The Issue The issues in these cases include the following: Did Petitioner file completed applications to entitle it to an oil and gas drilling permit? Is the Department's policy of requiring information in support of an offshore oil and gas well drilling permit not specifically set out in existing rules constitute an unadopted rule? If the Department applied an unadopted rule to Petitioner in these cases, does the unadopted rule meet the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes? Is Petitioner entitled to the oil and gas drilling permits it sought by default?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Coastal Petroleum Company (hereinafter referred to as "Coastal"), is a Florida corporation. Phillip Ware is the current president of Coastal. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with the responsibility of implementing Florida laws and rules regulating the issuance of oil and gas drilling permits. Intervenors are the Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., Sierra Club, Florida Chapter, and the Florida Audubon Society, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Environmental Intervenors"), and the Department of Legal Affairs (hereinafter referred to as "Legal Affairs"). The Environmental Intervenors and Legal Affairs filed verified petitions to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. Coastal's Offshore Drilling Rights. On or about December 27, 1944, Coastal's predecessor entered into two leases, Drilling Lease Nos. 224-A and 224-B (hereinafter referred to as the "Original Leases"), with the predecessor to the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund. The Original Leases gave Coastal the exclusive right to explore for and produce oil and gas on submerged lands of the State of Florida throughout an area extending for a distance of 10.36 statute miles off most of the west coast of Florida. The area extends from approximately Apalachicola, Florida, in the north, to Naples, Florida, in the south. On or about February 27, 1947, the Original Leases were modified to redefine the area covered by the Leases due to claims of the federal government of parts of the area originally covered by the Original Leases (hereinafter referred to as the "Modified Leases"). In 1990 the Legislature enacted Chapter 90-72, Laws of Florida (1990), expressing the current policy of the State concerning offshore drilling. Pursuant to Chapter 90-72 the Legislature prohibited all offshore leasing and drilling. Recognizing Coastal's rights pursuant to the Modified Leases, an exception for drilling in areas governed by the Modified Leases was included in Chapter 90-72. Coastal is currently the only person entitled to explore for, and produce oil and gas on State submerged lands. Coastal's working interests under the Modified Leases were, as a result of litigation between the State and Coastal, subsequently reduced to the width of the area covered by the Modified Leases to between 7 miles and 10.36 miles from the coast. The litigation began during the late 1960's and ended with a settlement in 1976. Following the execution of the Original Leases and continuing through 1968, Coastal was involved with obtaining permits for, and drilling, approximately 9 wells in the area covered by the Original and/or Modified Leases. No permits were obtained by Coastal to drill in the area covered by the Modified Leases after 1968 due to the ongoing litigation between Coastal and the State. After the settlement of the dispute in 1976, Coastal was involved in litigation with Mobil Oil until the 1980's. Due to that litigation, Coastal did not pursue any other drilling operations under the Modified Leases until the 1980's. Because of the significant changes in the state of offshore drilling technology since Coastal had last applied for a permit to drill offshore in Florida, it took Coastal until the early 1990's to file a new application to drill offshore. Permit 1281. In March 1992 Coastal filed five separate applications with the Department seeking permits to drill exploratory oil and gas wells at five separate locations in the Gulf of Mexico within the area of the Modified Leases. Two applications were for proposed sites offshore from northwest Florida and three were for proposed sites offshore from southwest Florida. The applications were designated permit application numbers 1277 through 1281 by the Department. The applications filed by Coastal included a completed one-page Department form (Form 3), a location plat for the proposed drilling sites, and a filing fee. Coastal subsequently withdrew four of the applications. Only permit application 1281 remained. Pursuant to permit application 1281, Coastal sought approval to drill offshore from Franklin County, Florida, near St. George Island. In August 1996 the Department, after protracted negotiations with Coastal, issued notice of its intent to issue Permit 1281. The protracted negotiations involved, among other things, a request of the Department for additional information concerning the proposed location and drilling plans of Coastal. The additional information requested by the Department was essentially the same as the information requested by the Department in these cases. While Coastal provided the information concerning permit application 1281, it did so under protest. The Department's proposed decision to issue Permit 1281 was challenged. Following an administrative hearing, a Recommended Order was entered recommending that the permit be issued. The Department rejected the recommendation by Final Order issued May 22, 1998. That Final Order has been appealed by Coastal. Coastal's Applications for Permits 1296 through 1307. On or about February 25, 1997, Coastal simultaneously filed twelve separate applications (hereinafter referred to as the "Twelve Applications") with the Department seeking permits to drill exploratory oil and gas wells at twelve separate locations in the Gulf of Mexico within the area of the Modified Leases. Coastal Exhibits 49 through 60. The Twelve Applications were designated permit application numbers 1296 through 1307 by the Department. All of the proposed drilling sites are located between 8 and 9 miles offshore in water depths ranging between 50 to 75 feet. The general location of the twelve proposed drilling sites is as follows: Permit applications 1296 and 1297: offshore from St. George Island and Franklin County; Permit application 1298: offshore from the St. Marks River, Wakulla County; Permit application 1299: offshore from the mouth of the Steinhatchee River, Taylor County; Permit applications 1300 and 1301: offshore from Anclote Island, Pasco County; Permit application 1302: offshore from Longboat Key, Sarasota County; Permit applications 1303, 1304, and 1305: offshore from Gasparilla Island, Charlotte County; Permit application 1306: offshore from Sanibel Island, Lee County; and Permit application 1307: offshore from Naples, Collier County. The locations of the proposed exploratory wells are depicted on Coastal Exhibit 27, which is incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. The Twelve Applications filed by Coastal consisted of the following: A completed Application For Permit to Drill, Form 3, for each well; A check payable to the Petroleum Exploration Bond Trust Fund as performance security for the twelve proposed wells; A navigation chart published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with the location (latitude and longitude) of each proposed drilling site and the area of Coastal's lease designated on the chart. The scale of the chart provided by Coastal is 1:20,000. A surveyor's report of the coordinates of each proposed drilling site was also included; and A single check in the amount of $24,000.00 in payment of the $2,000.00 application fee for each permit application. Form 3 requires that an applicant provide information concerning the name, phone number, and address of the applicant, the well name and its location, ground elevation, acres assigned to the well, the "field/area" of the well, the county and specific location of the well, proposed depth of the well, and the applicant's mineral interests in the drilling unit. Coastal provided all of this information. Form 3 also requires that the applicant answer a series of questions concerning whether the proposed location of the well will be located within: a municipality; tidal waters within 3 miles of a municipality; an improved beach; submerged land located in any bay or estuary; one mile seaward of the Florida coastline or the boundary of any state, or a local or federal park, or aquatic or wildlife preserve; on the surface of a freshwater body; 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 body. Coastal answered all of the foregoing questions "no" on the Twelve Applications. Coastal did not provide a copy of its Organization Report (Department "Form 1") because it had already provided one to the Department. As provided in the Department's rules, Coastal informed the Department that its Organization Report was on file with the Department. Coastal did not initially provide casing and cementing plans or a contingency plan for hydrogen sulfide with the Twelve Applications. Ultimately, casing and cementing plans were provided by Coastal. Finally, Coastal requested that the Department conduct a preliminary site inspection, pursuant to the requirement of Rule 62C-26.003(4), Florida Administrative Code. The Department's Notice of Incompleteness. By letter dated March 26, 1997, the Department informed Coastal that the Twelve Applications were incomplete. The Department requested that Coastal provide additional information which it listed under eleven general categories: Location Plat; Environmental and Site Assessments; Zero Discharge; Accidental Pollutant Discharges; Drilling Platform; Hurricane Plan; Geologic Data; Transportation; Test Oil and Gas Plan; Drilling Plan; and H2S Contingency Plan. Coastal's Response to the Department's Notice of Incompleteness and Request for Additional Information. By letter dated September 22, 1997, Mr. Ware, on behalf of Coastal, responded to the Department's March 26, 1997, notice of incompleteness and request for additional information. In general, Coastal provided some of the requested information but indicated that it did not believe the Department had the authority to request most of the information. Therefore, Coastal informed the Department that most of the requested information was not being provided. Despite the fact that Coastal did not provide most of the requested information, Mr. Ware stated the following in the first paragraph of the September 22, 1997, letter: In fact, no statutory or regulatory authority was cited for any request. If Coastal is mistaken on any such request, please inform us of the specific authority allowing the department to require such information and Coastal will respond. [Emphasis added]. The Department's Answer to Coastal's Request for Specific Authority. Coastal's request for citations of specific authority and Coastal's representation that it would provide the information if such authority were given, was reasonably interpreted by the Department as an expression of Coastal's willingness to continue to discuss whether the Twelve Applications were in fact complete. As a consequence, the Department proceeded to respond to Coastal's request rather than proceeding to treat the Twelve Applications as complete and review them on their merits. After extensive research, the Department responded to Coastal's request for authority by letter dated December 16, 1997. The Department provided Coastal with citations to statutes and rules which the Department believed supported the additional information it had requested in its March 26, 1997, letter. See Coastal Exhibit 76. The Department also pointed out inconsistencies in the information Coastal had provided in support of the Twelve Applications. In particular, the Department asked why Coastal's H2S contingency plan referred to a drilling rig different than the one that Coastal had indicated it intended to use. The Department also asked Coastal how it planned to drill twelve wells within the time allowed after a permit is issued with only the one drilling platform that Coastal had indicated it planned to use for all twelve wells. Coastal's First Notice of Completeness. By letter dated December 26, 1997, Coastal informed the Department that it was not convinced that the authorities cited by the Department in its December 16, 1997, letter required that it provide the additional information sought by the Department. Mr. Ware, therefore, informed the Department in the December 26, 1997, letter of the following: As a result of the Department's insistence that Coastal provide such information, Coastal is left with no alternative but to file a petition for administrative hearing concerning whether the materials submitted by Coastal were sufficient to complete the applications so that they should have been processed by the Department. Twelve separate Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing were filed by Coastal with the December 26, 1997, letter. Pursuant to the petitions, Coastal challenged the Department's request for additional information and sought approval of the Twelve Applications by default. Coastal's December 26, 1997, letter and the petitions filed simultaneously with the letter were the first indication from Coastal that it considered the Twelve Applications complete. On January 22, 1998, the Department entered an Order Dismissing Petitions, dismissing the twelve petitions filed by Coastal. The petitions were dismissed without prejudice to the filing of amended petitions alleging how the Department's December 16, 1997, letter constituted "agency action." No amended petitions were filed by Coastal. The Department also concluded in the Order Dismissing Petitions that Coastal's December 26, 1997, letter constituted Coastal's first notice that it considered the Twelve Applications complete and directed that staff grant or deny the Twelve Applications within 90 days from Coastal's notice. In support of the Department's conclusion that the Twelve Applications should not be considered as complete until Coastal filed its December 26, 1997, letter, the Department noted in its order that Coastal, in response to the Department's December 16, 1997, letter, had requested specific authority for the Department's request and had represented that it would provide the additional information sought by the Department if it were satisfied with authority cited by the Department. I. The Department's Denial of Coastal's Applications. On March 24, 1998, the Department entered a "Final Order" denying the Twelve Applications. It is this Final Order that is the subject of these proceedings. The Department's decision to deny the Twelve Applications was explained as follows: The applications as submitted do not provide the Department with assurance that the issuance of the permits would be in compliance with the standards and criteria of Chapter 377, Part I, F.S., and Rules 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C. The Department cannot determine based on the information submitted, that the proposed drilling activities do not threaten public safety and the state's natural resources. Information critical to making such a determination remains absent. . . . The Department's Final Order denying the Twelve Applications was entered within 90 days after Coastal notified the Department that it did not intend to provide any additional information to support the Twelve Applications and that it considered the applications complete. The Department's decision to deny the Twelve Applications was based solely on the Department's conclusion that it had not been provided sufficient information to review the merits of the Twelve Applications. The Department's Specific Authority Over Oil and Gas Drilling Permits. Part I, Chapter 377, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), establishes the law in Florida governing oil and gas resources of the State. Section 377.06, Florida Statutes, sets out the general public policy of the State concerning oil and gas: It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state to conserve and control the natural resources of oil and gas in said state, and the products made therefrom; to prevent waste of said natural resources; to provide for the protection and adjustment of the correlative rights of the owners of the land wherein said natural resources lie and the owners and producers of oil and gas resources and the products made therefrom, and of others interested therein; to safeguard the health, property, and public welfare of the citizens of said state and other interested persons and for all purposes indicated by the provisions herein. . . . The Department is designated as one of the agencies of the State authorized to carry out the powers, duties, and authority of the Act. Section 377.07, Florida Statutes. The Department's authority includes the authority to adopt rules and enter orders it deems necessary to implement and enforce the provisions of the Act. Section 377.22, Florida Statutes. In particular, the Department has been given broad authority to regulate the drilling for oil and gas in Florida in Sections 377.22(2)(a) through (x), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to this broad authority, the Department has promulgated Chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62C-25.006, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the general rule concerning the exploration for oil and gas in Florida: Each person who conducts geophysical surveys (unless exempted by Rule 62C-26.007), drills an oil or gas related well (62C-26.003), or operates an oil or gas related well . . . (62C-26.008) shall first obtain a permit from the Department. Each of these activities requires a separate permit. [Emphasis added]. Ordinarily a single permit will be issued for drilling a well and either transporting test oil or injecting test fluids for a period of 90 days after testing is commenced. . . . In these cases, Coastal is seeking a permit to drill an oil or gas-related well and must, therefore, comply with Rule 62C-26.003, Florida Administrative Code, titled "Drilling Applications" (hereinafter referred to as the "Drilling Application Rule"). The Drilling Application Rule establishes certain specific requirements concerning specific information which, by the clear terms of the rule, must be provided by all applicants for oil and gas drilling permits in Florida. Applicants for drilling applications are required to be provide the following: All Applications to Drill (Form 3) shall include an Organization Report (Form 1; 62C- 25.008), performance security (62C-25.008, 62C- 26.002), location plat (62C-26.003(7)), site construction plans (62C-26.003(9)), casing and cementing program (62C-26.003(5)), contingency plan if appropriate (62C-27.001(7)), and application fee (62C-26.003(8)). In addition to these items, an application to drill a nonroutine well shall include a lease map or document and a letter of justification, both as described in 62C-26.004(6)(d). Any of these items already on file with the Department may be included by reference. The application to drill shall be considered incomplete until the applicant requests a preliminary inspection be made by the Department. . . . A proposed casing and cementing program must be included with the application to drill. This program shall at a minimum include setting depths, specified minimum yield strength, grade of pipe, class of cement to be used, cement additives, cement quantity, intended interval to be cemented, hole size, displacement method, special tools to be used, and calculated percent excess cement to be used. . . . . Each application shall be accompanied by a location plat surveyed and prepared by a registered land surveyor licensed under Chapter 472, FS. All such plats shall meet the minimum technical standards for land surveys as specified in Chapter 61G-17-6, FAC, and must: Be drawn to a scale sufficient to show the required detail, preferably 1 inch = 1,000 feet. Show and provide a legal description of all mineral acreage within the drilling unit which is not under lease to the applicant. Show the exact well location (both surface and bottom if different) and unit acreage within the drilling unit and indicate distances to adjacent wells, drilling unit boundaries, quarter-section corners, rivers and other prominent features. With prior notice and explanation to the Department, other established lines, reference points, or methods may be used when section corners are unavailable and an inordinate amount of preliminary surveying would have to be done to establish section corners or other standard reference points. In any case, a standard survey or equivalent with plat shall be made prior to obtaining an operating permit. Show ground elevation, with tolerances, at the drill site. State whether the proposed drilling unit is routine on nonroutine and specify the applicable subsection of s. 62C-26.004 under which the well is located. Each application to drill shall be accompanied by a $2,000 processing and regulatory fee . . . for costs incurred by the Department through well completion or plugging. . . . . . . . The applicant shall describe the provisions made for locating and constructing roads, pads, utility lines and other facilities needed for drilling operations and shall make every effort to minimize related impacts. Applications for permits in wetlands, submerged lands, and other sensitive areas shall be reviewed in accordance with 62C-30.005, FAC. Coastal provided all of the specific information applicable to the Twelve Applications required by the Drilling Application Rule. Much of the information required by the Drilling Application Rule, however, pertains to drilling operations on land and not drilling operations on submerged, offshore lands. The Department's Offshore Drilling Policy. Although Coastal provided all of the specific information required by the Drilling Application Rule, the Department required that a significant amount of additional supporting information be provided in support of the Twelve Applications. The additional information is generally described in Section E of this Recommended Order and is more specifically described, infra. Through the incompleteness letters issued by the Department in these cases, the Department expressed a statement of general applicability which "implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency . . . ." Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. The Department's statement of general applicability is, in effect, that all applicants for offshore oil and gas wells must provide the information described in the Department's letters of incompleteness to Coastal; information not specifically listed in the Drilling Application Rule. This state of general applicability will hereinafter be referred to as the "Offshore Drilling Policy." The Offshore Drilling Policy is of recent origin. It was not applied during the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's. The policy was only recently developed because only a few offshore drilling permits have been applied for until recently and the technology applied in offshore drilling has changed significantly in the past fifty years. Between the 1960's and 1992, when Coastal filed five applications for permits, only one offshore drilling permit was issued by the Department. That permit was issued in the late 1970's or early 1980's to Getty Oil Company (hereinafter referred to as "Getty") for a test well approximately three miles offshore from Santa Rosa County, Florida. The Offshore Drilling Policy was not applied by the Department to Getty, although most of the information required in these cases was eventually provided by Getty. Getty provided the information not because of Department policy, however, but in an effort to settle a challenge to the Department's proposed decision to issue the permit. Although much of the Department's knowledge concerning offshore drilling was developed as a result of the Getty permit, the Department did not receive another permit application for offshore drilling for ten to twelve years or more. Since 1992, however, the Department has required the same additional information it requested Coastal to provide in these cases for seventeen different proposed well locations located from offshore sites off the northwest coast of Florida near St. George Island and extending to the southwest coast of Florida near Naples. The Offshore Drilling Policy has been adopted by the Department because existing rules were adopted primarily to govern drilling operations on land and not offshore. As a consequence, those rules inadequately address offshore wells. The Department, however, is charged with broad authority under Chapter 377, Florida Statutes, to govern oil and gas drilling operations on and offshore. That authority includes the broad authority to carry out the public policy of the State expressed in Section 377.06, Florida Statutes, to "conserve and control the natural resources of oil and gas . . . ; to prevent waste of said natural resources; . . . to safeguard the health, property and public welfare of the citizens . . . ." When the intent of existing rules is considered in the context of offshore drilling, it is apparent that Drilling Application Rule does not adequately address all the reasonable concerns with offshore drilling. The Department has developed the Offshore Drilling Policy to the point where it has become more than a mere interpretation and application of existing law to offshore drilling applications. The Offshore Drilling Policy has become a uniform statement of policy describing a significant amount of particular information which the Department will require for any application for an offshore drilling permit. The Offshore Drilling Policy has passed the point in its development that it can be considered the Department's reaction to a particular set of circumstances. The Scope of the Department's Application of the Offshore Drilling Policy. The Offshore Drilling Policy has been applied to the last seventeen applications for offshore wells filed with the Department. The first five applications were filed in March 1992. Although four of those applications were withdrawn, the Department developed the Offshore Drilling Policy and applied it to permit application 1281 prior to August 1996 when the Department issued its notice of intent to issue Permit 1281. Although the evidence failed to prove exactly when the Department decided to apply the Offshore Drilling Policy to permit application 1281, the policy had been applied before the Twelve Applications were filed in February 1997. The Offshore Drilling Policy was applied uniformly to the Twelve Applications from the date they were filed through the date of the hearing in these cases. The Offshore Drilling Policy was also sufficiently formulated for the Department to publish notice of its intent to adopt the Offshore Drilling Policy as a rule. That notice was published on November 24, 1998. Therefore, the Offshore Drilling Policy was sufficiently formulated to be proposed for adoption as a rule prior to the commencement of this de novo proceeding. It is apparent that the Department intends to apply the Offshore Drilling Policy to all applications for oil and gas wells proposed for location offshore in the waters of the State. At present, only Coastal has the right to drill in the sovereign submerged lands of the State and Section 377.242(1)(a)5, Florida Statutes, currently prohibits granting drilling permits within the boundaries of the Florida's territorial seas to any person other than Coastal. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Coastal cannot assign its right to drill to other persons, which it has done in the past. Even though Coastal may currently be the only applicant for oil and gas well drilling permits, the Department is at liberty to modify the Offshore Drilling Policy at any time to require different or additional information, without prior notice to Coastal. Coastal has the right to some certainty as to what information the Department may require for approval of an offshore drilling permit. Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes; De Novo Review of the Offshore Drilling Policy. Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires a de novo review of any unadopted rule which formed the basis of any agency action. The Department's denial of the Twelve Applications in these cases was based solely on its application of the Offshore Drilling Policy. The Offshore Drilling Policy has not been adopted as a rule, although the Department has instituted rule- making procedures. Therefore, if the Offshore Drilling Policy constitutes a rule, the Offshore Drilling Policy must meet the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Each category of information required by the Department pursuant to the Offshore Drilling Policy must be examined in determining whether some of the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, have been met. The other requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, can be considered generally without an examination of each category of information required by the Department. Location Plat Information. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning the location of the proposed wells: For each proposed location, submit a plat on an original nautical chart showing each drilling site relative to the shore. This map should include at least the following surface and bottom hole locations including satellite navigation coordinates so the site can be re-occupied by a preliminary inspection team, boundaries of the working interest area, location of nearby reefs or sensitive aquatic wildlife areas, wildlife migration routes, proposed routing of supply ships, discharge barges, pipelines, helicopter routes, and commonly used shipping lanes. Also submit a diagram showing the orientation of the rig and the location of its major components. Coastal provided only standard nautical charts with a surveyed site location and the lease boundaries noted. The charts did not contain any of the information requested by the Department. Nor did the charts note whether the plotted points were surface or bottom hole locations. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the Location Plat information: Section 377.22(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-26.003(7), Florida Administrative Code, quoted, supra. Section 377.22(2)(h), Florida Statutes, provides the following: (2) The department shall adopt such rules and regulations, and shall issue such orders, governing all phases of the exploration, drilling, and production of oil, gas, or other petroleum products in the state . . . as may be necessary for the proper administration and enforcement of this chapter. Rules, regulations, and orders promulgated in accordance with this section shall be for, but shall not be limited to, the following purposes: . . . . (h) To require the making of reports showing the location of all oil and gas wells; the making and filing of logs; the taking and filing of directional surveys; the filing of electrical, sonic, radioactive, and mechanical logs of oil and gas wells; if taken, the saving of cutting and cores, the cuts of which shall be given to the Bureau of Geology; and the making of reports with respect to drilling and production records. . . . The Department's purpose in requiring the information concerning the Location Plat was to allow it to place the proposed drilling site into context with the surrounding environmental and other features of the area. Without the requested information, the Department could not ensure that sensitive resources and significant features would not be damaged by the proposed drilling operations. Rule 62C-26.003(7), Florida Administrative Code, does not directly authorize the Department to request the Location Plat information. That rule was drafted with onshore drilling operations in mind. Requiring the Location Plat information in these cases is not a mere application of that rule. Rule 62C-26.003(7), Florida Administrative Code, however, does support the conclusion that the requested information is needed for offshore, as well as onshore drilling. More importantly, it demonstrates the broad authority of the Department under the Act to require assurances from an applicant for offshore drilling that the proposed drilling will not be detrimental to the environment. The information provided by Coastal concerning archaeological sites, underground sea cables, and sensitive environmental features on the bottom was not sufficient for the Department to fulfill its responsibilities under the Act. The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for Location Plat information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting Location Plat information was not arbitrary or capricious. Environmental and Site Assessment. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning environmental features of the proposed well sites: Submit a professional ecological/biological survey and report for each proposed drill site. Wildlife habitats including living coral reefs, artificial reefs, patch reefs, benthic infauna, sea grasses, and associated communities shall be identified and located if present. Photodocumentation consisting of television and color still photography shall be included with each report. . . . The Department's request included an outline format for the photodocumentation survey report. Coastal provided no information in response to the Department's request for Environmental and Site Assessment information. Instead, Coastal suggested that the Department obtain the information it requested through the preliminary site inspection required by the Department's rules. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the Environmental and Site Assessment information: Sections 377.21(2), 377.22(2)(i), 377.241(1), and 377.371(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code. While Section 377.21(2), Florida Statutes, gives the Department little authority concerning the protection of the environment, the other statutory provisions cited by the Department do. Section 377.22(2)(i), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to take into consideration the impact of drilling operations on surrounding leases or property. Section 377.241(1), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to take into consideration the nature, character, and location of lands on which drilling will occur and those involved with the drilling. Finally, and most significantly, Section 377.371(1), Florida Statutes, requires that drilling not cause pollution to land or water, "damage aquatic or marine life, wildlife, birds, or public or private property " Rule 62C-26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in part, that "[a]pplications for permits in . . . submerged lands, and other sensitive areas shall be reviewed in accordance with 62C-30.005," a rule governing applications for drilling in the Big Cypress Watershed. Rule 62C-30.005(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, sets out the requirements for drilling sites. Among other things, Rule 62C-30.005(2)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code, requires that topographical and engineering surveys of the drill site, along with aerial photography, must be prepared. While this rule does not specifically authorize the Environmental and Site Assessment information the Department has requested, the statutory authority that supports the rule does. Aerial photography is normally required as an aid to the Department in identifying the proposed site and the surrounding area. Obviously, aerial photography would be of little assistance for a submerged site. Therefore, in order for the Department to carry out its responsibility to protect the environment, including sensitive environmental features such as "live bottom areas" as defined in Rule 62C-25.002(49), Florida Administrative Code, the Department requested photodocumentation of the proposed sites. The Department's request that Coastal provide it with an environmental assessment of the proposed drilling sites was also made to give the Department the necessary information for it to ensure that the environmental impacts of the proposed wells would not be detrimental. Such information also relates to the ability of an applicant to ensure that it has adopted adequate plans to deal with possible oil spills and other accidents. By fully considering the environmental features of an area, the applicant will be better able to draft and adopt contingency plans. Unlike onshore drilling, an offshore well entails a relatively large drilling rig with large feet that rest on the bottom to support the drilling platform above the surface of the water. Those feet, if placed on live bottom, can cause significant damage to marine biota which live in crevices, cracks, and permeable portions of some rocks that may be found on the bottom. The preliminary site inspection conducted by the Department is not an adequate substitute for the information requested by the Department. That inspection is only intended to verify the assurances which the applicant is first required to give. After all, it is the applicant that is seeking permission to drill. As a consequence, the applicant should first determine what impact its proposed drilling will have and, if satisfied on its findings, provide assurances to the Department to support its application. The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for Environmental and Site Assessment information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting Environmental and Site Assessment information was not arbitrary or capricious. Zero Discharge. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning a "zero discharge" plan for the proposed wells: Submit a plan which ensures zero discharge operation for each proposed well. The plan must include an environmental monitoring plan which provides for filed sampling around the drill site such that pre-drilling, drilling, and post- drilling sediments may be compared. Coastal, in response, only stated that it intended to use a zero discharge drilling rig at all the proposed sites. A copy of a brochure generally describing the rig was provided. No description of systems for containing discharges was provided. Nor did Coastal provide monitoring and sampling plans. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting a zero discharge plan: Sections 377.21(2), 377.22(2), 377.22(2)(c) and (i), 377.241(1), 377.243, 377.371, and 377.371(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code. A zero discharge plan is the written plan that an applicant is supposed to follow in the event of the discharge of any pollutant into the surrounding environment of a well site. The plan must cover not only discharges from the well shaft, but also from all equipment used, located, or traveling to the site. The purpose of the plan is to prevent spills and, where an accidental spill occurs, to minimize the impact of the spill. While the use of a zero discharge rig may be a significant part of a zero discharge plan, its use alone is not sufficient. The use of zero discharge rig does not provide assurances concerning the operation of other vessels and equipment which may be used at a site. Nor does its use provide assurances as to what will be done to ensure that the rig works properly or what will be done if it does not. Section 377.22, Florida Statutes, provides authority for the Department to ensure that all precautions are taken to prevent pollutants entering the area of a drilling site or any area associated with the well. Section 377.22(2)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require that drilling operations are done in such a manner as to prevent pollution of the waters, including salt water, and property of the State. Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require safety equipment to minimize the possibility of an escape of oil and other petroleum products. Finally, Section 377.22(2)(i), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to prevent drilling operations that will cause injury to neighboring property. Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, also provides the Department with the authority to require assurances concerning an applicant's efforts to protect against discharges into the environment of oil and other pollutants: (2) As a condition precedent to the issuance or renewal of a permit, the division shall require satisfactory evidence that the applicant has implemented or is in the process of implementing, programs for control of pollution related to oil, petroleum products or their byproducts, and other pollutants and the abatement thereof when a discharge occurs. Finally, Section 377.371(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits persons drilling for oil and gas from polluting land or water and from damaging marine or aquatic life. A spill of oil or gas and other pollutants can have a devastating impact on the environment regardless of whether the spill occurs on land or at sea. Such damage could result in loss of tourism in Florida and severe economic damage. The oil industry has progressed significantly in its ability to prevent spills and, where spills occur, to minimize the impacts of the spill on the environment. In order to minimize the chance of spills and the impacts which could occur from a spill, however, an applicant must take the steps necessary to plan ahead of time and provide the Department with the assurances that the applicant has done so. The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for zero discharge information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting zero discharge information was not arbitrary or capricious. Accidental Pollutant Discharges. The Department requested that Coastal provide a spill contingency plan for each of the proposed well sites. The requested plan was to include Coastal's plans for dealing with escaped pollutants, modeling of how projected spills might react, plans for deployment of cleanup equipment, inventories of equipment available for dealing with spills, designation of the individuals responsible for cleanup, and general clean-up plans. In response to the request for the spill contingency information the Department insisted it needed, Coastal stated the following: With respect to Coastal's implementation of a program for control of pollution related to oil, petroleum products and their byproducts, and other pollutants, see the letter of Dr. Tom Herbert, and his curriculum vita, as well as the ISO 14,000 Program on file in Permit #1296. With respect to Coastal's implementation of a program for the abatement of pollution discharges related to oil, petroleum products and their byproducts and other pollutants, see attached letter of Shaw Thompson, and his resume on file in Permit #1296. Coastal did not provide the Department with a specific, written oil-spill contingency plan. Dr. Herbert was involved with ensuring compliance of the Getty well off of Santa Rosa County with environmental protection requirements. Dr. Herbert had not, however, reviewed information concerning the Twelve Applications other than the nautical charts showing the location of the wells. In a letter from Dr. Herbert submitted by Coastal to the Department, Dr. Herbert represented the following concerning Coastal's proposed operations: Coastal Petroleum has used the Getty operations as a "template" for designing operations for the permit number 1281 well and for all subsequent drilling permits pending (numbers 1296 through 1307). We have been retained to assist with the development of plans and procedures and to insure that the operations are carried out in an environmentally safe and conscientious manner. . . . . Coastal Petroleum Company has adopted the ISO 14000 standard as the method for implementing long-term environmental compliance for drilling and production operations off Florida's coast. As the issuance date for the 1281 permit draws near we will begin implementing the ISO 14000- program beginning with training provided by the University of Florida TREEO Center. The implementation of the environmental program will extend from Coastal's own employees to others who may be service companies or contractors. Dr. Herbert's representations to the Department in his letter and at hearing do not constitute an actual oil-spill contingency plan for any of the specific proposed well sites. At best, his representations constitute a commitment to deal with the manner in which Coastal will comply with environmental requirements in the future. It does not constitute a commitment to actually draft and implement an oil-spill contingency plan. Dr. Herbert and Coastal also failed to explain how the Getty site, which was located in 11 to 12 feet of water, is sufficiently similar to the proposed sites of the Twelve Applications, which are all located in much deeper waters. Nor did Coastal explain how it would deal with the fact that the Getty site was not in the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. More importantly, no specific oil-spill contingency plan was provided for the twelve proposed sites. Mr. Thompson is an expert in oil-spill containment and cleanup. Coastal provided a letter from Mr. Thompson providing assurances that he would be working with Coastal during any drilling of the twelve proposed wells. At hearing, Mr. Thompson had little knowledge of the proposed sites. More importantly, Mr. Thompson did not provide a specific oil-spill contingency plan for the twelve proposed sites. The ISO 14000 Guide provided by Dr. Herbert consists of a book containing a generic template suggested by the author for use by any business concerned with environmental impacts. The Guide is not specific to the oil and gas industry. More importantly, it is not specific to Coastal nor any of the proposed well locations. Finally, the Guide would be of little assistance in dealing with an actual emergency. The Guide is not a specific oil-spill contingency plan. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the oil-spill contingency plan: Sections 377.22, 377.22(2)(c), 377.243, and 377.371, Florida Statutes. The same statutory authority that supports the request for a zero discharge plan, supports the oil-spill contingency plan requested by the Department. Especially Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, quoted, supra. While Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, allows an applicant to implement or be in the process of implementing an abatement program, merely indicating the intent to implement a program is insufficient. The Department must ensure that an applicant has taken sufficient steps to prevent the pollution of land or water, as well as damage to aquatic or marine life, wildlife, and birds. The environmental damage from a spill or a well blow-out can be significant. One of the worst oil well blow-outs occurred at an exploratory well. Site specific information must be considered by the applicant in its planning and such information must be provided to the Department for it to make its statutorily required evaluation. The Act in general and the specific citation provided by the Department in support of its request for an accidental pollutant discharge plan give the Department sufficient authority to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting the accidental pollutant discharge plan was not arbitrary or capricious. Drilling Platforms. The Department requested that Coastal provide information concerning the drilling platform(s) Coastal intended to use at each proposed site. In particular, the Department requested information concerning rig impacts, rig designation, scheduling, commitment from rig owners, zero discharge, auxiliary power equipment, and safety plans concerning karst hazards, including a shallow seismic program to rule out the existence of sinkholes or bottom caverns. In response to the request for the drilling platform information the Department sought, Coastal provided only a brochure for the Nobel Drilling Company's rig, the Paul Wolff. Coastal also indicated that the rig would face north. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the drilling platform information: Sections 377.22(2)(c), (d), and (i), Florida Statutes; and Rules 62C- 26.003(10), 62C-27.001(4), (5), (6) (cited as 62C-26001(5) and 62C-26001(6) by error in the Department's December 16, 1997, letter), and 62C-28.004(8), Florida Administrative Code. Section 377.22, Florida Statutes, provides authority for the Department to ensure that all precautions are taken to prevent pollutants entering the area of a drilling site and to protect surrounding property. Section 377.22(2)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require that drilling operations are done in such a manner as to prevent pollution of the waters, including salt water, and property of the State. Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require safety equipment to minimize the possibility of an escape of oil and other petroleum products. Section 377.22(2)(d), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to ensure that drilling is performed in a manner that will prevent the escape of oil from one stratum to another. Finally, Section 377.22(2)(i), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to prevent drilling operations that will cause injury to neighboring property. The rig Coastal proposed to use sits on three large feet, each with a diameter of over 93 feet. Each foot sits 235 feet from the other two. The entire rig is extremely heavy and, therefore, each foot has a great deal of weight placed on it. The Department requested information concerning rig impacts in order to avoid adverse impacts on the sea bottom. The Department requested information on rig designation, scheduling and owner commitment because of the Department's concern that a single rig could not drill all twelve wells within the limited one-year period of time a permit is valid for. Coastal had also provided some inconsistent information in its hydrogen sulfide plan concerning what rig would be used. Without knowing what rig would be used at each location, the Department could not fully evaluate the possible impacts of the rig on the environment. The seismic survey and the sink hole and karst formation safety plans were requested because of concerns that a rig could collapse if it were placed on such a formation. A karst formation is a geologic formation caused by increased porosity and permeability of underground limestone formations. As limestone is eaten away, the potential for a sinkhole or cavern collapse increases. Sinkholes and karst formations are not uncommon in the area of Coastal's proposed wells. If a rig collapsed on a karst formation, it is possible that a blow out or other oil spill could occur. The potential for such a catastrophe is greater in this instance because the rig that Coastal is proposing to use is a tripod design which could tip over if one foot were placed in a sinkhole or karst formation that collapses. A shallow seismic survey would provide information concerning possible karst formations at the sites where Coastal plans to drill its test wells. The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for rig impact information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting rig impact information was not arbitrary or capricious. Hurricane Response Plan. The Department requested that Coastal provide a hurricane preparation and response plan for each site. Coastal provided none of the requested information. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the hurricane response plan: Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-27.001(5) and 62C-27.006(1), Florida Administrative Code. Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require safety equipment to minimize the possibility of an escape of oil and other petroleum products in the event of a natural disaster. Although not cited by the Department, Section 377.371, Florida Statutes, gives the Department broad authority to ensure that oil and gas wells do not pollute. The entire area where Coastal proposed to drill is subject to hurricanes for a significant part of every year. Such storms can have a devastating impact on any structure, including an oil rig, which is in its path. Requiring that an applicant for drilling permits anywhere in the coastal waters of Florida plan ahead of time to respond to an approaching hurricane is abundantly reasonable. The Act in general and the specific citation provided by the Department in support of its request for a hurricane preparation and response plan give the Department sufficient authority to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting a hurricane preparation and response plan was not arbitrary or capricious. Geologic Data. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning the geology of each location of its proposed well sites: Submit material in the form of studies, data, cross sections, or maps which support or explain your decision for locating each well as proposed. All interpreted geologic data must be certified by a geologist licensed in Florida. Coastal provided none of the requested information. For applications 1296 and 1297, Coastal referred the Department to its application for Permit 1281. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the geologic information: Section 377.075(4)(g), 377.21(2), and 377.241(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C- 26.004(6)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Section 377.075(4)(g), Florida Statutes, requires that the Department maintain maps identifying information concerning oil and gas activities in Florida. This provision does not, however, authorize the Department to request the geologic information it requested from Coastal. Section 377.21(2), Florida Statutes, gives the Department the authority and the duty to make inquiries to determine whether "waste" exists or is imminent. "Waste" is defined in Section 377.10(10), Florida Statutes. Based upon the definition of "waste," Section 377.21(2), Florida Statutes, gives the Department the authority to request the information it requested concerning the geology of Coastal's proposed locations. Finally, Section 377.241(3), Florida Statutes, requires that the Department take into consideration the "proven or indicated likelihood of the presence of oil, gas or related minerals in such quantities as to warrant the exploration and extraction of such products . . ." before issuing any permit. This provision alone is sufficient for the Department to request the geologic information it requested from Coastal. Oil and gas wells are not drilled without first considering the geology of an area and the likelihood that oil or gas may be found. The determination of a likely successful well is made by a consideration of relevant geologic information such as that requested by the Department. Without such information, the Department would not be able to reasonably carry out its duty under Section 377.231(3), Florida Statutes. Coastal did not dispute the reasonableness of the requested information in determining whether a well should be placed at a proposed location. Instead, Coastal suggested that the Department has all the information it needs to make the determination and, therefore, Coastal shouldn't be required to provide any further information. The information available to the Department, however, is too general in nature. It does not deal with specific locations such as those proposed by Coastal. More importantly, it is Coastal that is seeking permission to drill. Coastal should, therefore, have already gathered and considered the geologic information requested by the Department in deciding where to place its exploratory wells. There have been relatively few wells drilled in Florida offshore waters. None have been productive. One offshore well located near Franklin County was drilled in 1968 and was dry. The only producing offshore well was located off the southern tip of the Florida Keys. Given these facts, the Department was reasonable in seeking assurances from Coastal concerning the possibility that its proposed wells were reasonably placed. Finally, the information Coastal referred to with regard to Permit 1281 was submitted during the formal administrative hearing on that case and was not as part of Coastal's permit application. That information, therefore, was not available to the Department to review. Nor was it provided during the formal hearing on these cases. The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for geologic information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting geologic information was not arbitrary or capricious. Transportation. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning transportation to and from the proposed wells of the drilling rig(s), a description of onshore facilities and the traffic to the rig(s), and a description of, and route to be taken by, transport vessels and helicopters. In response to the Department's request for the transportation information demanded by the Department, Coastal merely stated that no helicopters would be used at any of the proposed sites except in case of an emergency. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting information concerning transportation: Section 377.22(2)(s), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-26.006(1) and 62C- 26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code. Section 377.22(2)(s), Florida Statutes, allows the Department to require "certificates of clearance or tenders in connection with the transportation or delivery of oil or gas, or any product." Section 377.371, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to ensure that a drilling operation is not harmful to the environment. This provision alone gives the Department sufficient authority to request information from Coastal concerning how it intends to deal with transportation issues concerning the proposed wells. Pursuant to the Department's statutory authority, the Department has adopted Chapter 62C-30, Florida Administrative Code, which, among other things, provides rules governing transportation issues for wells located in Big Cypress. Although those rules do not specifically deal with offshore wells, they do support the conclusion that assurances concerning transportation issues surrounding any well can be required by the Department. Accidents, and the resulting damage to the environment, often occur during the transportation of oil and other equipment and supplies used for a rig. The Department needs to be provided with assurances that every effort is made by an applicant to avoid such damage. If provided sufficient information, the Department may be able to require that an applicant use a different route between a rig and an onshore facility in order to avoid a sensitive reef and thereby reduce the potential adverse impacts of an accident to the reef. A different route may also be required due to safety concerns. In addition to the legitimate concerns of the Department about accidental spills of oil, gas, and cuttings, the Department is concerned about the transportation of other noxious or hazardous materials used in drilling operations. Mixed saltwater and oil byproducts of drilling also must be transported away from a well site. Spills of these materials can have adverse impacts on the environment and, therefore, steps must be taken to reduce those impacts. The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for transportation information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting transportation information was not arbitrary or capricious. Test Oil and Gas Plan. The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning plans to test for oil and gas at each of the proposed wells: Submit a plan for safely producing, transporting, and storing test oil and gas. What mode of transportation is anticipated? Tankers? Barges? Pipelines? Where will produced test oil/gas be taken? Where will landfall occur? Include a statement from each appropriate local government assuring that all proposed facilities for oil and gas transportation and storage, both onshore and offshore, will be in compliance with local comprehensive plans. Indicate any leasehold interest or other property interests which will need to be secured to transport test oil or gas. Will test gas be vented, flared, or stored? Discuss why. Coastal provided no test oil and gas plan or other information in response to this request. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the test oil and gas plan: Sections 377.06, 377.22(2)(c) and (s), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-25.006(1) and 62C-28.001, Florida Administrative Code. For all the reasons previously discussed concerning the Department's authority to regulate oil and gas wells, the Department's statutory authority is broad enough to require the test oil and gas plan it requested from Coastal. The testing of fluids, their transport, and their storage all can have adverse impacts on the environment. The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for a test oil and gas plan give the Department sufficient authority to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting a test oil and gas plan was not arbitrary or capricious. Drilling Plan. The Department requested that Coastal provide information concerning drilling plans for the proposed wells, including a blow-out prevention plan. In response, Coastal provided all of the requested information, including a casing plan, cementing plan, and drilling plan, but refused to provide a blow-out prevention plan. The Paul Wolff brochure provided to the Department included a list of blow-out preventers that are standard equipment on the rig, but there was no information concerning how a blow-out would be dealt with. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the blowout prevention plan: Sections 377.22(2)(a), (c), (d), (e) and (l), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-26.003(5), 62C-26.007, and 62C-27.005, Florida Administrative Code. Section 377.22(2)(l), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to adopt rules to prevent blow-outs. That authority, coupled with other provisions of the Act giving the Department the authority to protect the environment from oil and gas well drilling operations, is sufficient authority for the Department to require the requested blow-out prevention plan. A blow-out can cause the release of oil and gas into the environment with serious consequences to the environment. Preventing a blow-out is, therefore, of paramount importance. Proper prevention of blow-outs depends upon the geology of each drilling site. Different sites may require different equipment or different measures to prevent a blow-out. Consequently, a separate plan for each site is reasonable and necessary. The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for a blow-out prevention plan give the Department sufficient authority to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting a blow-out prevention plan was not arbitrary or capricious. H2S Contingency Plan. The Department requested that Coastal provide a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) contingency plan, including a site specific air dispersion model for each site predicting the transport of any hydrogen sulfide accidentally released into the air. Coastal provided a single hydrogen sulfide contingency plan. No air dispersion modeling was provided. The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting individual plans and modeling: Sections 377.22 and 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-27.001(7), Florida Administrative Code. Hydrogen sulfide is a toxic gas which can be released during drilling operations. The gas is colorless. It is also denser than air. If not handled properly, a release can be fatal to anyone coming into contact with the gas. For an offshore well, a release of hydrogen sulfide can injure workers on the rig and boaters or fishermen in the area. Contact with hydrogen sulfide at a concentration of 100 parts per million can kill a person's sense of smell in 3 to 15 minutes. At a concentration of 300 parts per million, it can be fatal, and at 500 parts per million breathing will cease in only a matter of a few seconds. Because hydrogen sulfide is heavier than air, it will remain just above the surface of the water, where people are normally located on the Gulf. Individuals on the Gulf cannot escape to higher ground to avoid the gas like they may be able to do on land. While modeling cannot provide certainty as to how a cloud of hydrogen sulfide might act, it can at least give information concerning the prevailing wind direction of each site, which may be beneficial in being prepared to deal with an accident. Without such information it is difficult to determine whether plans to deal with an accident are adequate. Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, provides adequate authority for the Department to require that Coastal provide modeling for each proposed site. The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for hydrogen sulfide modeling give the Department sufficient authority to request the modeling. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority. The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting modeling was not arbitrary or capricious. Section 120.57(1)(e)2.c., Florida Statutes. None of the required information is vague, establishes inadequate standards, or vests unbridled discretion in the Department. All of the information requested by the Department was understood by Coastal. Coastal knew what the Department was requested because it had already provided the requested information in support of its 1281 permit application. Section 120.57(1)(e)2.e., Florida Statutes. Coastal received adequate notice of the Department's Offshore Drilling Policy. Coastal had been requested to provide the information in support of its 1281 permit application. It was given written notice of the Offshore Drilling Policy in these twelve cases through the March 26, 1997, notice of incompleteness and the December 16, 1997, explanation of authority for the requested information. AA. Section 120.57(1)(e)2.g., Florida Statutes. While there are costs which Coastal would be required to pay in order to provide the information required by the Department, those costs are not excessive; not when the rationale for requesting the information is considered. Coastal did not consider the costs associated with providing the information sought by the Department to be too excessive for it to refuse to provide the information in seeking Permit 1281. On the contrary, Coastal incurred those costs. Although there was testimony that the costs of providing the information for Permit 1281 was in excess of a million dollars, the weight of the evidence failed to support the testimony. The evidence proved that the costs of providing all of the information requested by the Department would be well below a million dollars for each well. As to considering less costly alternatives, Coastal never gave the Department an opportunity to do so. Coastal simply refused to provide the requested information, to propose less-costly alternatives, or to discuss the matter further with the Department. Nor were any, less costly, methods of obtaining the information necessary for the Department to carry out its responsibilities under the Act proved at hearing.
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 denying permit applications 1296 through 1307 for failure to file complete applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 26th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Angerer, Esquire Robert J. Angerer, Jr., Esquire Angerer and Angerer Post Office Box 10468 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Andrew Baumann, Assistant General Counsel John W. Costigan, Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Monica K. Reimer, Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 S. Ansley Samson, Esquire David G. Guest, Esquire Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Post Office Box 1329 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent's decision to reject the galvanized pipe replacement bid of Petitioner as non- responsive was erroneous, an abuse of discretion, arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Expertech Network Installation, Inc., is a division of Bell Canada. Petitioner is a construction and engineering division of the parent company. It was set up to expand the parent's operations into the United States about nine years ago. Petitioner has steadily replaced its Canadian employees with U.S. employees over those years. The City is a governmental entity established under the laws of the State of Florida. By contract with the DOAH, the City has agreed to utilize Administrative Law Judges to hear, inter alia, bid protests involving the City. On May 7, 2007, the City issued Invitation to Bid No. ITB-PW060607-88. The Invitation to Bid sought bids for replacement of approximately 38,000 linear feet of two-inch galvanized pipe and associated appurtenances with 38,000 feet of four and six-inch DR18 PVC piping and associated appurtenances. The replacement would include approximately 385 service connections with Sch-80 PVC piping, all within the area known as Section 4 of the City. In addition, the scope of work included relocation of approximately 460 linear feet of eight-inch PVC water main pipe and associated appurtenances with 600 linear feet of eight-inch DR18 PVC piping and appurtenances along State Road 78. A total specification package and complete set of drawings for the aforementioned work was prepared by the City's consulting engineer, TetraTech-HAI (hereinafter "Ttech"). The specifications and drawings by Ttech were made a part of the Invitation to Bid. A pre-bid conference was held on May 16, 2007. At that conference, several issues were discussed, resulting in issuance of an Addendum to the Invitation to Bid. The Addendum was issued the same day as the conference and included the following paragraph: Will the City allow directional drilling on the galvanized pipe replacement project? No. All references to directional drillingon the galvanized pipe replacement projectare to be modified to jack & bore. All water main piping proposed to cross driveways shall be installed via jack & bore or open cut methods. Water main piping proposed to cross roadways, including long side services, shall be installed by jack & bore methods. Directional drilling is acceptable for the roadway crossings on the SR 78 Water Main Replacement portions only. Please see the enclosed revised Measurement and Payment section of the specifications (01025) and revised bid schedule. (Emphasis in original document.) The Addendum also extended the due dates for bids by one week, to June 13, 2007. No protest was filed with the City with respect to the terms, conditions or specifications contained in the Invitation to Bid and the Addendum. On Wednesday, June 13, 2007, the City opened the bids. Petitioner's bid was the low bid for the project. Its bid included a price of $1,816,224, as compared to the second lowest bidder, Guymann (whose bid came in at $1,987,561).1 The bids were then reviewed by Ttech for conformity to the Invitation to Bid. On July 31, 2007, Ttech notified the City that it was recommending approval of the Guymann bid despite Petitioner being the low bidder. The justification for that recommendation was as follows: The lowest apparent bidder on the project was Expertech Network Installation, Inc. (Expertech) with a total bid of $1,816,224.00. [Ttech] reviewed Expertech's bid package and found that the required list of at least five completed projects of the type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement project was not included in the package. [Ttech] contacted Expertech concerning the incomplete bid package and requested that Expertech provided the required list of at least five projects completed by Expertech of similar type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement project. The list provided by Expertech did not include any completed projects of the type as the Galvanized Water Main Replacement. On August 7, 2007, the City issued its Notice of Intent to Award, stating that the procurement division of the City would recommend award of the bid to Guymann as the most responsive, responsible bidder meeting the terms, conditions, and specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid. Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Intent to Protest; its Formal Written Protest was timely filed on August 24, 2007, along with the required bond. There are three methods of drilling utilized for laying pipe in the ground: directional drilling, open cut drilling, and jack & bore drilling. A brief discussion of each is necessary in order to understand the dispute in this matter. Directional drilling is done utilizing a machine that is guided underground using steel rods. A person above ground with a sounding device directs the steel rods from one point to another. Directional boring is used when trenching or excavating is not practical. Directional boring minimizes environmental disruption. Jack & bore drilling (or auger drilling) is similar to directional drilling in that it has an entrance pit, and then the pipe is manually jacked along the desired path while simultaneously excavating the soil. It is often used in projects that have to go under existing roads or driveways. Open cut drilling is the old, traditional method of digging a trench in the ground and laying the pipe in the open cut. The Invitation to Bid, at page 10 of 53, included a request for each bidder to provide evidence of its experience with similar projects. Paragraph 5 asked for a list "of the last five projects of this type your organization has completed."2 Paragraph 6 asked for a list "of projects of this type that your organization is currently engaged in." The lists of projects were to be completed as set forth in a table attached to the Invitation to Bid. The table is recreated below: PROJECT YOUR CONTRACTOR REQUIRED ACTUAL NAME, TITLE CONTRACT OR SUB COMPLETION COMPLETION ADDRESS & AMOUNT DATE DATE & LOCATION PHONE # In its Bid, Petitioner provided a document entitled "Bidders Qualifications" in response to paragraph 5. The document was not on the table provided and was not entirely responsive to the information requested (i.e., it did not indicate whether Petitioner was contractor or subcontractor; there were no completion dates, and there were no contact persons). Nonetheless, the list contained eight completed projects. Those projects included two water main projects; the other six completed projects were telecommunication projects. While both types of projects would include drilling, there are distinct differences between the two. For example, water and wastewater projects require pressure testing, bacterial testing, and permitting that telecommunication projects do not. Petitioner's list also included projects that involved directional drilling. Since directional drilling was specifically prohibited in the galvanized pipe replacement project, those projects would not be deemed substantially similar in type.3 During the initial review of the bids, Ttech had specifically asked Petitioner to provide the required list of five completed projects of a similar type. In response, Petitioner submitted a list of four projects, which were listed as "Currently in Progress." Again, the projects were submitted on a form other than the table provided in the Invitation to Bid. When Ttech followed up with the project contacts, it found that there had been no open cut drilling on two of them; the other two had not yet begun. However, by the date of final hearing the projects were substantially complete. After Petitioner had submitted its list of projects, a meeting was called at the City. Petitioner was represented at the meeting along with City personnel and a representative from Ttech. Notes from that meeting, though inconclusive, seem to indicate that the requirement for five completed jobs of a similar nature was discussed. It is unclear whether Petitioner's representative was still at the meeting when this was discussed. However, it does not appear that anyone from the City or Ttech sent Petitioner a written request to provide evidence of additional work performed. Nor is there any evidence that the City or Ttech had an obligation to do so. At any rate, Petitioner did not submit any evidence of similar projects other than those discussed above. There were notes made by attendees of the meeting. None of the notes submitted into evidence was conclusive as to all issues that were discussed at that time. However, in notes relating to a telephone conversation five days later, Ttech's representative noted discussing with Petitioner the need to provide evidence of five similar projects, which means that at the time of the June 9, 2007, meeting, Ttech was still attempting to get the required list of projects from Petitioner. The projects submitted by Petitioner include directional drill excavation projects, which involved at least some open cuts (i.e., to make tie-ins at each end of the directional drill section). None of those projects was substantially similar in type to the proposed project, but did include some open cut work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the City of Cape Coral upholding its rejection of Petitioner's bid for the galvanized pipe replacement project. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether to approve an application by Respondent, Dan R. Hughes Company, L.P. (applicant or Hughes), for an oil well drilling permit authorizing the drilling of an exploratory oil well in Collier County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Mosher resides on a three-acre lot at 4695 26th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida. His residence is around 2,500 feet west of the proposed wellsite, but Mosher says that the eastern edge of his lot "might be 2,000 feet" from the drilling site. He has not, however, measured the actual distance to confirm this assertion. Preserve is a Florida non-profit corporation whose purpose is to educate the public on issues affecting the preservation and protection of the environment, particularly the environment of south and southwest Florida. It was formed in response to Hughes' intention to drill for oil in the area. The corporation is not a membership organization; rather, it has around 25 non-member, active volunteers, six member directors, and an unknown number of donors. Excluding Mosher, the other member directors live between three and ten miles away from the proposed wellsite. The record does not show where the 25 volunteers reside. The corporate representative testified that four directors, including Mosher, regularly use the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) to observe wildlife and habitat. However, the public access point to the Refuge appears to be at least several miles from the wellsite. Based upon an email survey, he stated that a "substantial number [around 36] of donors and volunteers utilize the panther refuge," but he was unaware of when, or how often, this occurred. About every six weeks, meetings are conducted at Mosher's home, which are attended by some, but not all, of the directors and volunteers. Schwartz's primary residence is in Lake Worth (Palm Beach County) where he serves as the unpaid executive director of the South Florida Wildlands Association.3 He sometimes provides paid tours in the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp and has led "numerous" free hikes into panther habitat to look for signs of panthers. These hikes are limited to the hiking trails in the southeast corner of the Refuge, which is the only area that can be accessed by the public. He represented himself as an advocate for the protection of wildlife habitat in the greater Everglades, with a particular interest in the Florida panther. Hughes is a Texas limited partnership engaged in the business of oil and gas exploration, which is registered to do business in the State of Florida. Hughes has applied for a permit to drill an exploratory well for oil in Collier County. If the well is commercially viable, Hughes must apply for an operating permit at a later time. The Department has jurisdiction to issue permits for the drilling and exploring for, or production of, oil under part I, chapter 377. Pursuant to that authority, the Department reviewed the oil and gas well drilling permit application. The Application and Project After the application was deemed complete by the Department, it was distributed for comment to a number of local, state, and federal agencies. While some commented on the application, no agency had any unresolved concerns at the end of the application process. Hughes met all rule requirements for performance bonds or securities, and it provided all information required by rule. The proposed site is located on the southeast corner of an active farm field in the Big Cypress Swamp watershed, just north of a speedway now used as a test track. Surface holes for oil wells are commonly located on farm land, and farm fields are compatible with oil wells. Based upon a mineral lease between Hughes and the owner of the land, Collier Land Holdings, Ltd., Hughes has the right to locate and drill the well at the proposed surface hole location. The Refuge was established by Congress in 1989 to protect the Florida panther and its habitat and is located approximately 20 miles east of Naples. Around 98 percent of the Refuge is closed to any public activity. The project is consistent with the comprehensive conservation plan for the Refuge prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in that the plan recommends "slant drilling" off of the Refuge. Although Mosher and Preserve argue that the drill hole should be moved further east into wetlands, and Schwartz contends that it should be moved further west away from the Refuge, the proposed location of the drilling pad and project site is reasonable with respect to the nature, appearance, and location of the proposed drilling site. Likewise, the location is reasonable with respect to the type, nature, and extent of Hughes' ownership. The proposed activity can best be characterized as a "resource play," where an operator drills toward a known resource. This is distinguished from a wildcat operation, where the operator is drilling in an unproven area. Hughes proposes to target the rubble zone (i.e., the lower zone) within the lower Sunniland formation, a geologic formation thousands of feet below the ground surface that runs through southwest Florida. Hughes will first drill a vertical pilot hole and then drill horizontally from the hole bottom in a southeast direction toward a formerly drilled oil well known as the Tribal Well. In order to increase the probability of locating commercially available petroleum, Hughes plans to proceed from west to east in order to arrive at a perpendicular direction of existing limestone fractures as the drilling approaches the Tribal Well. When that well was drilled vertically into the rubble zone in the 1970s, oil rose to the ground surface. Thus, the indicated presence of oil is sufficient to warrant and justify the exploration for oil at this location. The proposed depth of the pilot hole is 13,900 feet measured depth (MD/13,900 feet true vertical depth (TVD)), which will allow assessment of the upper Sunniland, lower Sunniland, and Pumpkin Bay Formations. If the evaluation determines that the well will likely be commercially productive, Hughes will complete a 4,100-foot horizontal leg in the lower Sunniland rubble zone with a landing depth at 12,500 feet MD/12,064 TVD and a total depth of 16,600 feet MD/12,064 feet TVD. The footprint for the drilling pad will be 225 feet by 295 feet, or 2.6 acres, with a two-foot earthen berm around the perimeter of the operating area to contain all water on the site. A secondary containment area within the perimeter of the site will be covered by high-density polyethylene to contain and collect any accidental spills. A drilling rig, generators, and other drilling equipment will be on the pad during drilling operations. A maximum of 20 persons will be at the site, and then only for one day of operations. At all other times, Hughes anticipates there will be a five-person drill crew plus support personnel on site. After drilling, Hughes will remove its equipment. Once the access road is built and the equipment put in place, the drilling activities will take place 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and will be completed in approximately 60 to 70 days. The on-site diesel generators will run simultaneously 24 hours per day while drilling is taking place. The pad will be illuminated at night with lights on the drilling derrick and throughout the pad. Construction of the drilling pad will require trucking around 12,000 to 14,000 cubic yards of fill to the drilling location. Additional traffic for bringing in fill, piping, and related equipment will occur, but the exact amount of traffic is unknown. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) previously approved an environmental resource permit (ERP) to allow the construction and operation of a surface water management system on Camp Keais. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) also permitted the same system under the Clean Water Act. The latter permit requires mitigation for wetlands and Florida panther habitat compensation. Based on the proposed wellsite, the SFWMD modified the ERP to allow a culvert and access to the proposed wellsite. In addition to the oil drilling permit application, Hughes has applied for two water well drilling permits from the SFWMD, and an injection well drilling permit. Petitioners and Intervenor's Objections The challengers have raised a number of objections that they assert require denial of the application. Conflicting testimony was presented on these issues, which has been resolved in Respondents' favor as being the more credible and persuasive testimony. Mosher and Preserve Mosher and Preserve raise two broad objections. First, they contend that hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S) is likely to be encountered in the drilling of the proposed well. They further contend that the H2S contingency plan submitted by Hughes is not sufficient to evacuate the public in the event of an incident where H2S is uncontrollably released under pressure. Second, they contend that the Committee did not review the application under the process contemplated by section 377.42(2). Except for these two objections, they agree that no other issues remain. See TR., Vol. I, p. 33. Within the petroleum industry, drilling operators create H2S plans when there is reason to believe that the operator may encounter H2S while drilling. This practice is codified in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62C-27.001(7), which requires a contingency plan only when H2S is "likely" to be encountered while drilling. The plan must "meet generally accepted industry standards and practices," and it must contain measures "for notifying authorities and evacuating civilians in the event of an accident." Id. See also rule 62C-26.003(3), which requires a contingency plan "if appropriate." The plan is prepared for two main users: the personnel working at the drilling site; and local emergency management officials, who must plan and train for the implementation of emergency activities. The parties agree that the "generally accepted industry standards and practices" for the oil and natural gas industry are found in the operating standards and recommended practices adopted by The American Petroleum Institute (API), a trade association for the oil and natural gas industry. Recommended Practice 49 (API 49) is the generally accepted industry standard for oil and gas drilling operations likely to encounter H2S and was relied upon by all parties throughout the hearing. The standard includes guidance on personnel protection measures, personnel training, personnel protection equipment, and community contingency planning. API 49 recommends the use of a community warning and protection plan when atmospheric H2S exposures beyond the well site could exceed potentially harmful exposure levels and could affect the general public. Mosher/Preserve's expert opined that H2S might be encountered at levels as high as 21 percent (210,000 parts per million (ppm)) in southwest Florida, and that "it's quite likely" H2S would be encountered at the proposed wellsite. At the same time, however, he agreed with the assessment of Respondents' experts that the likelihood of encountering H2S at this site was merely "possible," "sporadic," and "unlikely," and that there was "zero" potential of a severe H2S release under high pressure. Florida has two major oil producing areas: the Sunniland Trend in southwest Florida and the Smackover formation near Jay, Florida, in the northwest part of the state. Unlike the Smackover formation which has higher temperatures and pressures and a high concentration of H2S, the Sunniland Trend has normal temperatures and pressures and a sporadic presence of H2S. Less than two percent of wells in southwest Florida have been reported to contain H2S, and those reports relate to production wells where bacteria (biological contamination) was likely introduced into the formation during production. Of over 300 oil wells drilled in southwest Florida, only six were reported to have encountered H2S. Notably, the Tribal Well, located 1.5 miles to the southeast of the proposed site, encountered relatively low pressure during drilling and had no H2S, and another well located 12 miles to the north likewise had no high pressure or H2S. It is unlikely that Hughes will encounter high pressure or H2S if it drills at the proposed site. Even though it is unlikely that high pressure or H2S will be encountered during the drilling of this proposed well, Hughes still submitted an H2S contingency plan as part of the drilling application. The Department determined the plan provided an effective design to detect, evaluate, and control any hazardous release of H2S. In response to public concerns, in January 2014 Hughes revised its plan to provide more protections. The revised plan exceeds the guidance provided in API 49. The revised plan clarifies and adds multiple protections, including implementing the plan at a vertical depth of 9,000 feet, which is 2,700 feet before the zone that Mosher claims could contain H2S; clarifying that an H2S alarm notification at 15 ppm would result in an instant well shut-in (i.e., closure of the well) to prevent the escape of H2S; instituting a reverse 911 call system to allow local officials to notify the public by telephone of any incident; creating an air dispersion model to understand the likelihood of public exposure; and adding H2S scavengers to the drilling mud. Adding H2S scavengers in the mud is a protective measure. Specifically, the zinc oxide scavengers will react with H2S to create benign zinc sulfide and water. Even if H2S is present in the formation, the H2S scavengers will neutralize the H2S before it could reach the surface. The H2S scavengers will effectively eliminate the likelihood of H2S escaping from the well during drilling operations. The drilling plan requires the Trinity C formation (which Hughes estimated will begin at a depth of around 11,850 feet) to be cemented off and sealed once drilled. This formation will not be encountered in the first 15 or 20 days of drilling. Once encountered, the formation will be exposed for only four to six days. Even if H2S were encountered during this short exposed duration, all of the protections included in the revised plan would be in place, including overbalanced drilling mud, H2S scavengers, blowout preventers, H2S monitors, and alarms. When wells are drilled, there are numerous personnel monitoring the drilling fluid, or mud, which is designed not only to carry cuttings to the surface, but more importantly to act as a barrier to keep fluids or gasses in the geologic formation. The mud is weighted with additives to combat reservoir pressures. Drill operators want the same amount of mud pumped into the hole as the amount flowing back up. If more fluid is flowing back up, then the mud is not heavy enough to hold back the fluids or gasses encountered. If this imbalance occurs, the well is shut- in immediately and the mud weight is adjusted. A shut-in can be accomplished in just a few seconds. Anything in a shut-in well will stay in the well. Hughes' normal drilling plan is to slightly overbalance the mud weight. This ensures that nothing unintentionally escapes from the reservoir. Mosher and Preserve contend that if H2S is encountered, dangerous concentrations of H2S would leave the wellsite. In response to this type of concern, as part of the revised plan, Hughes conducted an air dispersion model using the methodology provided by API 49. The API 49 model is a Gaussian model with default values reflecting the worst-case exposures. The peer- reviewed and conservative model calculated by Dr. Walker looked at H2S concentrations of 10, 15, and 100 ppm. At the extreme case, a 100-ppm release at the well would be reduced below 10 ppm within about 20 feet from the well and further reduced to one ppm within 60 feet from the well. Although H2S is unlikely to escape the well, 100 ppm was selected as a precautionary level because this level is an immediate danger to human life and health. Reaching 100 ppm is highly unlikely because at an instantaneous reading of 15 ppm, the well is immediately shut-in. The air dispersion model results demonstrate that atmospheric H2S exposures beyond the wellsite could not exceed potentially harmful exposure levels nor could exposures affect the general public. Thus, even though the plan includes a community warning and protection provision, it is not required under API 49. In an abundance of caution, however, the plan provides for a public notification zone of 2,000 feet in case of an H2S release. This zone is two orders of magnitude beyond the 20- foot, 10 ppm distance dispersion of H2S based on the modeled worse case release and exceeds any required notification zones in other states. The notification boundary is conservative, as compared with industry standards. While Mosher's expert recommended more stringent standards than API 49, he knew of no contingency plan for an oil drilling permit in the United States that included his recommended standards. Mosher's expert testified that based on his review of literature, the lowest observable adverse effect from H2S was at concentrations of 2.1 ppm. Based on a worst case scenario release of 100 ppm of H2S, the gas would disperse to a concentration of 2.1 ppm in less than 40 feet from the well. The property boundary abutting the neighborhood to the west is over 800 feet from the well. API 49 expressly provides that wellsite personnel should be provided protection devices if concentrations of H2S exceed 10 ppm for an eight-hour time-weighted average. The revised plan requires wellsite personnel to don a self-contained breathing apparatus if the monitors encounter an instantaneous reading of 10 ppm H2S. Instantaneous readings are more protective of human health than the time-weighted averages proposed by Mosher's expert. Using an instantaneous trigger is another area where the revised plan exceeds the recommendation of API 49. The greater weight of evidence demonstrates that the H2S contingency plan meets or exceeds guidance of API 49. The revised plan requires hands-on training for public officials and fire/rescue staff before reaching the depth of 9,000 feet. The revised plan further requires hands-on training and drills related to the procedures for use, and location of, all self- contained breathing apparatus and evacuation procedures. The plan is a complete and accurate contingency plan that will assist operators and local emergency management in the unlikely event of an H2S escape. It exceeds the degree of caution typically employed in industry standards. Mosher and Preserve contend that the plan fails to include specific instructions and training for nearby residents in the event of an emergency. However, emergency plans are designed for use by operators at the facility and the local emergency management officials rather than nearby residents. Thus, the Department did not require the applicant to provide specific instructions for those residents. Mosher and Preserve also contend that the plan fails to adequately describe the evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. However, evacuation routes and the potential closure of roads are normally in the domain of local governments, as the operator and Department have no control over this action. Mosher and Preserve contend that the plan does not include complete and accurate information for all property owners in the area. This is understandable since some property owners either failed to respond to inquiries by Hughes when it assembled the information for the plan or were reluctant to provide any personal information. Recognizing this problem, the Department reviewed the website of the Collier County property appraiser to complete the information. To the extent information on certain parcels may not be complete, Hughes can update that aspect of the plan on an on-going basis before operations begin. If a permit is issued, the Department will continue to coordinate with Collier County and other local emergency management officials for the purpose of planning to implement the contingency plan. Based on the foregoing, the evidence establishes that the probability of a dangerous release of H2S beyond the wellsite is highly remote and speculative in nature. The revised contingency plan is consistent with industry standards and satisfies the requirements of the rule. Schwartz Like Mosher and Preserve, Schwartz agreed that except for the concerns expressed in his amended pleading, no other issues remain. Schwartz first contends that Hughes did not demonstrate sufficient efforts to select a proposed location for drilling to minimize impacts as required by rule 62C-30.005. Subparagraph (2)(b)1. requires that drilling sites be located "to minimize impacts on the vegetation and wildlife, including rare and endangered species, and the surface water resources." In particular, Schwartz is concerned about the potential impact on the Florida panther, an endangered species. Hughes selected the proposed site primarily because of its proximity to the Tribal Well, which had a significant show of oil. In order to increase the chances for commercial production, the horizontal segment of the well needs to be perpendicular to the natural fractures in the limestone. In this location, Hughes must drill horizontally from west to east in the direction of the Tribal Well. Hughes was unable to locate the well on the automotive test track directly south of the agricultural field and west of the Tribal Well because of objections by Harley-Davidson, then the owner of the track. A second proposed location just east of the test track was considered but Harley-Davidson would not grant access from the track to the upland sites on the adjacent location. A third option was to construct a lengthy access road from the north to one of the upland sites just east of the test track. However, this alternative would have resulted in significant impacts to wetlands and native vegetation. The proposed site offers the least amount of environmental impact. It is 1.5 miles from the Tribal Well. It has no federal or jurisdictional wetlands on the site, and groundwater modeling submitted with an application for a water use permit demonstrated that the proposed use of water will not adversely affect surrounding wetlands. The proposed access road and drilling pad will not impact any cypress-mixed forest swamps, hardwood hammocks, mangrove forests, archeological sites, or native ceremonial grounds. Nor will they adversely affect known red-cockaded woodpecker colonies, rookeries, alligator holes, research sites, or pine uplands. The evidence establishes that Hughes chose a site that minimized environmental impacts. Schwartz also contends that the wellsite activities will directly decrease the recovery chances of the Florida panther. According to Schwartz, this decrease will occur because the activities involve creating an access road, truck traffic, noise, lights, and vibrations. He also asserts that the proposed wellsite will result in a small amount of direct habitat loss when the cattle field is converted to a drilling pad. The USFWS has developed a panther scientific habitat assessment methodology. It relies upon peer-reviewed studies that found that panthers will select land cover types while avoiding others. The methodology ranks the value of land cover types from zero to ten based on the potential for panther selection. Applying the USFWS' scoring to the proposed wellsite, an improved pasture area has a value of 5.2, which means the land cover is neither actively selected nor avoided by panthers. The areas to the south and east of the proposed wellsite are forested wetlands and forested uplands, which have substantially higher values that range from 9.2 to 9.5. If converted to an open water reservoir under the Camp Keais ERP, the site value would be zero, the land cover type most avoided by panthers. The underlying USACE permit specifically required panther habitat compensation. Hughes' expert established that the proposed site minimizes impacts on wildlife by avoiding habitat selected by panthers such as wetlands, forested uplands, saw palmetto thickets, fresh water marshes, prairies, and native habitats. Based on a dozen visits to the site for the purpose of conducting vegetation mapping and wildlife surveys, the expert concluded there are no panthers currently known to be living, breeding, or denning on the site. A home range for a panther is the area providing shelter, water, food, and the chance for breeding. The typical home range for a male panther is 209 square miles, and female home ranges average around 113 square miles. The evidence establishes the proposed drilling activity will not interfere with the panthers' use of the site. Approval of the permit will not remove or push any panthers out of their home range. Hughes' expert opined that the four male panthers, which historically traversed the area within a mile of the proposed wellsite, would only likely move through the area every 15 or 20 months or longer. The temporary nature of the drilling activities means the panthers may not even be near the location during that time. If a panther is near the location and frightened by any activities, it will avoid the area, but will eventually return. Based on the large home range of the panther, the temporary activities will not increase the likelihood of intraspecies aggression or decrease panther survivability. The more persuasive evidence is that panthers are adaptable. They are habituated to the drilling operations in southwest Florida based on over a hundred thousand telemetry data points taken near 93 oil wells in the primary zone. Panthers are not threatened by the presence of humans. In fact, they live and den in and around residential communities and active agricultural operations. Panthers need prey, water, and shelter. The drilling activities will not adversely affect prey availability or impact water resources. The proposed wellsite's location within a disturbed agricultural field will not impact the panther's ability to shelter. During the permit review process, the Department requested input from the USFWS, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), and other interested parties regarding the proposed drilling permit. No formal comments were offered by the USFWS, and its biologist for conservation planning indicated informally that the surface impacts from an oil well are "very minor." Likewise, the FFWCC offered no formal comments on the application. The evidence supports a finding that the proposed permit activities will not affect the panther's use of, or travel to and from, the Refuge. The activities will not affect the panthers' availability of prey or increase panther competition for food or home range territory. The drilling will not adversely affect the panther's breeding, survivability, or the recovery of the species. The only other threatened or endangered species found in the vicinity of the proposed site was an eastern indigo snake, which was located two and one-half miles away and would not travel to the proposed wellsite, as its home range is up to a maximum of 450 acres. Schwartz further contends that section 377.242 requires that the permit be denied because the proposed wellsite is within one mile from the seaward (western) boundary of the Refuge. The Refuge is located entirely inland and does not have a seaward boundary, as contemplated by section 377.242(1)(a)3. Therefore, no drilling will be located within one mile of the seaward boundary of any state, local, or federal park, aquatic preserve, or wildlife preserve. This is consistent with the Department's routine and long-standing interpretation of the statute. Big Cypress Swamp Advisory Committee Petitioners and Intervenor initially contended that the permit should be denied because a meeting of the Committee was never convened pursuant to section 377.42. The Committee, however, met on March 11 and 31, 2014. Although a majority of the Committee voted to recommend that the Department deny the permit on various grounds, the recommendation of the Committee is not binding on the Department, and after consideration, was rejected. In their Proposed Recommended Orders, the opponents now contend that the permit should be denied because the Committee did not meet before the Department issued its proposed agency action. For the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, this contention is rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order issuing Permit No. 1353H, without further modifications. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2014.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that respondent Veterans Gas and Appliance Co., Inc., trading as Veterans Gas Company, now holds and has at all pertinent times has held a license issued by petitioner. Petitioner has licensed respondent as a "[d]ealer in liquefied petroleum [LP] gas, in appliances and in equipment for use of such gas and installation." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent has been in business for 25 years or so, at least. (T.48) On December 8, 1983, Clyde K. "Ken" Wallace, a gas serviceman in respondent's employ, was at the office of the Veterans Gas Company in Fort Walton, when a Mr. Wright telephoned, requesting that LP gas be delivered to the Ships Chandler in Destin, Mr. Wright's place of business. Mr. Wallace set out by himself for Destin in a bulk-fill truck to make the delivery. When he arrived, he found he could not enter the driveway, so he parked on the south side of U.S. Highway 98 about 15 feet from the Ships Chandler tank. He knew where the tank was because he had filled it the previous winter, the last time he had been there. Standing with two young ladies in the doorway of the Ships Chandler, Mr. Wright greeted him, saying something like, "I'm glad to see you. We're freezing." Mr. Wallace set right to work. Initially unable to remove the dome which blocked access to the underground tank, he asked Mr. Wright for a claw hammer. With the hammer he succeeded in removing the dome, and then announced he was going to turn off the service valve, which is the valve that allows gas to enter the building from the tank. Mr. Wright asked him not to turn the valve off, saying he was going to ignite the pilot light in his furnace, and disappeared into the store. Mr. Wallace took the dust cap off and, hooking up the hose to the fill valve, pumped one hundred gallons of LP gas at the rate of 25 to 30 gallons a minute, according to the meter on the truck. Before introducing LP gas into the tank, Mr. Wallace never turned off the service valve or any other valve through which LP gas flowed before passing through the regulator and into the system of pipes. In fact, he never touched the service valve, and did not know for sure whether it was on or off. Furnace apparently lit, Mr. Wright reemerged from his store after a few minutes, a check in hand to pay for the gas. Earlier on, at some point during their conversation, Mr. Wright asked Mr. Wallace whether he knew if nearby shop owners heated with gas or otherwise used gas, or something to that effect. Mr. Wallace said he did not know. The question arose because the complex had been a motel with central gas heat before it had been remodeled into shops and offices; and the conversion had taken place since the preceding winter. Mr. Wright wondered aloud whether or not his neighbors owed him money for gas. Mr. Wallace saw Mr. Wright enter one shop door, leave, enter another, leave, and so forth, presumably inquiring of the people inside whether they used gas. By the time he disengaged the hose and closed the fill valve, Mr. Wright was nowhere to be found. Mr. Wallace indicated on the invoice that it had been paid, dropped it on a desk or counter in the Ships Chandler, and left. After Mr. Wallace had driven off, an explosion occurred causing a fire and injuries to two persons. Explosion, fire and injuries occurred not in the Ships Chandler, but on the premises occupied by Way and Associates, Inc. Whoever did the remodeling cut the gas line and neglected to cap it, so that LP gas pumped into the Ships Chandler tank, ended up in a space between the dry wall and the outside wall in the building Way and Associates, Inc. occupied. Ignition of the LP gas accumulated there caused the explosion. Respondent had nothing to do either with the remodeling or with the initial installation of the gas pipes. If Mr. Wallace had followed standard industry practice, he would have turned off the service valve before pumping LP gas into the fill valve of an empty system. After pumping LP gas into the tank, he would have turned off the pump; he would have asked Mr. Wright to turn off all appliances, and, once the appliances were off, he would have turned the service valve back on to charge the system. Then he would have turned the service valve off again, in order to listen carefully. If he had done that, he would have heard LP gas moving through the regulator, even after the service valve was closed, and he would have realized that gas was leaking. Mr. Wallace, who started working for respondent in July of 1982, is qualified as a gas service man but not as a gas appliance service man. Like other new drivers respondent hires, Mr. Wallace went out with an older driver or the manager to learn the route and safety procedures for at least two weeks before going out on his own, but he was never told to check for leaks when introducing LP gas into an empty system.
Findings Of Fact Prior to July 10, 1984, Son-Mar Propane, Inc. (Son-Mar) was licensed by the Department as a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas, in appliances and in equipment for use of such gas and installation. Virgil Berdeaux was the president of Son-Mar and he and his wife were the sole stockholders. Virgil Berdeaux passed the competency exam which qualified Son-Mar for licensure. Sonny Wade Berdeaux Virgil Berdeaux's son, was the manager of Son-Mar. Son- Mar's business address and place of operation was 16034 U.S. Highway 19 North in Hudson, Florida. Virgil Berdeaux and his wife owned the property located at that address and leased it to Son-Mar. A propane pumping station and a building was located on the property at 16034 U.S. Highway 19. The building housed a pawn shop and supply store for mobile home and RV equipment. Son-Mar operated the pumping station and the stores. It also installed tanks and delivered gas to customers. 1/ On July 10, 1984, a final order was entered by the Department which ordered "[t]hat any and all of [Son-Mar's] licenses issued by the State Fire Marshal Division of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and eligibility to hold said licenses are hereby revoked." The revocation of Son-Mar's licenses was due to its violation of certain safety standards and rules. Specifically, it was found that an employee of Son-Mar, Mr. John Delham, filled a cylinder that had not been recertified, that he lay it horizontally in the customer's van, and that he failed to secure the tank in the van. While the van was still parked at Son-Mar an explosion occurred which destroyed the van and killed its occupant. On July 19, 1984, nine days after Son-Mar's licenses were revoked, Virgil Berdeaux submitted an application for licensure as a dealer in appliances and equipment for use of liquefied petroleum gas, listing the business address as 16034 U.S. Highway 19, Hudson, Florida, and listing the business name as Son- Mar Pawn Shop. On August 3, 1984, twenty-four days after the revocation of Son- Mar's licenses, Sonny Wade Berdeaux submitted an application for licensure as a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas, listing the business address as 16034 U.S. Highway 19, Hudson, Florida. The Department issues several different types of liquefied petroleum gas licenses. A Type 06, Class 02 license, known as a 602 license, is issued to a dealer in appliances and equipment for use of liquefied petroleum gas. The 602 license allows the holder to sell propane appliances and equipment, such as stoves, heaters, and gas grills but it does not permit the holder to install appliances or sell propane gas. A competency examination is not required for this type of license, and there is no inspection of the place of business prior to issuance of the license. Virgil Berdeaux applied for a 602 license. He completed the application and submitted the required fee. The application listed W. C. Johnson, Virgil Berdeaux's son-in-law, as the manager of the business. Bill Johnson had run the pawn shop for Son-Mar. Sonny Wade Berdeaux applied for a Type 06, Class 04 license known as 604 license, which is issued to a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas. This type of license permits the holder to pump liquefied petroleum gas for sale to the public. An applicant for this type of license must pass a competency test and file a surety bond or certificate of insurance. Further, if the licensee has a dispensing station, an inspection of the business location must be performed to ensure that it is in compliance with all safety regulations. Sonny Wade Berdeaux passed the competency examination, filed a certificate of insurance, and submitted the proper fee. Son-Mar held a Type 06, Class 01 license (a 601 license) as a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas, in appliances and in equipment for use of such gas and installation. A 601 license permits the holder to pump liquefied petroleum gas for sale to the public, to sell appliances and equipment for use of liquefied petroleum gas, and to install such appliances and equipment. In essence, it is a combination of a 602 license, a 604 license, and a license to install equipment. Both Sonny Wade Berdeaux and Virgil Berdeaux received letters dated October 8, 1984, which informed them that their applications for licensure had been denied. Both letters referred to the revocation of Son-Mar's licenses and pointed out that the applicants would be operating on the same premises and employing the same staff as Son-Mar. Both letters concluded as follows: Thus, it would appear that your application is seeking licensure for essentially the same entity that has only recently had its liquefied petroleum gas licenses revoked. Therefore, in the interest of public safety, this Bureau cannot permit an Order of Revocation to be obviated by a mere procedural reapplication in your name. The applications for licensure both list the business address as 16034 U.S. Highway 19 in Hudson, Florida. At the time of application Virgil Berdeaux owned that property and Sonny Wade Berdeaux had leased the pumping station. However, on July 1, 1985, the property at 16034 U.S. Highway 19 was sold. The pumping station was moved out along with the inventory that remained in the pawn shop. Neither Virgil Berdeaux or Sonny Wader Berdeaux retained any interest in the property, and at this time neither could operate a business at that location. Although there was testimony concerning the manner in which the business would have been operated and controlled had licensure been granted at the time of applications there was no testimony indicating where or how the business would now be operated. There was no attempt to amend either application to reflect a current business address, and the certificate of insurance entered into evidence lists 16034 U.S. Highway 19, Hudson, Florida, as the location covered. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law; it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying petitioners' applications for licensure. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 21st day of May, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant matter, registered as a septic tank contractor with the Department. In July 2002, Respondent entered into a contract with Pro Gold Investments Corp. (Pro Gold), whose president and sole owner is Emerico Kemeny Fuller. The contract provided that Respondent would install a "new septic system" for Pro Gold at 453 Blue Road in Coral Gables, Florida (Blue Road Property) for $4,600.00, a job that should have taken only a "few days" to complete. Pro Gold gave Respondent a "job deposit" of $2,300.00. In July 2003, Pro Gold, by Warranty Deed, conveyed title to the Blue Road Property to Maurits de Blank's company, Mortgage Lending Company LLC (MLC), and it also executed a Bill of Sale, Absolute and Assignments of Contracts, which read as follows: PRO GOLD INVESTMENTS CORP, as Seller, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration paid to it by MORTGAGE LENDING COMPANY, LLC, as Buyer, the receipt of which is acknowledged hereby sells, assigns, grants, transfers, and conveys to Buyer all of Seller's right, title, and interest in the following described goods, contracts and personal property: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A- PROPERTY" AND EXHIBIT "B- CONTRACTS ASSIGNED" Seller covenants and agrees that it is the lawful owner of goods, contracts, rights or interests transferred hereby; that they are free from all encumbrances, except for outstanding amounts due, if any, to those parties set forth on Exhibit "B," and that it has the right to sell, transfer and assign the goods, properties and rights set forth in the attached Exhibit "A," and the right to transfer and assign the contracts, rights or interests shown on Exhibit "B," and will warrant and defend same against the lawful claims and demands or all persons. The "attached Exhibit 'A- Property'" read, in pertinent part, as follows: (Regarding transfer of 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables, Florida, "the Real Property") (Mortgage currently in favor of Mortgage Lending Company, LLC "the Mortgage") All property rights of any kind whatsoever, whether in property that is real, fixed, personal, mixed or otherwise and whether in property that is tangible or intangible, including, without limitation, all property rights in all property of any kind whatsoever that is owned or hereafter acquired by the Company and that is associated with, appurtenant to or used in the operation of the Real Property or is located on, at or upon the Real Property and is associated with or used in connection with or in operation of any business activity conducted on, at or upon the Real Property, and including, without limitation, the following: * * * All right, title, and interest in those certain contracts and agreements [set] forth in the attached Exhibit "B," which are hereby transferred and assigned to Mortgage Lending Company LLC. Among the "contracts and agreements [set] forth in the attached Exhibit 'B,'" was the aforementioned July 2002, contract wherein Respondent agreed to install a "new septic system" for Pro Gold on the Blue Road Property (Septic System Contract). This contract was still executory. Respondent had not done any work on the site in the year that had passed since the contract had been signed. In the beginning of August 2003, Mr. de Blank met with Respondent and advised him that MLC was the new owner of the Blue Road Property and that MLC had also received an assignment of the Septic System Contract from Pro Gold. In response to this advisement, Respondent stated "he did not do assignments." Following this meeting, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent documentation supporting the assertions he had made regarding MLC's ownership of the Blue Road Property and its having been assigned the Septic System Contract. Mr. de Blank then attempted, unsuccessfully, to make contact with Respondent by telephone. He "left messages," but his telephone calls were not returned. These efforts to telephonically communicate with Respondent having failed, Mr. de Blank "decided that it may make some sense to start a letter writing program." As part of that "program," on September 8, 2003, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent the following letter: Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables As background, and in chronological order: Pro Gold Investments purchased the above cited property and obtained a construction loan from our firm. One of the conditions was that all construction contracts would be assignable to our firm in the event of default. Pro Gold Investments entered into contract with your firm to install a new septic tank and drainfield at 453 Blue Road. Pro Gold Investments defaults and forfeits title in lieu of foreclosure. The deed was recorded on August 4, 2003, at Bk/Pg: 21484/4283. Not recorded but attached for your reference is an assignment of contracts to include the contract Pro Gold Investments entered into with your firm. See further attachment. The original can be inspected in my office. At this point, I request you proceed with the work as soon as practical and under identical conditions as originally agreed with Pro Gold Investments. Please call me at . . . to confirm a start date. Mr. de Blank did not receive any response to his letter. He finally was able, however, to reach Respondent on the telephone. During this telephone conversation, Mr. de Blank made arrangements to meet Respondent at the Blue Road Property to discuss Respondent's doing the work Respondent had agreed to do in the Septic System Contract. This meeting between Mr. de Blank and Respondent took place on September 11, 2003. During the meeting, Mr. de Blank went over with Respondent "what the job [was] going to be." Although Respondent indicated that he was "going to put in th[e] septic tank" per the Septic System Contract, Mr. de Blank had his doubts that Respondent would be true to his word. Following the meeting, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent the following letter: Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables We met today to discuss the above referenced job. My understanding is: You will start the job no later than the first week of October and will complete the job no later th[a]n the last week of October. I will obtain a copy of the approved permit. You indicated you will not need a survey.[1] Should you change you[r] mind, you can always refer to a survey I keep on site. You will have your insurance agent mail to my address a certificate of insurance. Though not discussed: I would like a partial release of payments made to date for the job. See further the attachment. Assuming you concur, then please send a signed and notarized copy to Maurits de Blank, Mortgage Lending Company, Post Office Box 430336, Miami, Florida 33143. Note that I prefer for various legal reasons that you use the release form as provided. Once the job has been started, I would like a list of firms supplying materials to the job. Notwithstanding that he had promised Mr. de Blank that he would "start the job no later than the first week of October," by the middle of October Respondent had yet to even "pull a septic tank construction permit from the City of Coral Gables" (that was needed before any on-site work could begin).2 In an attempt to find out from Respondent what was the cause of the delay, Mr. de Blank started a "calling campaign," but Respondent neither answered the telephone when Mr. de Blank called nor returned Mr. de Blank's calls. On October 19, 2003, Mr. de Blank sent the following letter to Respondent (by certified United States Mail, return receipt requested): Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables I need a firm commitment when you will start and finish septic tank at above address. If you cannot perform the work, then I will need a refund of the deposit given to your firm. Please call to discuss. The end of the month was fast approaching, and Respondent had neither contacted Mr. de Blank nor begun the Septic System Contract on-site work. After paying a visit to Coral Gables City Hall and learning that Respondent had still not even "pull[ed] a septic tank construction permit from the City of Coral Gables," Mr. De Blank found another septic tank contractor, Westland Septic Tank Corp., to do the installation work for MLC that Respondent was contractually obligated to perform. MLC paid Westland $4,400.00 to do the work. Westland completed the job some time prior to November 4, 2003. The work passed all of the necessary inspections. Upon learning that MLC had contracted with Westland, Respondent sent Mr. de Blank a letter complaining that Mr. de Blank had not given Respondent an adequate opportunity to meet his obligations under the Septic System Contract. In the letter, Respondent offered to return only $500.00 of the $2,300 down payment he had received from Pro Gold. Mr. de Blank subsequently informed Respondent that this was not satisfactory and that he wanted the "full deposit back." He added that if he did not get it, he would "go to court." Not having received any portion of the "deposit back," Mr. de Blank, acting on behalf of MLC, in mid-November 2003, filed suit against Respondent in Miami-Dade County Court. On May 14, 2004, a Final Judgment was entered in Miami-Dade County Court Case No. 0313813 in favor of MLC and against Respondent "in the amount of $1,675.00 plus court costs in the amount of $121.00." As of the date of the final hearing in this case, Respondent had not made any payments to MLC. In view of the foregoing, it is found that Respondent abandoned for 30 consecutive days, without any apparent good cause, a project in which he was under contractual obligation to complete; and his failure to go forward with the project, combined with his failure to return any of the deposit he had received, caused monetary harm to a party to whom he was contractually obligated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him therefor by fining him $500.00 and suspending his registration for 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 4th day of February, 2005.
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.
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 application of Petroleum Products Corporation for reimbursement of the cost of assessment and clean-up of soil and groundwater contamination at its site in Broward County, Florida, under the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response Act of 1986 should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Legislature provided a system for the clean-up of sites contaminated as the result of the storage of petroleum or petroleum products in the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response Act of 1986 (Super Act), Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, codified primarily as Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes. The Super Act contains a reimbursement program funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund. Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, permits reimbursement of allowable costs for the rehabilitation of sites contaminated from discharges related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products. Petroleum Products Corporation owns a parcel of land located at 3130 Southwest 17th Street, Pembroke Park, Florida. From 1959 to 1970 Petroleum Products Corporation operated a facility on that land which collected used oil from service stations and automobile dealerships, processed it, and sold it either as fuel oil or lubricating oil. About 90% of 150,000 gallons of used oil processed monthly at the facility was sold as fuel; the remaining oil was sold as lubricating oil, but even when sold as lubricating oil, it was sometimes burned as fuel because re-refined oil makes good fuel. The storage tanks were located on the southeastern portion of the property, near Carolina Road. The facility used a two-phase distillation process. Used oil was distilled to remove water, after which it could be sold as fuel oil. If processed in the second phase, for sale as lubricating oil, it was distilled further, and treated with sulfuric acid and clay to remove additives and residue, and change color. This phase produced a waste consisting of acid/clay sludge. This sludge is generally very black, and has a pH of approximately 3. It is very viscous, and has the consistency of roofing cement; laymen would describe it as tar. It does not flow easily, but is liquid enough to be pumped. This processing also occurred in the southeast part of the property. While the recycling facility produced lubricating oil using the acid/clay treatment from 1959 to 1970, the acid sludge was hauled to a municipal dump, or placed in pits dug into the ground on the north and east of the plant site. When the pits were dug, they were dug below the water level, and there was water in the pits before the sludge was dumped in them. The disposal of sludge in pits on the recycling site was a prevailing industry practice, and violated no regulatory requirements at the time. Operators considered on-site disposal of sludge preferable to hauling sludge to a landfill. During periods of heavy rain, some of the sludge may have overflown the pits and spread to nearby land, where it would become mixed with the surface soil. Petroleum Products Corporation ceased making lubricating oil in 1970, but continued to process used oil into fuel oil. The local Broward County Pollution Control Agency asked Petroleum Products Corporation to remove the acid/clay sludge from its property, and to refill the pits with other fill material. Petroleum Products Corporation acceeded to this request, and a great volume of sludge, perhaps hundreds of thousands of gallons, was removed from the pits, which were then refilled under the supervision of the Broward County Pollution Authority. Receipts Petroleum Products Corporation produced at the hearing, or thereafter from the custody of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, show that more than 150 truck loads of sludge were removed and hauled to landfills operated by Metropolitan Dade County or by the City of Surfside. Some pockets of the sludge remain at the site of the pits because they were not completely emptied. The backfill was clean fill, and the area was then bulldozed so that warehouses could be constructed in the area. This filling and bulldozing changed the contour of the land from what it had been in the past. The Department contends that much of the sludge was spread out over an extended area of the site, and not removed to landfills. The evidence is persuasive that almost all of the sludge from the pits was removed to landfills. The testimony of Mr. Blair denying that the sludge was spread was credible. In addition, on-site spreading of the sludge would have been impracticable. As a tar-like substance, if spread out, it would have been tracked everywhere. It would stick to the tracks or wheels of any vehicles operating on the surface, and was so acidic it would burn or irritate the skin of anyone who came in contact with it. It would be extremely difficult to perform maintenance on equipment used to spread the sludge because of the need to clean the sludge off, so that the mechanic would not be burned. In addition, there are a large number of receipts evidencing the systematic hauling of the sludge to landfills. The logic of Mr. McDonnell's testimony is persuasive: If you have the alternate, which they obviously did, of hauling it away and simply dumping it, no one would go out and deliberately choose to do a very difficult job [spreading the sludge over the property] where there is an easy alternative available to them. (Tr. 285) Although the facility ceased its re-refining of lubricating oil in 1970, it continued to collect, process, and sell used oil as a fuel until 1984. About 150,000 gallons per month of used oil were processed and sold as fuel. The oil was typically crank case engine oil which contained the substances normally found in used oil of that type. There is no persuasive evidence that Petroleum Product Corporation ever received any hazardous waste, or mixed used oil with any hazardous waste. Used oil is not listed as a hazardous waste by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or by the Department. The used oil collected and recycled at Petroleum Product's facility was pumped into and stored in above-ground storage tanks. There were, over time, from 10 to 25 tanks, which ranged in size from 12,000 to 20,000 gallons. Normally, the facility stored between 400,000 and 500,000 gallons of used oil. Occasionally, the facility also received virgin oil, but it was processed quickly or sold because of its higher value. At the peak of its operation, the facility had 25 to 35 storage tanks. Recycling operations had slim profit margins and were small operations. Storage tanks, pumps, and other equipment were bought used, often from other businesses dealing in virgin petroleum products. That used equipment was often rusty or deteriorating. Tank bottoms could have holes in them as the result of rust from standing water; tanks were sometimes riveted, and would have side or bottom leaks. The tanks had virtually no overfill protection. When oil was pumped in, it would overflow from the top and run down the sides. Operators were typically not careful with the oil, because it had a very low value, about 2 to 5 cents a gallon. A spill of a few thousand gallons was regarded as an inconsequential matter. The pumps used in storing oil often had leaks in packing seals, or had screw joints which would leak. Tank valves, also usually bought as used equipment, were often installed without new stem packing, and also would leak during operation. Almost no preventive maintenance was done, because it was not cost-effective to do so. Equipment was repaired only if its current state of repair interfered with operations, which usually meant that leaks were not repaired until they created a fire hazard. Leaks and spills from used oil storage tanks, including their pumps, valves, and piping, were common. A great volume of used oil leaked or spilled from Petroleum Products Corporation's tanks, pumps, and piping over its 25 year operation. There were also large oil spills resulting from four or five major fires at the facility in the 1960s. The fire in 1963, which may have been the result of vandalism, caused 40,000 to 60,000 gallons of use oil to spill from storage tanks; 8 or 10 tanks were destroyed. There were no dikes, so that the oil flowed freely. When firemen used water on the fire, the oil was absorbed into the soil. Another major fire occurred in October, 1966 in which three oil storage tanks collapsed spilling about 50,000 gallons of oil. Another 25 foot high oil tank collapsed on a firetruck. There is no way to know, with certainty, the volume of used oil, virgin oil, and lubricating oil which spilled or leaked into the ground on the site. It is reasonable to believe that 9 to 12 gallons of oil would have leaked or spilled each day at the facility, which would have resulted in spill of over 100,000 gallons of oil. This estimate, made by Mr. McDonnell, is credible and is conservative, given the volume of oil also spilled during the fires. Petroleum Products Corporation does not contend that the leaks and spills from process tanks, rather than from storage tanks, are eligible for reimbursement of site assessment and cleanup costs. Oil leaked from both, however, and once in the ground, the oils are indistinguishable. Due to the capacity of the tanks and the years they were in use, however, it is reasonable to assume that 15% or less of the leaks and spills were attributable to process tanks. After processing, most of the oil was burned as fuel. Some was used as a lubricant. The only difference between used oil sold as fuel or lubricant was that the lubricating oil had the additives removed and the color changed. Both burn well. There is an insufficient basis in this record to justify the Department's interpretation excluding this site from eligibility for cleanup because oil processing ocurred at the site to produce lubricating oil. Section 376.3071 does not disqualify all or part of a site from eligibility for cleanup reimbursement because a portion of the used oil stored there was ultimately used as lubricants. In 1984 a Department investigator asked Petroleum Products Corporation to install exploratory wells to determine whether there was contamination at the site. Petroleum Products engaged the firm of Dames & Moore to undertake a preliminary investigation, which revealed that there was groundwater contamination in the form of floating hydrocarbons. On April 1, 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Petroleum Products Corporation entered into a consent order agreement which required the removal of 17 above-ground tanks leaking used oil into the ground, which constituted a continuing source of contamination. Petroleum Products Corporation contracted with Conversion Technology Corporation to recover and recycle the oil and wastes, with Waldron's tank cleaning services to clean the empty tanks and drum the sludge, with Cuyahoga Wrecking Service to make the tanks inoperable, and with Seven & Seven Transporters to remove the waste to a disposal facility. The employee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who was in charge of the site commended Petroleum Products Corporation for its cleanup effort, and wrote as the OSC [on- scene coordinator] for this EPA-monitored cleanup I may say that [Petroleum Products Corporation] exemplified industrial cooperation and responsibility in combating the vexing problem of hazardous waste management. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) Petroleum Products Corporation cooperated with the Environmental Protection Agency and with the Department in determining how to deal with the contamination. It has already spent approximately $150,000 to perform remedial action. Contamination at the site is of three types: oil floating in the groundwater, soil contamination, and groundwater contamination. It is not possible to clean any individual phase of the contamination without affecting the other phases. Attempts at remediation must be monitored to prevent an influx of organic contaminants into the aquifer. Similarly, the cost related to the cleanup of an individual phase of contamination cannot be isolated because of the inter-related nature of the cleanup phases. The creation of a cone of groundwater depression is necessary for any recovery of the free or floating oil. The cost of recovery of the free product cannot be separated from groundwater cleanup because it is necessary to treat large quantities of groundwater involved in creating a cone of depression. To the extent that a proportion of the cost might be estimated, the cost associated with the recovery of free product would be a minor portion of the overall cleanup. There is currently a free product recovery effort in place at the site, which is intended to prevent further migration of the product off-site. This ongoing action is not considered an element of the site cleanup. The most feasible method of cleanup for the free product will involve the excavation of the soils to create a trench. The free product and ground water will be recovered as they flow into the trench. During October and November of 1984, Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., a consulting firm working under contract with the Department, assessed the extent of free floating oil in the groundwater under the Petroleum Product Corporation's site. Those consultants found a free floating layer of oil from 5" to 30" thick under approximately one-half of the one acre site Petitioner still owns. The free product generally mirrors the location of the former recycling facility and its storage tanks. The viscosity of the free product is comparable to about 40-weight engine oil. Environmental Science and Engineering estimates that the floating layer of oil contains 20,000 to 60,000 gallons of recoverable petroleum product. The direction of ground water flow and the migration of contaminants off-site is to the east or southeast. The soil above the oil layer has been saturated with oil because of the fluctuations of the layer with movement of the water table as the area experiences heavy rains or dry spells. Wells drilled in the location of the former sludge lagoons to the north and east of the plant site reveal a heavy slightly liquid type of sludge. The oil in the lagoon sites is immobile, and no free product collects in the wells after 24 hours. One sample collected in the mason jar shows a slight degree of oil separation after 24 hours. This anecdotal evidence of separation is not very informative, and is not persuasive that oil separates from the remaining sludge on-site. See, Finding 32, below. A second assessment of soil and groundwater contamination was done by another consulting firm under contract with the Department, Ecology and Environment, Inc. That study showed free floating product at the site. The only calculation of the amount of free floating oil was that done by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., see, Finding 29, estimating that there would be 20,000 to 60,000 gallons of recoverable oil. That calculation understates the amount of oil in the ground. The estimate given by George McDonnell of 103,000 gallons is more persuasive. It is consistent that the large amounts of oil which leaked or spilled at the site over a 25 year period. It is unlikely that any appreciable portion of the approximately 103,000 gallons of floating oil has its genesis in the separation of oil from the acid/clay sludge which had been disposed in the two lagoons for the following reasons: Oil associated with acid/sludge would be quite acidic, and have a pH between 2 and 4. The pH scale is not a linear scale, so differences in pH are quite dramatic as the pH values change. Samples of free product shows a uniform pH of approximately 6 or 7. In almost all 31 monitoring or observation wells the pH is consistent with the characteristics of used oil, (a pH of 6 or 7), not the pH of sludge (a pH of 2 to 4). The only sample which disclosed a low pH was that taken in monitoring well number 3 which was located in the former sludge lagoon site. The groundwater flows to the east or southeast. This does not explain the presence of free product to the west and southwest of the sludge pits nor the absence of free product to the east of the pits. The viscosity of the oil is similar to that of 40-weight engine oil and not highly viscous, as the tar-like sludge would be. The oil in the sludge pits is basically immobile and no free product surfaced in the monitoring well after waiting 24 hours. The pH of the free product is nearly neutral. The Department believes that the sludge was mixed with lime rock or fill and spread over the site to increase the pH of the oil. This is unpersuasive. Mixing with lime rock would increase the pH of the sludge (tend to bring it towards neutral) but it would not cause the dramatic lowering of acidity which would bring the sludge to a pH of 6 or 7. In addition, the viscosity of the sludge would not be so changed by mixing the sludge with fill that its viscosity would become similar to that of 40-weight engine oil. To believe that the free product results from sludge disposal rather than leaks ignores the normal operating practice of used oil recovery facilities in the late 50s and 60s where spills from storage tanks, pumps, and piping were very common. Little of the free product has been recovered through the current remediation efforts. If not recovered, over time the approximately 103,000 gallons of floating oil will spread to adjacent property. To recover this oil by conventional trench or well recovery operations will probably cost $250,000 or more. The capital cost of the groundwater recovery/discharge system, with monitoring wells, will be about $85,000; cost of operating and maintenance are approximately $180,000. The firm of Ecology & Environment, Inc., collected soil samples at 56 locations in two phases in its remedial investigation. Forty-six of the samples were taken at shallow depths (27 at 8 inches, 19 at approximately 10 inches); 10 more samples were taken in the old disposal pit sites at depths between 0 and 35 feet). The two primary classes of contaminants found in the soil were lead and organics (hydrocarbons associated with petroleum products). Both contaminants are found in used oil. The lead and organic contaminants were found in the shallow soils over the southern half of the site. Very little contamination was found beyond the main area of site activity. The soil contamination was concentrated in the plant and former disposal pit areas. Samples with high lead concentrations were found in the former disposal pit sites. Contamination extended to a depth of 25 feet in one soil sample from a former pit, where oily plastic sludge was found with fine sand or clay. The two former pit sites are the only places with documented contamination below a 10 foot depth. Although the organic contamination extended laterally further than the lead contamination, Environment & Ecology concluded that the wider distribution did not reflect contamination from Petroleum Product Corporation's activities. The general area has long been the site of commercial and industrial activities, and there are many other possible sources for contamination including a firing range, which would have been disposing of lead bullets fired at the range, a generator plant, and a former spray-painting facility. Solvents and other chemicals used in these activities would contribute to soil and groundwater contamination. The consultants had been told by area businesses that small scale dumping of industrial chemicals in the vicinity has been common. Soil samples revealed a "great deal of heterogeneity." There was no uniform distribution of soils in the shallow zone. This probably occurs because after the reprocessing operations ended in 1970, the land was cleared and filled, so that many of the warehouses now in the area could be constructed. Most of the upper 8 to 10 feet is fill material. The ground water was monitored by installing 38 wells on the site, most of which were screened at depths of 10 to 12 feet. Five intermediate wells with depths of 50 feet and two deep wells of 100 to 200 feet were also installed. Every sample exhibited a pH of between 6.4 and 7.4. The primary contaminants were lead, organics, and chromium. The evidence does not indicate the source of the chromium. It is unrelated to Petroleum Product Corporation's activities. The groundwater contamination, both metal and organic, was only in the shallow zone. It extends laterally roughly to the same extent of the shallow contamination found in the soil. This suggests that the contaminants in the soil migrated due to seepage from rainfall or fluctuation in the water table into the groundwater. The water table is about five feet below the land surface. The Department has argued that the contaminants in the soil and groundwater were caused by mixing and spreading of the sludge material during the early 1970s over the surface of the area. This hypothesis has already been rejected for the reason stated in Findings 7 and 8, above. It is more likely that the soil contamination resulted from frequent spills and leaks of oil from storage tanks years ago. The soil contaminants are those found in used oil. The area generally is flat. There was no impediment to oil spills flowing over a large surface area, following the contour of the land at that time. Depending on the method used to clean up the site, the cost of rehabilitating the area will range between two and forty-six million dollars. It will cost over one million dollars to recover and treat contaminated groundwater. Approximately 110,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil must be removed and treated, the majority of that coming from the area outside the former sludge pits. The presence of contamination at the site is to be expected, given the site's former use. All of the 8 turnpike facilities and 8 maintenance yards operated by the Florida Department of Transportation report petroleum contamination from tanks, and the Department of Transportation has estimated cleanup cost will range from $20 to $30 million, although DER believes the cost may be $5 million. The cleanup will be funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund, as would the reimbursement in this case. The cost of rehabilitation is in the range of estimates that the Department has received for other petroleum contamination sites. In summary, the Petitioner's site is contaminated primarily from leak and spills of used and virgin oils processed or unprocessed and from storage tanks, pumps and integral piping. Small spills were continuous and some associated with fires were massive. The only portion of the site not contaminated due to leaks and spills is the residual soil and groundwater contamination from the sludge disposal pits, which is a small part of the overall contamination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Petroleum Products Corporation fo eligibility to participate in the cleanup program funded by the Inland Protection Trust Fund be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 9th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Rulings on Findings of Fact proposed the Petitioner: As will be obvious, the proposed order submitted by Petroleum Products Corporation comported closely with the Hearing Officer's view of the evidence, and with some modification was essentially adopted as proposed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10, to the extent necessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33 Rejected as repetitious of Finding of Fact 6. Rejected, see Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. The spreading theory is rejected in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. See also the stipulation of the parties entered as Exhibit 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Findings of Fact proposed by the Department. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted as modified in Finding of Fact 2. Discussed in the Conclusions of Law, see page 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Implicit in Findings of Fact 3 and 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unsupported by the transcript references given. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 Rejected as unnecessary. Generally rejected; see Finding of Fact 6 concerning the filling of the disposal pits. While some pockets of sludge remain at the site of the pits, the volume is difficult to determine. In an absolute sense, those pockets may contain a substantial amount of sludge, but on a comparative basis, by far the greatest part of the sludge was removed. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1), but see the final sentence of (1). Generally adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 28, and 34. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28, since the recycling facility and storage tanks were on the southern part of the property. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Implicit in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected because the process tanks necessarily store the product being processed, serving as a vessel to contain the product. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 3 with respect to the turnover in the volume of used oil processed at the facility. Only about 10 percent of the oil was reprocessed as lubricating oil. This is more significant than the volume of the tanks. See also Tr. 24 with respect to the storage capacity, and Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the surficial drainage has probably been changed by the filling and regrading of the property in preparation for building the warehouses. See Finding of Fact 6. The current surficial flow says little about the flow when the facility operated in the late 1950's and throughout the 1960's. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 through 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Generally rejected, the evidence is persuasive that about 50,000 gallons of oil were lost in the 1966 fire. (See Tr. 36-37.) Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected, the free product covers approximately one-half acre. Rejected, the more persuasive evidence is the 103,000 gallons estimated by Mr. McDonnell. See Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. See Findings of Fact 28 and 34. Rejected because it is unlikely that sludges are separating in the former sludge lagoon. See Finding of Fact 30. The source of the oil is more likely the substantial loss of oil which occurred from the fires and from leaks over the years which is now floating above the ground water. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Rejected as unpersuasive. Rejected, the source of the free product is not leaching from the disposal pit, but the oil from over flows and leaks during operation as well as large inundations during fires. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected, see Finding of Fact 30. Rejected because oil does not separate from the sludge. Rejected for the reason given for rejecting Finding of Fact 63. Rejected, the seepage is not the result of separation in the disposal pits, but from the plume of free product in the ground above the ground water. Rejected as unnecessary, but the similarity of the oil seeping from the sludge pit area to waste oil is consistent with its source as leaks and spills inicident to fires. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate, see Finding of Fact 30. Rejected as unnecessary; obviously as there is no more storage, so there is no more source for leaks or spills. 71-73. Discussed in Finding of Fact 30. Rejected because liquid product will not accumulate. Rejected because the sludge does not separate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(5). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Rejected for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Rejected for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Rejected as unnecessary and for the reason stated in Finding of Fact 32(5). Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1), which is consistent with the source of the free product being used oil rather than separation from sludge remaining onsite. 83-84. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of Mr. McDonnell has been accepted. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as redundant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Implicit in the finding that lead is a contaminant found in used oil. See Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Generally adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary; see also, Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32(1). Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, although there were disposal pits in the north and eastern parts of the property. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34 with respect to location, but the testimony with respect to spreading of the sludge is rejected. See Finding of Fact 7. It is unlikely that sludge was spread over the site. The more likely explanation for the appearance of sludge in the lithologic logs for the southern end of the site is that the disposal lagoons periodically overflowed after heavy rains and provided a mechanism for the active transport of sludge out of the disposal pits into some areas on the southern end of the site. Apparently the northern area now occupied by the warehouses was higher, because no sludge was found in observation wells 4, 5 and 19. Rejected, page 41 of DER's Exhibit 3 shows no sludge at observation well 5, which the proposed finding implies. 107-112. Generally rejected because the testimony with respect to the surface flow from the tank area being to the south is rejected because the grading of the property as the warehouses were built likely changed the contour of the land. Mr. Levin's testimony was not particularly strong; for example, at page 25 of his prefiled direct testimony he states, "And for the shallow soil contamination I would still have to lean towards the fact that the materials were mixed and spread." 113-114. The sludge contamination is not the predominant or source of contamination. Rather, it is the oils which floated across the land and were carried into the soil and resulted from the leaks and spills. 115-120. Generally accepted in Finding of Fact 36, although subordinate to that finding. 121. Generally accepted, although the soil contamination by lead is attributable to leaks and spills from the used oil. 122-124. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 38. 127-128. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 36, especially the last sentence, and 38. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 39. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 39, especially the last sentence. Rejected as unnecessary. 132-134. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. 135. Rejected because the soil contamination is the result of leaks and spills of oil. 136-137. Rejected, it is more likely that the neutral pH of the ground water is the result of the essentially neutral contaminant, the used oil. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary, although consistent with Finding of Fact 39 that the lateral extent of ground water contamination mirrors the soil contamination which has resulted from leaks and spills. 140-141. The predominant source of contamination is leaks and spills. 142. Rejected, the area affected by the leaks and spills is large, due especially to the fires and consequent loss of large amounts of oil from tanks. See Finding of Fact 41. 143-144. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 145. Although true, not relevant. 146-148. Rejected, whether the Environmental Protection Agency is correct or not in its assessment is not at issue here. This site was contaminated by used oil. 149-150. Although true, not relevant. Implicitly accepted in that no finding with respect to "bias" has been made. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected because the predominate source of contamination is an eligible source. Rejected, but the source here falls within the statutory directive. Rejected. The site here is predominantly contaminated by used oil, which is eligible. The eligible portion is not a minor part of the entire of the contamination. COPIES FURNISHED: R. L. Caleen, Jr., Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Puckett Oil Company, at times pertinent hereto, operated a full-service gasoline and auto service station at 7251 Pensacola Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida. The station at that site performed a complete range of automotive repairs, including lubrication and oil changes. These services are typical of such full-service service stations. On or about June 27, 1986, the operator of that station which was owned by Puckett, Mr. Winters, discovered a discharge of used oil at the site. The discharge occurred because the operator believed that used oil had been drained into an underground storage tank on a routine basis at the facility, as the oil was changed in customer vehicles. In fact, it developed that, unbeknownst to Mr. Winters, the tank had been removed by the prior land owner. This resulted in repetitive contamination of soil and groundwater at the facility, since the oil poured into the floor drain at the station, after being removed from the crank cases of customer vehicles, was in reality draining into the ground, instead of into a storage tank. After becoming aware of this problem, Puckett filed an Early Detection Incentive (EDI) Program Notification Application, reporting the discharge of used oil to the Department, pursuant to Section 376.3071, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). That EDI notification application form lists used oil as a "product." Puckett notified the Department of its intent to proceed with voluntary cleanup at the Puckett site pursuant to Section 376.3071(11) and (12), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), and to seek reimbursement for the cost of that contamination cleanup pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). The Department, in view of the request, conducted a site inspection on December 19, 1986. The Department's inspection personnel prepared an EDI Program Compliance Notification Checklist on the Puckett site. This report noted the circumstances of the discharge, to the effect that the used oil tank had been removed while used oil was still being disposed of through the drain at the service station. Thereafter, by its Order of April 16, 1987, the Department advised Puckett that its site was not eligible for "Super Act" reimbursement. The denial of eligibility was based on the DER's position that used oil was not "petroleum" or a "petroleum product" for purposes of Section 376.301(9) or (10), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). On May 8, 1987, Puckett filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings, alleging, among other things, that used oil is "petroleum" or "petroleum product" within the meaning of the "Super Act" and that the Department is estopped from denying "Super Act" reimbursement eligibility for voluntarily reported discharges of used oil. Inasmuch as the DER conducted inspections of the site in question, recording its findings, the Department was aware of the circumstances of the discharge; that the used oil tank had been removed and that oil had continued thereafter to be placed in the drain facility, thus contaminating the soil where the used oil disposal tank had formerly been placed. The Department did not raise the eligibility exception involving gross negligence in the Order of April 16, 1987, however, nor by any other vehicle until the filing of its Motion for Continuance with the Hearing Officer on August 31, 1987. Additionally, in response to a Request for Admissions served by Puckett, the Department admitted that the sole basis for denial of the reimbursement eligibility for the Puckett site was the fact that the substance discharged was "used oil," which the Department contends is not petroleum or petroleum product and thus is not a proper subject for reimbursement of related clean up and decontamination expenses. Uncontroverted evidence establishes that in August 1984, eleven oil changes at the Puckett site generated 3.5 quarts or about 9 1/2 gallons of used oil. Using this figure as an average, until the time the discharge was discovered 22 months later, the Puckett site generated approximately 210 gallons of used oil. Mr. Winters testified that he believed he had a 500 or 1,000 gallon used oil tank. Puckett's used oil was disposed of by inserting the drain bucket on the floor drain. The floor drain is a receptacle with an adapter on it for the oil drain bucket. Although the floor drain system appeared to be a working system, the underground used oil storage tank at the Puckett site had been removed, unbeknownst to Mr. Winters. It was apparently removed by Exxon Corporation, the previous site operator. It was Exxon's practice to remove fuel tanks from non-operational stations, such as the Puckett site was at the time it was sold to Puckett. It was not their normal practice, however, to remove used oil storage tanks. Mr. Winters, in his sixteen years of operating service stations, has never experienced a floor drain with such an adapter that was not connected to an underground storage tank. Further, he had previously leased a service station that had been purchased from Exxon after being closed for seven years and the used oil tank was still in place at the time he took possession of the station. He asked the person responsible for closing the Exxon station (the Puckett site) where the used oil tank was located. That person responded by pointing to an area of landscape shrubbery where a galvanized pipe could be seen protruding from the ground. A used oil collection company attempted to pump the contents of the tank using that pipe. Three large holly bushes were growing undisturbed over the area where Mr. Winters had been told the tank was located. It thus appeared to Mr. Winters that the tank could not have been removed. There was no evidence that Mr. Winters attempted to conceal the discharge of the oil or that he continued to dispose of the used oil in the floor drain after discovering that the tank had been removed. If the floor drain had not become stopped up, Mr. Winters likely never would have begun looking for the presence of the tank. A used oil collection company never was able to pump any used oil from the pipe supposedly connected to the tank. It was Mr. Winters' belief that used oil collection companies normally came to service stations after closing hours to pump the used oil storage tanks, so they can avoid paying for the used oil. It was for this reason, he believed, that he rarely had seen a used oil collection company trying to pump oil from such a storage tank. He was thus not concerned when the company reported that it could pump no used oil from the tank because he believed that another used oil collector had previously drained it. The used oil discharged at the Puckett site consists of used engine crank case oil with an estimated two percent of used transmission oil. Used oil at the Puckett site is not mixed with solvents or other hazardous wastes. Puckett does not accept neighborhood collections of used oil. An assessment of the contamination at the Puckett site was conducted by Delta Environmental Consultants. Delta had an analysis of soil samples prepared by Pioneer Laboratories and an analysis of ground water samples by Savannah Laboratories. Dr. Litt, the Petitioner Puckett's expert witness, opined, based on the contamination assessment, that the contamination was due to used oil or "used oil fuel" instead of "hazardous waste fuel" or hazardous waste. Dr. Litt relied on the testimony of Mr. Winters to the effect that solvents or other hazardous wastes were not mixed with the used oil at the Puckett site in the service station's operations. Based on the soil and ground water analyses supplied him, Dr. Litt found an absence of halogenated solvents which would commonly be mixed with used oil, thus corroborating Mr. Winters' testimony that the used oil at the Puckett facility was not known to have been mixed with any hazardous wastes. The soil analysis indicates a level of organic halogens of 1,090 parts per million. This level might raise a presumption, under relevant EPA regulations, that the oil had been mixed somewhat with hazardous wastes, but Dr. Litt established that indeed no mixing had occurred based upon Mr. Winters' testimony, as well as the fact that the testing method used is accurate to only a plus or minus 700 parts per million in a total range of 1,000 to 2,000 parts per million. Indeed, some halogen levels may be attributed to natural soil conditions. Thus, the finding of 1,090 parts per million organic halogens could be as much as 700 parts per million in error, and some of this quantity can be due to natural backgrounds. Additionally, the level of individual chlorinated solvents sampled indicated no mixing of used oil with typical hazardous wastes. International Petroleum Corporation International Petroleum Corporation (International) has operated an oil storage plant and used oil reclamation facility at 105 South Alexander Street, Plant City, Florida, since May 1980. That site contains approximately 10 acres. There are two on-site tank farms containing 17 above-ground stationary tanks and two underground tanks. One underground tank holds 10,000 gallons and is used to store diesel fuel. The other tank holds 5,000 gallons and stores virgin gasoline. The above-ground tanks range in size from 8,000 to 212,000 gallons and are used to store oil, both used oil and new oil. All the tanks have been registered with the DER in accordance with its rules and are a part of the DER's "stationary tank system." The plant site also contains an office building and a testing laboratory which provides an array of testing services. The lab contains an atomic absorption unit, kinematic viscosity baths, API gravity hydrometers, distillation equipment and a gas chromatography. International uses this equipment, operated by a trained chemist, to test incoming loads of oil for such things as viscosity, flash point, API gravity, heavy metals, halides, etc. Since 1980, International has received, processed and sold more than 5,000,000 gallons of oil from this facility. The oil processed through the facility includes virgin kerosene, diesel, jet fuel and oils of various grades ranging from ASTM grade numbers 1-4 (the distillates) and ASTM grade numbers 5, 6 and "bunker C" (the residuals). The residual oils are those oils left after the lighter distillates are removed through the vacuum distillation process. The amount of residual oils processed since 1980 is relatively low, less than fifteen percent of the total amount of oils processed at International's facility. Out of 7,000,000 gallons processed in an average year, the plant may receive two or three carloads of grade numbers 5, 6 or bunker C. From 1980 to 1985, approximately 7,000,000 to 12,000,000 gallons of virgin oils were processed at the facility. In each of those years, from 4,000,000 to 7,000,000 gallons of used oil were also processed. Over that five- year period approximately 20,000,000 gallons of used oil were processed and sold through the International facility. International blends virgin oils received at the plant with used oils to meet particular specifications of a customer. It uses its own trucks to collect oil from service stations, automobile dealerships and other industrial accounts. Oil is then delivered to the plant and tested for basic constituents before being placed in an appropriate storage tank. International tests all incoming used oil to see if it meets the criteria for so-called "on spec" used oil or "off spec" used oil. These specifications were established by the EPA in 1985 and adopted by the DER. Used oil meeting these criteria may be burned as fuel in industrial and non-industrial boilers without limitations. The criteria are as follows: Constituent/Property Allowable Level Arsenic 5 ppm maximum Cadmium 2 ppm maximum Chromium 10 ppm maximum Lead 100 ppm maximum Total Halogens 4,000 ppm maximum Flashpoint 100 degrees Fahrenheit minimum International has followed a practice of rejecting incoming used oil which fails to meet the criteria of 1,000 parts per million or less of total halogens, which is the rebuttable threshold presumption of "hazardous waste" oil. International makes an effort to ensure that used oil it receives and processes is thus "on spec." It regularly sends samples to independent laboratories to cross-check its own laboratory testing results. It is selective in its sources of used oil and typically obtains used oil from large companies such as the Mack truck shops, car dealerships and other large volume producers of used oil. These are sources unlikely to be contaminated with any hazardous materials. The "on-spec" used oil accepted by International is placed in separate storage tanks, segregated according to water content and API gravity, viscosity and lead content. It is then blended with virgin oils to meet the specification of various customers. Heat is sometimes supplied in order to drive off water. The used oil undergoes no further treatment or alteration, being merely tested and blended to meet the customer's requirements. Often blending is unnecessary. When a truckload is received, tested and found to meet specifications, it is sometimes directly delivered to a customer. International sometimes obtains used oil without payment from its suppliers and has often purchased it from the generators of used oil. It always sells it to its customers, however. It has a definitely defined industrial market as a fuel commodity and is recognized as having value when sold for such purposes. It may sell for as little as 30 cents per gallon and has sold for much more than that, depending on the market conditions prevailing at the time of sale. It is used both as a burner fuel for industrial and non-industrial boilers, as well as a key constituent in the phosphate beneficiation process. International sells approximately 40 percent of its used oil production to asphalt plants where it is used to fire burners and to rock drying mills, also as a burner fuel. It sells approximately 60 percent of its production of used oil to the phosphate companies for the beneficiation process. In that process, oil is used with other reagents and fatty acids to "float" phosphate out of the rock or ore in which it is contained, allowing it to be skimmed and separated. Although the oil is not burned as a fuel in this process, its use by the phosphate plants substitutes for virgin oils of ATM grade numbers 4 and 5 (heating oil) or in some cases kerosene or number 2 diesel. In 1985, International produced 4,295,101 gallons of used oil which were burned as a fuel by its customers and in 1986 produced 2,221,652 gallons of used oil which were burned as a fuel. The used oil which it sells for the beneficiation process meets DER and EPA standards for "on spec" used oil fuel, except for the lead content, which fact is immaterial to its use for the beneficiation of phosphate. The used oil sold for phosphate purposes does meet pertinent regulatory standards for "off spec" used oil, in any event, so that it could be burned as industrial furnace fuel under EPA and DER rules. The sale of used oil for final use as a burner fuel is very common. Many oil recyclers pick up used oil and take it directly to asphalt plants for burning as fuel without any blending or other treatment. International's sale of 60 percent of its used oil for phosphate processing is unique in the used oil industry, but is attributable to its close proximity to the central Florida phosphate plants. Most oil recycling facilities sell a larger percentage of their product for burner fuel than does International. The used oil which International sells as burner fuel is comparable to heating oil, ASTM grade numbers 2 or 4 and has a similar viscosity, specific gravity and flash point. It can be poured and handled without preheating. Residual oil, however, such as grade numbers 5 and 6 (bunker C) are very viscous and require preheating in industrial boilers or burner furnaces before it can be burned as fuel. The used oil sold by International Petroleum is more similar to ASTM grades 2 and 4 (the distillates) than it is to grades 5 and 6 (the residuals). Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination of the soil and groundwater at the International site was discovered in December 1983 by DER personnel. International retained a consultant to assess the site and determine the nature and extent of any contamination. It has already expended more than $50,000 in an effort to investigate and clean up petroleum contamination at its site. DER conducted a soil and groundwater site investigation in 1985, which showed that hydrocarbons were in the soil and that volatile organics were also present in the groundwater at the site. International has provided all background information requested by DER on site conditions existing prior to cleanup. This was for purposes of showing its entitlement to reimbursement eligibility. The contamination at the site consisted mostly of small leaks, drips and spills associated with loading and unloading railway tank cars, as well as stationary tanks, over at least a five year period. The storage tanks include integral piping systems, and some leakage occurred at hose or pipe connections. The petroleum products placed in the various tanks in the tank farm vary, so that the contamination existing at the site cannot be differentiated or attributed separately to used oils or virgin oils, to distillates (ASTM grades 1-4) or the heavier residuals. All are made up of hydrocarbons and their breakdown products in the ground are essentially indistinguishable. The record does not establish that any major or significant oil spills have occurred at the plant site and does not show that the operators have been particularly negligent or have failed to conform to industry standards. International has already taken remedial action by building high retaining walls and by removing contaminated dirt where repeated drippages occurred near the railroad tracks. Employees have received training to avoid leaks from hoses and pipes and have been instructed to clean up even small spills immediately. Valve equipment has also been upgraded. As a result of these efforts, subsequent testing of the monitoring wells at the site has shown that the groundwater condition has markedly improved and it may be possible that the cleanup action already taken will be sufficient to accord with regulatory standards for groundwater. Used Oil as "Petroleum" or "Petroleum Product" Used oil is derived from crude oil and consists primarily of engine lubricating oil which is a form of hydrocarbon and a special fraction of the original crude oil. The lubricating oil consists of vacuum distilled base oil and atmospheric distillate portions of crude oil produced at a refinery and further refined by processes involving wax removal and solvent extraction. The remaining portion of lubricating oil consists of additives added to the base oil to improve certain physical properties such as rust inhibition and to improve viscosity. Many of these additives, in turn, are substantially comprised of base oil themselves. Used oil also typically contains gasoline which condenses in the crank case, water, gasoline additives, lead sulfates, carbonates or oxides and other partial combustion products of gasoline motor fuel. Lead contained in used engine oil is produced by engines running on tetraethyl lead gasoline. This lead accumulates in the form of lead sulfate, lead carbonate or lead oxide, rather than tetraethyl lead in its original form. The sulfates, carbonates and oxides are insoluble and are not likely to be leached out by groundwater, in contrast to tetraethyl lead. Use of the oil does not change its basic chemical structure. The oil may be contaminated by various impurities resulting from partial combustion of gasoline, from rust, from condensed water and so forth, but these are essentially mechanical mixtures, rather than alterations of the chemical structure of the oil itself. Aside from water, when oil is pumped from the ground at the well, two substances are produced at the well head: crude petroleum oil and natural gas, including casing head gas. Used oil is similar in nature to the petroleum products specifically listed in Section 376.301(10), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). The predominant use of used oil is as a fuel, similar to diesel, kerosene and gasoline. A fuel is a material burned as a source of heat, rather than for disposal purposes. It can be either for propulsion purposes or for stationary equipment such as industrial boilers, asphalt plants and the like. Kerosene and diesel fuel are similar in terms of viscosity and BTU value to ASTM grade number 2 fuel oil. Used oil is thicker and more viscous than ASTM grades 2, 3 or 4, but not so viscous as grades 5 or 6. Neither does it have as high a BTU content as grade number 5 fuel oil. ASTM grade number 5 residual oil must be preheated before burning as a fuel. Viscosity is too high for the material to atomize properly at normal temperature. In fact, used oil can be used as a blending agent to blend down or reduce viscosity of grade number 5 oil and reduce the temperature to which number 5 oil must be preheated before burning. With some variance from one sample to another, used oil typically is similar in viscosity and BTU value to ASTM grade number 3 or 4 fuel oil. Gasoline, kerosene, diesel and used oil are all hydrocarbons which burn readily. These materials are mixtures of hydrocarbons, with additives which do not materially affect the properties of the hydrocarbon fuel, or its use as a fuel. Gasoline, in fact, is not classified by ASTM grade. Parenthetically, it thus appears that the Legislature did not intend to limit the scope of "petroleum product" by such considerations as only viscosity and BTU value. "Petroleum products" are commonly used as fuels and are typically stored at service stations or storage tank facilities which can pose a danger of causing inland soil or water contamination, if improperly discharged. Gasoline, kerosene, diesel and used oil are commonly stored in tanks at facilities throughout the state. Used oil does not have any meaningful similarity to the substances specifically excluded from the definition of petroleum or petroleum product by Section 376.301(10), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). Used oil, for instance, bears little similarity to liquefied petroleum gas or to petrochemical feed stocks, which latter products are used to supply the raw materials for chemical plants manufacturing petrochemicals of many types. Used oil only is similar to these substances to the extent that it is within the broad family of hydrocarbons derived from crude oil or gases, derived in turn from petroleum wells. Likewise, the ASTM Grades 5 and 6 residual oils are based on the residuum or the heave viscous material left after the distillation process is applied to crude oil. This residuum is the material left that is too heavy to further distill. On the other hand, crank case lubricating oils and transmission oils, which are typically involved in the category "used oil" or "used oil fuel," are derived by the process of vacuum distillation such that they are distillation products, as opposed to residual products. "Bunker C" oils, and marine bunkering oils generally, are residual fuel products and, together with asphalt oil, are not used as fuel, at least not at inland locations. These materials likewise are typically not stored at inland service stations or bulk storage or reclamation facilities and locations. Both the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Florida DER, in their regulatory scheme concerning used oil, encourage its collection and recycling. Used oil is typically recycled as a fuel and as a lubricant, by being separated from its contaminants by a re-refining process. Indeed, the oil constituent of used oil is not altered by use as lubricating or transmission oil, but rather is rendered in a "used oil" state by being subjected to various contaminants. It is not presently economically viable, given low virgin oil prices, to recycle used oil for lubricating oil. Thus, the two alternatives for disposition of used oil are to deposit it in landfills, a practice now generally prohibited by the DER and other regulatory authorities, or to use it as a fuel. Indeed, the use of used oil as a fuel is about the only practical way to dispose of it safely and legally in view of former uses, such as road oiling for dust control and weed abatement, now being prohibited in potable water aquifer areas. Section 403.75(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Thus, it is not only common and general practice to burn used oil as a boiler fuel and as a fuel in various industrial and utility plants, at the present time-that is almost the only manner in which it can be legally and safely disposed of. The Department itself has a policy encouraging the collection and recycling of used oil, as lubricating oil, fuel or as a feed stock in the manufacturing of other petroleum products. (See IP Exhibits 17, 18 and Joint Exhibit 5 in evidence.) Under EPA regulations which have been adopted by DER, used oil is not regulated as a hazardous waste. Under these regulations, the EPA has adopted a "rebuttable presumption of mixing" in order to distinguish between used oils which have been contaminated through mere use and used oils which have been mixed with hazardous wastes and therefore must be regulated as hazardous wastes or "hazardous waste fuel." Certain hazardous, halogenated constituents, such as chlorinated solvents, are the hazardous wastes typically found mixed with used oil. The "presumption of mixing" provides that any used oil containing greater than 1,000 parts per million of total halogens (such as chlorine, fluorine, bromine, iodine and similar substances) is presumed to have been mixed with a hazardous waste and will be regulated as "hazardous waste fuel" under 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart D, rather than as "used oil fuel" under 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart E. Hazardous waste fuel is essentially a hazardous waste with a BTU value of at least 5,000 BTUs per gallon. Hazardous waste fuel burning is tightly regulated by the EPA and DER. The presumption of mixing can be rebutted through a demonstration that the used oil in question has not been mixed with any hazardous waste. If mixing of used oil with hazardous wastes is known to have occurred, however, the oil is regulated as a hazardous waste when it is burned for energy recovery. Once it has been determined that a particular used oil is a used oil fuel and not a hazardous waste, the used oil falls into one of two categories: "Specification used oil fuel" or "off-specification used oil fuel." Specification used oil contains essentially the same toxic constituents as virgin oil fuels. Off-specification used oil fuel contains elevated levels of toxic components. Most used oil is off-specification, particularly if it is made up of mixtures of several types of used oil. If oil comes from a service station which was used in an engine burning leaded gasoline it would likely result in the used oil from that engine being off-specification due to the toxic lead compounds which would be present in the oil. If the oil was used in an engine which burned unleaded fuel, it is likely that it would be within specification limits for "on-specification used oil." Neither type of used oil is regulated as hazardous waste when burned as fuel, however. For purposes of determining whether an oil fuel is off-specification on on-specification, the EPA has developed a list [at 40 CFR Section 266.40(e): of contaminants, with the allowable levels for each contaminant, below which oil will be determined to be "on specification." Those contaminants are arsenic (5 ppm), cadmium (2 ppm), chromium (10 ppm), lead (100 ppm), with total halogens not exceeding 4,000 ppm in order for used oil to be within specification for nonindustrial burning. Specification used oils may be burned as fuel in nonindustrial boilers, including schools, hospitals, and apartment buildings. Off-specification used oil fuel may be burned in industrial furnaces, industrial boilers, utility boilers and some space heaters meeting certain federal safety requirements. Moreover, EPA regulations allow the blending of off-specification and specification used oil so that the resultant used oil, when burned, meets the specifications for nonindustrial burning. The Department's policy makers who were responsible for the initial decision that used oil is not petroleum or a petroleum product did not consult with certain key personnel in the Department's own used oil section concerning whether oil should be considered as a petroleum or petroleum product. In fact, Mr. Gentry, who is involved in policy making regarding the subject matter of the "Super Act," was not aware that the Department has a program to encourage the burning of used oil as a fuel nor the fact that used oil is extensively burned as a fuel in Florida.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the applications of Puckett Oil 4 Company and International Petroleum Corporation for eligibility for reimbursement pursuant to Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986), be granted. DONE and ENTERED this 7th of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 87-2161 & 87-2465 Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-23. Accepted. 24. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 25-38. Accepted. 39-40. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings and as not directly material. 41-45. Accepted. 46-48. Rejected as not material and relevant. 49-54. Accepted. 55. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 56-58. Accepted. 59. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 60-63. Accepted. 64. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject and as unnecessary to the resolution of material issues. 65-70. Accepted. 71. Rejected as irrelevant. 72-77. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject. Accepted, but not directly relevant and material. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-5. Accepted. 6. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 7-8. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as immaterial, in part, because the Hearing Officer, in determining whether the material at the subject sites meets the statutory definitions at issue is not, by the "pleading" confronted with the issue of whether any and all types of "used oil" meet these definitions, rather merely those types comprising the contamination at Petitioner's facility. The Hearing Officer cannot, in this proceeding, issue declaratory statements or advisory opinions. Accepted. Accepted, except for the next to last sentence. 11-12. Accepted. Accepted as to its historic accuracy, but not as a resolution of the essential issue presented. Rejected as immaterial in the absence of a Motion to Compel further, more detailed answers. Accepted as to its historical accuracy, but, for reasons similar to the ruling next above, not as probative of the appropriate, timely raising of the issue of gross negligence. 16-24. Accepted. 25-26. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted as to its historical import. 29-38. Accepted. 39. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant evidence of record. 40-43. Accepted. 44-45. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Rejected as not constituting a finding of fact, but, rather, a conclusion of law and statement of policy. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings and as largely immaterial. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter; as being partially immaterial and as a discussion of policy and not a pertinent finding of fact. 51-53. Rejected as constituting legal argument and not a finding of fact. 54-55. Rejected as constituting legal argument. 56. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. 57-58. Rejected as - subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 61-63. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and as constituting, in part, legal argument instead of fact finding. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and, standing alone, of scant materiality in proving whether used oil is a "petroleum product" or a "fuel commodity." Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. 78-80. Accepted in part, but not as to its material import and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 81-84. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant credible evidence. 85. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant credible evidence and as largely immaterial. 86-87. Rejected as immaterial to the ultimate factual and legal issues. 88-89. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as contrary to the preponderant credible evidence. Accepted. 92-93. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. 94-95. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and not in itself material. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Rejected as not comporting with the preponderant weight of the evidence and as immaterial. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings and as not directly material and relevant. Rejected as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's 4 findings on this subject matter. 102-103. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as to its purported material import. 104. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as to its purported material import and further as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 105-106. Rejected as constituting legal argument and discussion. 107-109. Rejected as constituting legal argument and discussion and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. 110-111. Rejected as constituting legal argument and discussion. 112-113. Rejected as constituting legal argument and discussion and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as constituting legal argument and discussion. Accepted but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings and not, in itself, material to the legal issue sub judice. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of credible evidence. Rejected as not in itself material and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the credible evidence. Rejected as not in itself material and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the credible evidence and as constituting legal argument and discussion. 119-120. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter and as to its purported material import and further as not being in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Fingar, Esquire HUEY, GUILDAY, KUERSTEINER & TUCKER Regulation Suite 510 First Florida Bank Building Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Blair 2600 Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399. L. Caleen, Jr., Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN 2400 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
