological sites or other historic resources recorded within the area of the proposed oil well site. Kanter submitted a payment of $8,972.00 for its oil and gas permit application on June 30, 2016 pursuant to Rule 62C- 26.002(5)(c), F.A.C. Kanter’s application includes sufficient information and commitments for performance bonds and securities. DEP and Intervenors do not claim that the application lacks the information required in rule 62C-26.002, F.A.C. Kanter’s application includes an organization report that satisfies the requirements of rule 62C-26.003(3), F.A.C. Kanter’s engineering aspects of the site plan for the proposed project site, are appropriate. Kanter’s survey submitted to DEP in support of its application includes a suitable location plat which meets the minimum technical standards for land surveys. Kanter’s application includes an appropriate description of the planned well completion. DEP and Intervenors do not claim that the drilling application lacks the information required by rule 62C-26.003, F.A.C. Kanter’s Application proposes using existing levees to provide access to the proposed Kanter well site. Kanter did not propose to construct additional roads for access. Kanter’s proposed well site is located 332 feet from the L67-A levee, which serves as a roadway for trucks used to perform operations and maintenance on the levees and canals in the area. Kanter’s application does not lack any information required by DEP with respect to the location of roads, pads, or other facilities; nor does it lack any information regarding the minimization of impacts with respect to the location of roads. DEP and Intervenors do not contend that the permit should be denied based upon the proposed “spacing” of the well, or drilling unit, as that term is used in rule 62C-26.004, F.A.C. Kanter’s application includes appropriate plans for the construction of mud tanks, reserve pits, and dikes. Kanter agrees to a reasonable permit condition requiring that if water is to be transported on-site, that it will add additional tanks for the purpose of meeting water needs that would arise during the drilling process. Kanter’s design of the integrated casing, cementing, drilling mud, and blowout prevention programs is based upon sound engineering principles, and takes into account all relevant geologic and engineering data and information. Kanter’s proposed casing plan includes an additional casing string proposed in its response to DEP’s Third Request for Additional Information. This casing plan meets or exceeds the requirements of 62C-27.005, F.A.C. Kanter’s proposed casing and cementing program, as modified, meets or exceeds all applicable statutory and rule criteria.[2/] Kanter’s response and documents provided in response to DEP’s 3rd RAI satisfactorily resolved DEP’s concern regarding the risk of passage of water between different confining layers and aquifers resulting from the physical act of drilling through the layers of water and the intervening soil or earth. Kanter’s application includes a sufficient lost circulation plan. Kanter’s application is not deficient with respect to specific construction requirements which are intended to prevent subsurface discharges. Kanter’s drilling fluids plan is appropriate and is not deficient. Kanter’s blowout prevention equipment and procedures are appropriate and are not deficient. Kanter’s plans for blowout prevention are not insufficient. Kanter’s proposed oil pad is above the 100 year flood elevation and under normally expected circumstances would not be inundated by water if constructed as proposed in Kanter’s application. Kanter’s application includes a Hydrogen Sulfide Safety Plan that includes standards which are consistent with the onshore oil and gas industry standards set forth in the American Petroleum Institutes’ Recommended Practice. DEP and Intervenors do not claim any insufficiencies with respect to Kanter’s Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Contingency Plan, the sufficiency of secondary containment, its construction plans for a protective berm around the drilling site and storage tank areas of sufficient height and impermeability to prevent the escape of pad fluid, its pollution prevention plan, its safety manual, or its spill prevention and cleanup plan. DEP and Intervenors do not contend that the permitting of the well would violate section 377.242(1), F.S., regarding permits for the drilling for, exploring for, or production of oil, gas, or other petroleum products which are to be extracted from below the surface of the land only through the well hole(s). DEP and Intervenors do not contend that Kanter’s application violates the applicable rule criteria for oil and gas permitting set forth in Chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30, Florida Administrative Code. In addition to the foregoing, Kanter is not seeking or requesting authorization to perform “fracking,” and has agreed to a permit condition that would prohibit fracking. As a result of the foregoing, the parties have agreed that the Application meets or exceeds all criteria for an exploratory oil well permit under chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30. The Property Kanter owns two parcels of land totaling 20,000 acres in the area of the proposed Well Site: a northern parcel consisting of approximately 11,000 acres and a southern parcel consisting of approximately 9,000 acres. Kanter assembled its holdings through a series of acquisitions by deeds from 1975 to 1996. The Well Site is to be located within the southern parcel. On August 7, 1944, Kanter’s predecessor in title, Dallas Investment Co., acquired by tax deed all interests in a parcel within the 9,000-acre southern parcel described as “All Section 23 Township 51 South, Range 38 East, 640 Acres,” including, without reservation, the oil, gas, minerals, and phosphate. The evidence of title submitted as part of the Application indicates that a “Kanter” entity first became possessed of rights in Section 23 in 1975. By virtue of a series of transactions extending into 1996, Kanter currently holds fee title to all surface rights, and title to all mineral rights, including rights to oil, gas, and other mineral interests, within Section 23 Township 51 South, Range 38 East. The Well Site specified in the Application is within Section 23, Township 51 South, Range 38 East. Kanter’s property is encumbered by a Flowage Easement that was granted to the Central and Southern Flood Control District in 1950, and is presently held by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The Flowage Easement guarantees Kanter access to the entire easement property “for the exploration or drilling for, or the developing, producing, storing or removing of oil, gas or other . . . in accordance with sound engineering principles.” Kanter has the legal property right to locate and drill the well, and the exploratory well is consistent with Kanter’s ownership interest. The Well Site is located in a 160-acre (quarter section) portion of the 640-acre tract described above, and is within a “routine drilling unit,” which is the block of land surrounding and assigned to a well. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62C-25.002(20) and 62C-25.002(40). The Kanter property, including the Well Site, is in the historic Everglades. Before efforts to drain portions of the Everglades for development and agricultural uses, water flowed naturally in a southerly direction through land dominated by sawgrass and scattered tree islands. The tree islands were generally shaped by the direction of the water flow. Beginning as early as the late 1800s, dramatically increasing after the hurricane of 1947, and extending well into the 1960s, canals, levees, dikes, and channels were constructed to drain, impound, or reroute the historic flows. Those efforts have led to the vast system of water control structures and features that presently exist in south Florida. The Well Site, and the Kanter property as a whole, is located in Water Conservation Area (WCA)-3. WCA-3 is located in western Broward County and northwestern Miami-Dade County. It was constructed as part of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project authorized by Congress in 1948, and was created primarily for flood control and water supply. In the early 1960s, two levees, L67-A and L67-C, were constructed on a line running in a northeast to southwest direction. When constructed, the levees separated WCA-3 into WCA-3A to the west and WCA-3B to the southeast. The Well Site is in WCA-3A.3/ The area between L67-A and L67-C, along with a levee along the Miami Canal, is known as the “Pocket.” There is no water control in the Pocket. Although there is a structure at the south end of the Pocket, it is in disrepair, is rarely -- if ever -- operated, and may, in fact, be inoperable. The Well Site is located within the Pocket, on the southern side of L67-A. L67-A and L67-C, and their associated internal and external canals, have dramatically disrupted sheet flow, altered hydrology, and degraded the natural habitat in the Pocket. Water inputs and outputs are entirely driven by rainfall into the Pocket, and evaporation and transpiration from the Pocket. From a hydrologic perspective, the Pocket is entirely isolated from WCA-3A and WCA-3B. The Pocket is impacted by invasive species, which have overrun the native species endemic to the area and transformed the area into a monoculture of cattails. Vegetation that grows in the Pocket dies in the Pocket. Therefore, there is a layer of decomposing vegetative muck, ooze, and sediment from knee deep to waist deep in the Pocket, which is atypical of a functioning Everglades system. L67-A and L67-C, and their associated internal and external canals, impede wildlife movement, interfering with or preventing life functions of many native wildlife species. The proposed Well Site, and the surrounding Kanter property, is in a rural area where future residential or business development is highly unlikely. The property is removed from urban and industrial areas and is not known to have been used for agriculture. The Department has previously permitted oil wells within the greater Everglades, in areas of a more pristine environmental nature, character, and location than the Pocket. The Raccoon Point wellfield is located 24 miles west of the Proposed Project Site within the Big Cypress National Preserve. It is within a more natural system and has not undergone significant hydrologic changes such as the construction of canals, levees, ditches, and dikes and, therefore, continues to experience a normal hydrologic flow. Mr. Gottfried testified that at Raccoon Point, “you can see the vegetation is maintaining itself because the fact that we don’t have levees, ditches canals, dikes, impacting the area. So you have a diversity of plant life. You have tree islands still. You have the normal flow going down.” The greater weight of evidence shows that the Kanter Well Site is far less ecologically sensitive than property at Raccoon Point on which the Department has previously permitted both exploration and production wells. The Biscayne Aquifer The Biscayne Aquifer exists in almost all of Miami- Dade County, most of Broward County and a portion of the southern end of Palm Beach County. It is thickest along the coast, and thinnest and shallowest on the west side of those counties. The western limit of the Biscayne Aquifer lies beneath the Well Site. The Biscayne Aquifer is a sole-source aquifer and primary drinking water source for southeast Florida. A network of drainage canals, including the L-30, L-31, L-33, and Miami Canals, lie to the east of WCA-3B, and east of the Well Site. Those canals penetrate into the substratum and form a hydrologic buffer for wellfields east of the Well Site, including that operated by Miramar, and isolate the portions of the Biscayne Aquifer near public wellfields from potential impacts originating from areas to their west. The canals provide a “much more hydraulically available source” of water for public wellfields than water from western zones of the Biscayne Aquifer, and in that way create a buffer between areas on either side of the canals. The Pocket is not a significant recharge zone for the Biscayne Aquifer. There is a confining unit comprised of organic soils, muck, and Lake Flint Marl separating the Pocket and the Well Site from the Fort Thompson formation of the Biscayne Aquifer. There is a layer of at least five feet of confining muck under the L67-A levee in the area of the Well Site, a layer that is thicker in the Pocket. The Well Site is not within any 30-day or 120-day protection zones in place for local water supply wells. The fact that the proposed well will penetrate the Biscayne Aquifer does not create a significant risk of contamination of the Biscayne Aquifer. The drilling itself is no different than that done for municipal disposal wells that penetrate through the aquifer much closer to areas of water production than is the Well Site. The extensive casing and cementing program to be undertaken by Kanter provides greater protection for the well, and thus for the aquifer, than is required by the Department’s rules. A question as to the “possibility” that oil could get into the groundwater was answered truthfully in the affirmative “in the definition of possible.” However, given the nature of the aquifer at the Well Site, the hydrological separation of the Well Site and well from the Biscayne Aquifer, both due to the on-site confining layer and to the intervening canals, the degree of casing and cementing, and the full containment provided by the pad, the testimony of Mr. Howard that “it would be very difficult to put even a fairly small amount of risk to the likelihood that oil leaking at that site might possibly actually end up in a well at Miramar” is accepted. The Sunniland Formation The Sunniland Formation is a geologic formation which exists in a region of South Florida known as the South Florida Basin. It is characterized by alternating series of hydrocarbon-containing source rock, dolomite, and limestone of varying porosity and permeability and evaporite anhydrite or mudstone seal deposits. It has Upper Sunniland and Lower Sunniland strata, and generally exists at a depth of up to 12,000 feet below land surface (bls) in the area of the Well Site. Underlying the Sunniland Formation is a formation generally referred to as the “basement.” The basement exists at a depth of 17,000-18,000 feet bls. Oil is produced from organic rich carbonate units within the Lower Cretaceous Sunniland Formation, also known as the Dark Shale Unit of the Sunniland Formation. The oil produced in the Sunniland Formation is generally a product of prehistoric deposits of algae. Over millennia, and under the right conditions of time and pressure, organic material is converted to hydrocarbon oil. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that active generating source rock capable of producing hydrocarbons exists in the Sunniland Formation beneath the Kanter property. The preponderance of the evidence also indicates that the oil generated in the Sunniland Formation is at a sufficient depth that it is preserved from microbial degradation, which generally occurs in shallower reservoirs. The Upper Sunniland Formation was formed in the Cretaceous geological period, between 106 and 100 million years ago. Over that period, sea levels rose and fell dramatically, allowing colonies of rudists (a now extinct reef-building clam) and oysters to repeatedly form and die off. Over time, the colonies formed bioherms, which are reef-like buildups of shell elevated off of the base of the sea floor. Over millennia, the bioherms were exposed to conditions, including wave action and exposure to air and rainwater, that enhanced the porosity of the component rudist and oyster shell. Those “patch reefs” were subsequently buried by other materials that formed an impermeable layer over the porous rudist and oyster mounds, and allowed those mounds to become “traps” for oil migrating up from lower layers. A trap is a geological feature that consists of a porous layer overlain by an impervious layer of rock that forms a seal. A trap was described, simplistically, as an upside down bowl. Oil, being lighter than water, floats. As oil is generated in source rock, it migrates up through subterranean water until it encounters a trapping formation with the ability to create a reservoir, and with an impervious layer above the porous layer to seal the trap and prevent further migration, thus allowing the “bowl” to fill. The reservoir is the layer or structure with sufficient porosity and permeability to allow oil to accumulate with its pores. The thickness of the layer determines the volume of oil that the reservoir is capable of retaining. Although rudist mounds are generally considered to be more favorable as traps due to typically higher porosity, oyster mound traps are correlated to producing wells in the Sunniland Formation and are primary producers in the Felda field and the Seminole field. The Lower Sunniland Formation is a fractured carbonate stratum, described by Mr. Aldrich as a rubble zone. It is not a traditional structural trap. Rather, it consists of fractured and crumbling rock thought to be created by basement shear zones or deep-seated fault zones. It has the same source rock as the Upper Sunniland. There is little information on traps in the Lower Sunniland, though there are two fields that produce from that formation. A “play” is a group of prospects or potential prospects that have the same source rock, the same reservoir rock, the same trap style, and the same seal rock to hold in the hydrocarbons. The producing oil fields in the Sunniland Formation, including Raccoon Point, Sunniland, Felda, West Felda, and Lake Trafford are part of a common play known as the Sunniland Trend. The Sunniland Trend is an area of limestone of greater porosity within the Sunniland Formation, and provides a reasonable extrapolation of areas that may be conducive to oil traps. The Sunniland Trend extends generally from Manatee County on the west coast of Florida southeasterly into Broward County and the northwestern portion of Miami-Dade County on the east coast of Florida. The trend corresponds to the ancient Cretaceous shoreline where rudist and oyster bioherms formed as described above. In 2003, the “Mitchell-Tapping” report, named after the husband and wife team, identified two separate trends within the Sunniland Trend, the rudist-dominant West Felda Trend, and the more oyster-based Felda Trend. Both are oil-producing strata. The Felda Trend is more applicable to the Kanter property. Throughout the Sunniland Trend, hydrocarbon reservoirs exist within brown dolomite deposits and rudist and oyster mounds. Dolomite is a porous limestone, and is the reservoir rock found at the productive Raccoon Point oil wellfield. The evidence indicates that a brown dolomite layer of approximately 20 feet underlies the Well Site, and extends in all directions from the Well Site. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Kanter property, including the Well Site, is within the Sunniland Trend and its Felda Trend subset.4/ Oil produced from wells in the Sunniland Trend is typically thick, and is not under pressure. The oil does not rise through a bore hole to the surface, but must be pumped. The Raccoon Point Field, which is the closest productive and producing wellfield to the proposed Well Site, is located approximately 24 miles to the west of the Well Site, within the Sunniland Trend. Raccoon Point contains numerous well sites, of which four or five are currently producing, and has produced in the range of 20 million barrels of oil since it began operation in the late 1970s. Cumulative production of oil from proven fields in the South Florida Basin, including fields in the Sunniland Formation, is estimated to be in excess of 160 million barrels. Estimates from the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) indicate that 25 new fields capable of producing five million barrels of oil each are expected to be found within the Lower Cretaceous Shoal Reef Oil Assessment Unit, which extends into the Kanter property. Estimates of the potential reserves reach as high as an additional 200 million barrels of oil. The Dollar Bay Formation Another formation that has potential for oil production is the Lower Cretaceous Dollar Bay Formation, also in the South Florida Basin. The Dollar Bay Formation exists beneath the Kanter property at a shallower depth than the Sunniland Formation, generally at a depth of 10,000 feet in the vicinity of the Well Site. Most of the Dollar Bay prospects are on the east side of the South Florida Basin. Most of the wells in the South Florida Basin are on the west side. Thus, there has not been much in the way of exploration in the Dollar Bay Formation, so there is a lack of data on traps. Dollar Bay has been identified as a known oil-bearing play by the USGS. It is a self-source play, so the source comes from the Dollar Bay Formation itself. Dollar Bay exists both as potential and mature rock. It has known areas of very high total organic content (TOC) source rock; logged reservoir in the formation; and seal rock. There have been three oil finds in the Dollar Bay formation, with at least one commercial production well. Kanter will have to drill through the Dollar Bay Formation to get to the Upper Sunniland formation, thus allowing for the collection of information as to the production potential of the prospect. Although Dollar Bay is not generally the main “target” of the Permit, its potential is not zero. Thus, consideration of the Dollar Bay Formation as a factor in the calculation of risk/success that goes into the decision to drill an exploratory well is appropriate. Initial Exploratory Activities In 1989, Shell Western E&P, Inc. (Shell), conducted extensive seismic exploration in south Florida. Among the areas subject to seismic mapping were two lines -- one line of 36,000 feet mapped along the L67-A levee, directly alongside the Well Site, and the other of approximately 10 miles in length along the Miami Canal levee. The lines intersect on the Kanter property just north of the Well Site. The proposed exploration well is proposed to extend less than 12,000 feet deep. The seismic mapping performed by Shell was capable of producing useful data to that depth. The seismic methodology utilized by Shell produced data with a high degree of vertical and spatial resolution. Given its quality, the Shell data is very reliable. Shell did not use the seismic data generated in the 1980s, and ultimately abandoned activity in the area in favor of larger prospects, leaving the smaller fields typical of south Florida for smaller independent oil companies. The Shell seismic data was purchased by Seismic Exchange, a data brokerage company. In 2014, Kanter purchased the seismic data from Seismic Exchange for the lines that ran through its property. With the purchase, Kanter received the original field tapes, the support data, including surveyors’ notes and observer sheets which describe how the data was acquired, and the recorded data. As a result of advances in computer analysis since the data was collected, the seismic data can be more easily and accurately evaluated. It is not unusual for companies to make decisions on whether to proceed with exploration wells with two lines of seismic data. Mr. Lakin reviewed the data, and concluded that it showed a very promising area in the vicinity of the L67-A levee that was, in his opinion, sufficient to continue with permitting an exploratory oil well. Mr. Lakin described the seismic information in support of the Application as “excellent data,” an assessment that is well-supported and accepted. Mr. Pollister reviewed the two lines of seismic data and opined that the information supports a conclusion that the site is a “great prospect” for producing oil in such quantities as to warrant the exploration and extraction of such products on a commercially profitable basis. Seismic Data Analysis The seismic lines purchased by Kanter consist of line 970, which runs southwest to northeast along the L67-A levee, and a portion of line 998, which runs from northwest to southeast along the Miami Canal levee. The lines intersect at the intersection of the two levees. The data depicts, among others, the seismic reflection from the strata of the Sunniland Trend, and the seismic reflection from the basement. The depiction of the Sunniland Trend shows a discernable rise in the level of the strata, underlain by a corresponding rise in the basement strata. This rise is known as an anticline. An anticline is a location along a geologic strata at which there is an upheaval that tends to form one of the simplest oil traps that one can find using seismic data. In the South Florida Basin, anticlines are typically associated with mounded bioherms. A “closed structure” is an anticline, or structural high, with a syncline, or dip, in every direction. A closed structure, though preferable, is not required in order for there to be an effective trap. Most of the Sunniland oil fields do not have complete closure. They are, instead, stratigraphic traps, in which the formation continues to dip up and does not “roll over.” Where the rock type changes from nonporous to porous and back to nonporous, oil can become trapped in the porous portion of the interval even without “closure.” Thus, even if the “bowl” is tilted, it can still act as a trap. Complete closure is not necessary in much of the Sunniland Trend given the presence of an effective anhydrite layer to form an effective seal.5/ The seismic data of the Kanter property depicts an anticline in the Sunniland Formation that is centered beneath the Well Site at a depth in the range of 12,000 feet bls. Coming off of the anticline is a discernable syncline, or dip in the underlying rock. Applying the analogies used by various witnesses, the anticline would represent the top of the inverted bowl, and the syncline would represent the lip of the bowl. The evidence of the syncline appears in both seismic lines. The Shell seismic data also shows an anhydrite layer above the Sunniland Formation anticline. The same anticline exists at the basement level at a depth of 17,000 to 18,000 feet bls. The existence of the Sunniland formation anticline supported by the basement anticline, along with a thinning of the interval between those formations at the center point, provides support for the data reliably depicting the existence of a valid anticline. A basement-supported anticline is a key indicator of an oil trap, and is a feature commonly relied upon by geophysicists as being indicative of a structure that is favorable for oil production. The seismic data shows approximately 65 feet of total relief from the bottom to the top of the anticline structure, with 50 feet being closed on the back side. The 50 feet of closed anticline appears to extend over approximately 900 acres. There is evidence of other anticlines as one moves northeast along line 970. However, that data is not as strong as that for the structure beneath the Well Site. Though it would constitute a “lead,” that more incomplete data would generally not itself support a current recommendation to drill and, in any event, those other areas are not the subject of the permit at issue. The anticline beneath the well site is a “prospect,” which is an area with geological characteristics that are reasonably predicted to be commercially profitable. In the opinion of Mr. Lakin, the prospect at the location of the proposed Well Site has “everything that I would want to have to recommend drilling the well,” without a need for additional seismic data. His opinion is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and is credited. Confirmation of the geology and thickness of the reservoir is the purpose of the exploratory well, with the expectation that well logs will provide such confirmation. Risk Analysis Beginning in the 1970s, the oil and gas industry began to develop a business technique for assessing the risk, i.e., the chance of failure, to apply to decisions being made on drilling exploration wells. Since the seminal work by Bob McGill, a systematic science has developed. In 1992, a manual was published with works from several authors. The 1992 manual included a methodology developed by Rose & Associates for assessing risk on prospects. The original author, Pete Rose,6/ is one of the foremost authorities on exploration risk. The Rose assessment method is a very strong mathematical methodology to fairly evaluate a prospect. The Rose method takes aspects that could contribute to finding an oil prospect, evaluates each element, and places it in its perspective. The Rose prospect analysis has been refined over the years, and is generally accepted as an industry standard. The 1992 manual also included a methodology for assessing both plays and prospects developed by David White. The following year, Mr. White published a separate manual on play and prospect analysis. The play and prospect analysis is similar to the Rose method in that both apply mathematical formulas to factors shown to be indicative of the presence of oil. Play and prospect analysis has been applied by much of the oil and gas industry, is used by the USGS in combining play and prospect analysis, and is being incorporated by Rose & Associates in its classes. The evidence is convincing that the White play and prospect analysis taught by Mr. Aldrich is a reasonable and accepted methodology capable of assessing the risk inherent in exploratory drilling. Risk analysis for plays and prospects consists of four primary factors: the trap; the reservoir; the source; and preservation and recovery. Each of the four factors has three separate characteristics. Numeric scores are assigned to each of the factors based on seismic data; published maps and materials; well data, subsurface data, and evidence from other plays and prospects; and other available information. Chance of success is calculated based on the quantity and quality of the data supporting the various factors to determine the likelihood that the prospect will produce flowable hydrocarbons. The analysis and scoring performed by Mr. Aldrich is found to be a reasonable and factually supported assessment of the risk associated with each of the prospects that exist beneath the proposed Well Site and that are the subject of the Application.7/ However, Mr. Aldrich included in his calculation an assessment of the Lower Sunniland Formation. The proposed well is to terminate at a depth of 11,800 feet bls, which is within the Upper Sunniland, but above the Lower Sunniland. Thus, although the Lower Sunniland would share the same source rock, the exploration well will not provide confirmation of the presence of oil. Therefore, it is more appropriate to perform the mathematical calculation to determine the likelihood of success without consideration of the Lower Sunniland prospect. To summarize Mr. Aldrich’s calculation, he assigned a four-percent chance of success at the Well Site for the Dollar Bay prospect. The assignment of the numeric scores for the Dollar Bay factors was reasonable and supported by the evidence. Mr. Aldrich assigned a 20-percent chance of success at the Well Site for the Upper Sunniland play. The assignment of the numeric scores for the Upper Sunniland factors was reasonable and supported by the evidence. In order to calculate the overall chance of success for the proposed Kanter exploratory well, the assessment method requires consideration of the “flip side” of the calculated chances of success, i.e., the chance of failure for each of the prospects. A four-percent chance of success for Dollar Bay means there is a 96-percent (0.96) chance of failure, i.e., that a commercial zone will not be discovered; and with a 20-percent chance of success for the Upper Sunniland, there is an 80-percent (0.80) chance of failure. Multiplying those factors, i.e., .96 x .80, results in a product of .77, or 77 percent, which is the chance that the well will be completely dry in all three zones. Thus, under the industry-accepted means of risk assessment, the 77-percent chance of failure means that there is a 23-percent chance of success, i.e., that at least one zone will be productive. A 23-percent chance that an exploratory well will be productive, though lower than the figure calculated by Mr. Aldrich,8/ is, in the field of oil exploration and production, a very high chance of success, well above the seven-percent average for prospecting wells previously permitted by the Department (as testified to by Mr. Linero) and exceeding the 10- to 15-percent chance of success that most large oil companies are looking for in order to proceed with an exploratory well drilling project (as testified to by Mr. Preston). Thus, the data for the Kanter Well Site demonstrates that there is a strong indication of a likelihood of the presence of oil at the Well Site. Commercial Profitability Commercial profitability takes into account all of the costs involved in a project, including transportation and development costs. Mr. Aldrich testified that the Kanter project would be commercially self-supporting if it produced 100,000 barrels at $50.00 per barrel. His testimony was unrebutted, and is accepted. The evidence in this case supports a finding that reserves could range from an optimistic estimate of 3 to 10 million barrels, to a very (perhaps unreasonably) conservative estimate of 200 barrels per acre over 900 acres, or 180,000 barrels. In either event, the preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing establishes an indicated likelihood of the presence of oil in such quantities as to warrant its exploration and extraction on a commercially profitable basis.9/
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: Approving the Application for Oil and Gas Drilling Permit No. OG 1366 with the conditions agreed upon and stipulated to by Petitioner, including a condition requiring that if water is to be transported on-site, it will add additional tanks for the purpose of meeting water needs that would arise during the drilling process, and a condition prohibiting fracking; and Approving the application for Environmental Resource Permit No. 06-0336409-001. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 10th day of October, 2017.
