The Issue Did the site in question fail to meet monitoring and retrofitting requirements within the schedules established under Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code, and thereby not be eligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program?
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 was enacted as Chapter 86-159, Laws of Florida, and codified primarily in Section 376. 071, Florida Statutes. It provides for the expeditious cleanup of property contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum product. As part of the SUPER Act, the legislature created the program which is of direct relevance in this litigation. The EDI Program, Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes,, provides for state cleanups of sites contaminated as a result of a discharge from a petroleum storage system. Petitioner now owns and operates a facility at Route 1, Box 167 Jay, Florida. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The facility contains two underground petroleum storage tanks which were installed on or before 1970. (T8, 9). Monitoring wells were installed for the tanks in December, 1988. (T7). Monitoring wells are pipes which are installed in the ground around a tank excavation to allow for detection of leaks from the tanks. (T8).
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the site owned by Petitioner be determined to be ineligible for the Early Detection Incentive Program, pursuant to Section 376.3071(9), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-15SO (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gary Early, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Mr. Thomas L. MCNAUGHTON MCNAUGHTON's Store Route 1 Jay, FL 32565 Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
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 the Respondent, Florida Public Utilities Company, established the natural gas account for Mother's Kitchen Restaurant in compliance with all applicable statutes, and Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) rules concerning establishment of service and customer deposits, specifically Rule 25-7.083(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Whether Petitioner, Mother's Kitchen, Ltd., provided a deposit of $500 to Respondent at any time to establish a new account for Mother's Kitchen Restaurant. Whether Respondent administered the account of Mother's Kitchen Restaurant in compliance with all applicable statutes and PSC rules concerning refusal or discontinuance of service, specifically Rules 25-7.089(2)(g), (3), (5), (6)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code. Whether Respondent should be required to provide a refund of all or any part of any deposit made to establish an account for Mother's Kitchen Restaurant or any amounts paid for natural gas usage, service charges, returned check charges, or other fees charged to that account.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mother's Kitchen, Ltd., is a partnership formed to operate a restaurant under the name of Mother's Kitchen Restaurant. The partners consist of Anthony Brooks, II; Daniele M. Dow-Brooks; Eddie Hodges; and Arthur L. Brooks. Mr. Alford Byrd was an original partner, but has since withdrawn from the partnership. At all times in dispute, Mother's Kitchen Restaurant was physically located at 1744 West Airport Boulevard, Sanford, Florida 32772-0134. Respondent, Florida Public Utilities Company, is a natural gas utility regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) pursuant to Chapter 366, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 25-7, Florida Administrative Code. On March 21, 1996, Mr. Alfred Byrd (Byrd), a partner in Mother's Kitchen Ltd., signed a Job-Work Contract authorizing Respondent to prepare and connect appliances at Mother's Kitchen Restaurant to receive natural gas service. On March 21, 1996, Byrd provided, in person at Respondent's Sanford Office, a $200 deposit on behalf of the partnership to Respondent in order to establish a gas account for Mother's Kitchen Restaurant. Byrd received a deposit receipt from Respondent dated March 21, 1996, in the amount of $200. On March 21, 1996, Respondent established account number 0131-07252 in the name of "Alfred Byrd, d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" with a mailing address of "P. O. Box 134, Sanford, Florida 32772- 0134." This was based on the information provided by and the instructions of Byrd. On March 22, 1996, Respondent's serviceman prepared and connected a range and a fryer at Mother's Kitchen Restaurant for gas service, pursuant to the March 21, 1996, Job-Work Contract, and turned on the gas supply to Mother's Kitchen Restaurant. On March 31, 1996, Respondent billed Byrd $126.59 for the labor and materials required to prepare and connect the appliances under the March 21, 1996, Job-Work Contract. On April 9, 1996, Respondent billed the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account $67.32, consisting of $46.32 for gas usage from March 22, 1996, through April 2, 1996, and a $21.00 turn on charge from March 22, 1996. On April 23, 1996, Respondent credited $126.59 to the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account, paid by Mother's Kitchen check No. 1013, dated April 22, 1996. On May 8, 1996, Respondent billed the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account $297.07, consisting of $229.75 for gas usage from April 2, 1996, through May 1, 1996, and $67.32 in arrears. On May 23, 1996, Respondent credited $150.00 to the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account, paid by Mother's Kitchen check No. 1074, dated May 20, 1996, and signed by Anthony Brooks (Brooks). Respondent issued a receipt in the name of "Mother's Kitchen" for this payment. On June 3, 1996, Byrd signed a Job-Work Contract authorizing Respondent to clean the pilot light on the gas oven at Mother's Kitchen Restaurant. Respondent's serviceman completed this work the same day. On June 7, 1996, Respondent billed the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account $391.72, consisting of $244.65 for gas usage from May 1, 1996, through May 31, 1996, and $147.07 in arrears. On June 7, 1996, Mother's Kitchen check No. 1074 was returned for insufficient funds. Respondent imposed a $20.00 service charge on the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account for the returned check. On June 11, 1996, Respondent credited $170.00 to the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account, paid in cash on June 10, 1996, as reimbursement for the $150.00 returned check No. 1074 and the corresponding $20.00 service charge. Respondent issued a receipt in the name of "A. Byrd" for this payment. On July 9, 1996, Respondent billed the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account $657.36, consisting of $265.64 for gas usage from May 31, 1996, through July 1, 1996, and $371.72 in arrears. On July 11, 1996, Respondent credited $160.00 to the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account, paid in cash on July 11, 1996. Respondent issued a receipt in the name of "A. Byrd" for this payment. No person paid a $500.00 deposit on behalf of Petitioner to establish a new gas account with Respondent for Mother's Kitchen Restaurant on July 11, 1996. At no time during the month of July did any person pay such a deposit. On July 15, 1996, Respondent added a service charge of $30.00 to the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account for service performed pursuant to the June 3, 1996, Job-Work Contract. On July 25, 1996, Respondent credited $211.72 to the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account, paid by Mother's Kitchen check No. 1131, dated July 24, 1996, and signed by Alfred Byrd. Respondent issued a receipt in the name of "Mother's Kitchen" for this payment. On August 7, 1996, Respondent billed the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account $540.04, consisting of $224.40 for gas usage from July 1, 1996, through July 31, 1996, $285.64 in arrears, and the $30 service charge added on July 15, 1996. On August 8, 1996, Mother's Kitchen check No. 1131 was returned for insufficient funds. Respondent imposed a $20.00 service charge on the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account for the returned check. On August 12, 1996, Respondent discontinued gas service to Mother's Kitchen Restaurant for nonpayment of $285.64 in arrears on the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account. On August 12, 1996, Brooks hand-delivered a $290.00 cash payment to Respondent's Sanford Office to be applied to the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account. Respondent issued a receipt in the name of "Mother's Kitchen" for this payment. This payment was not credited to the account until August 28, 1996. The delayed crediting of this payment had no effect on any notices or bills concerning the account. On August 12, 1996, Brooks, in person at Respondent's Sanford office, requested that the mailing address for the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account be changed to the physical address of Mother's Kitchen Restaurant. Respondent made the requested change that same day. On August 13, 1996, Respondent's serviceman reconnected gas service to Mother's Kitchen Restaurant based on the August 12, 1996, cash payment of $290.00. On August 28, 1996, Respondent credited $521.72 to the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account. This credit consisted of the $290 cash payment made August 12, 1996, and a $231.72 payment made August 28, 1996. The $231.72 payment was made as reimbursement for the $211.72 returned check No. 1131 and the corresponding $20 service charge. Respondent prepared an in- house receipt for this credit. No person made a $521.72 payment to Respondent for the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account on August 28, 1996. On August 30, 1996, Respondent mailed a disconnect notice for the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account to the physical address of Mother's Kitchen Restaurant. This notice stated that gas service to the restaurant would be discontinued if payment of $230.04 in arrears on the account was not made by September 10, 1996. On September 9, 1996, Respondent billed the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account $471.29, consisting of $221.25 for gas usage from July 31, 1996, through August 29, 1996, and $230.04 in arrears. This bill was mailed to the physical address of Mother's Kitchen Restaurant. On September 12, 1996, Respondent discontinued gas service to Mother's Kitchen Restaurant for nonpayment of $230.04 in arrears on the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account. On September 12, 1996, Harry Johnson, an employee of Petitioner, hand-delivered a $261.04 cash payment, consisting of payments for the $230.04 in arrears and a $31 reconnect fee, to Respondent's Sanford office to be applied to the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account. Respondent issued a receipt in the name of "Mother's Kitchen" for this payment. On September 13, 1996, Respondent's serviceman was dispatched between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. to reconnect gas service to Mother's Kitchen Restaurant. On September 13, 1996, between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., Byrd, in person at Respondent's Sanford office, spoke to Diane Keitt (Keitt) and requested that gas service be discontinued on the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account. Keitt contacted the serviceman by radio as he was en route to Mother's Kitchen Restaurant and instructed him to tell someone at the restaurant to call Keitt at Respondent's Sanford office. The serviceman arrived at Mother's Kitchen Restaurant at approximately 9:00 a.m. Upon entering the restaurant's kitchen, the serviceman told the occupants that someone needed to call Keitt immediately at the Respondent's Sanford office. Next, he inspected the restaurant's natural gas appliances to make sure there were no open gas lines then exited the building to perform a meter test to check for the possibility of a gas leak on the customer's side of the meter. After natural gas service has been discontinued on any existing account, Respondent performs a meter test before reestablishing service in order to determine if there is a leak on the customer's side of the meter. The serviceman's meter test revealed a gas leak on the customer's side of the meter. He searched for the leak by inspecting the gas appliances and applying a soapy solution used to detect leaks to the gas connections on each appliance. The serviceman located the leak on a worn pilot adjustment screw on the range. The leak could not be repaired without replacing the pilot adjustment screw. Brooks was present at the restaurant and called Keitt while the serviceman was performing the meter test. Keitt informed Brooks that Byrd had requested discontinuance of service to the restaurant. Keitt also told Brooks that Respondent would continue providing service on a temporary basis, in order to provide Petitioner time to pay a $500 deposit to establish a new account. Keitt then called Respondent's Vice President Darryl Troy (Troy) at Respondent's home office in West Palm Beach, Florida, to inform him of the situation. Brooks called Troy, who confirmed Keitt's statements concerning Byrd's desire to have service discontinued and the necessity of providing a new deposit to establish a new account. The serviceman interrupted this phone conversation to tell Brooks that there was a gas leak on the restaurant's range. Brooks was upset that the serviceman had not yet restored gas service. Brooks refused to authorize or pay for repairs to the range. The serviceman prepared a Report of Hazardous Condition or Corrective Action Required to document the gas leak on the range and inform the customer of the necessary repairs. Brooks refused to sign this form. The serviceman capped the gas connection to the range, plugged the range, and placed the Report of Hazardous Condition or Corrective Action Required and a red tag on the range. He determined that the fryer could be operated safely, so he lit its pilot before exiting the restaurant. The serviceman spoke with Keitt by radio and told her that he had located a gas leak and that Brooks refused to authorize its repair. Keitt then called Troy for instructions on how to handle the account. Troy felt that Brooks did not believe a gas leak was present on the range. Troy was concerned that someone at the restaurant may attempt to reconnect the range, so he instructed Keitt to have the meter turned off and locked. The meter was turned off and locked due only to safety concerns; Byrd's request to discontinue service to the restaurant played no part in Troy's decision. Keitt contacted the serviceman by radio and instructed him to turn the meter off and lock it. The serviceman turned off the meter and locked it. He then notified Brooks that he had turned off the meter and locked it upon instructions from Keitt. The serviceman left the restaurant at approximately 10:00 a.m. That afternoon, Brooks, in person at Respondent's Sanford office, requested that Keitt provide him a refund of the $261.04 payment made September 12, 1996. Keitt refused to refund this amount. No record evidence exists to show that Petitioner paid a $500 deposit, or a deposit of any amount, to establish a new account with Respondent after gas service to Mother's Kitchen Restaurant was disconnected on September 12, 1996. On September 16, 1996, a serviceman took a final reading from the gas meter at Mother's Kitchen Restaurant and officially turned off the meter. On September 16, 1996, Respondent charged $100.50 to the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account for gas usage from August 29, 1996, through September 16, 1996, to finalize the account. On September 19, 1996, Respondent applied Petitioner's $200.00 deposit from March 21, 1996, to the outstanding, final balance of $310.75 on the "Afred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account. No record evidence exists to show that any person paid a $500 deposit, or a deposit of any amount, on behalf of Petitioner to establish a new account with Respondent for gas service to Mother's Kitchen Restaurant since the "Alfred Byrd d/b/a Mother's Kitchen" account was established on March 21, 1996.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found to have acted in compliance with Public Service Commission rules concerning the establishment of new service and management of customer deposits when service was established in the name of Alfred Byrd, d/b/a Mother's Kitchen on March 21, 1996. It is further RECOMMENDED the Respondent be found to have properly administered the account at issue here at all times leading up to its disconnection on September 13, 1996, and that Respondent be found to have acted in compliance with all Commission rules regarding that disconnection and refusal to reconnect. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent not be required to provide a refund of any part of the deposit made on this account or any amounts paid for service or fees on the account. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Brooks, II Qualified Representative Mother's Kitchen, Ltd. Post Office Box 1363 Sanford, Florida 32772 Kathryn G. W. Cowdery, Esquire Gatlin, Schiefelbein & Cowdery, P.A. 3301 Thomasville Road, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Wm. Cochran Keating, IV, Esquire Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Blanca Bayo, Director of Records Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William D. Talbott, Executive Director Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Rob Vandiver, General Counsel Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to participate in the Reimbursement Program established under the State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 for the petroleum terminal owned by Gulf Products Division of BP Oil Company at Port Everglades, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The State Underground Petroleum Environmental Response (SUPER) Act of 1986 provides for the expeditious cleanup of sites contaminated as the result of storage of petroleum or petroleum products. The Reimbursement Program, found in Section 376.3071(12), Florida Statutes, provides for reimbursement of the allowable costs of site rehabilitation contaminated as a result of a discharge related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products from a storage tank, or its integral piping or dispensing system. The Reimbursement Program does not provide for reimbursement of cleanup costs for discharges related to the transportation or disposal of petroleum or petroleum products. The site at issue in this proceeding is a terminal facility used for the storage of petroleum and petroleum product located at 1500 Southeast 26th Street, Port Everglades, Florida. This facility is referred to as Gulf Facility No. 46888 and DER Facility No. 068732278 (Gulf Terminal). The subject terminal facility is one of fourteen petroleum storage terminals located at Port Everglades, Florida. Petroleum and petroleum products come to the terminal by ship and are pumped from the ship through permanent pipelines to the large aboveground storage tanks located at the facility. The petroleum and petroleum products are stored in these large tanks until it is time for the product to be distributed to the end user. The Gulf Terminal contains eighteen storage tanks whose total capacity is 650,000 barrels of petroleum or petroleum products. These tanks vary in size, with the smallest having a capacity of 10,000 barrels and the largest having a capacity of 80,000 barrels. One barrel equals 42 gallons. The primary activity of the terminals at Port Everglades is to store petroleum or petroleum products. None of the terminals at Port Everglades, including the Gulf Terminal, refines or produces petroleum or petroleum products. Operation of this facility began in 1946. Petitioner, as the successor to the Gulf Oil Corporation, owned and operated the facility until February 1, 1985, when it sold the facility to BP Oil, Inc. As the previous owner of the facility, Petitioner performed an environmental audit which revealed petroleum hydrocarbon contamination at the site. Petitioner is responsible for the cleanup and is entitled to reimbursement of the allowable costs of the cleanup if the site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program. Any contamination of the soil and groundwater at the site was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products, water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum product or sludges which consist predominately of petroleum or petroleum product constituents. Based on hydrogeological assessment information, Petitioner determined that response action, including ground water cleanup activities, was required at the site. Petitioner hired independent contractors to conduct the response action. In 1986, Petitioner designed a recovery system for petroleum and petroleum product and a ground water treatment system at the site. Through February, 1989, the recovery system had recovered over 12,000 gallons of petroleum or petroleum products, which constitutes the recovery of between 60%- 70% of the total amount in the ground. Through November 1989, Petitioner had expended in excess of $560,000 on its response action at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner advised Respondent of its response action at the site by letter dated January 6, 1988. Petitioner submitted documentation to Respondent concerning hydrogeological assessment at the site which included field and laboratory work and investigation performed for the site from 1984 to the present. Pursuant to the requirements of SUPER Act, Petitioner notified Respondent of its intention to seek reimbursement for money spent conducting response action in accordance with Chapter 17-70, Florida Administrative Code, with regard to petroleum and petroleum product contamination at the site. Petitioner's notice to Respondent was timely and was procedurally correct. On July 13, 1989, Respondent issued its Order of Determination of Ineligibility concerning Petitioner's request for reimbursement. As stated in this order the initial basis for Respondent's denial of eligibility was: The determination is based on the fact that the contamination was not related to the storage of petroleum or petroleum products. Sources of contamination at this site include tanker trucks, an oil/water separator, a holding pond, and crude oil and tank-bottom sludge disposal pit. These items are not petroleum storage systems as defined in Section 376.301 F.S. therefore (sic), this site is not eligible for reimbursement under the SUPER Act. ... Respondent clarified its Order of Ineligibility by a Notice to Amend and Clarify dated November 14, 1989, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The notice of denial provides that the site is being denied due to the fact that the disclosed sources of contamination are not petroleum storage systems. One of the criteria for being a petroleum storage system is that it be used or intended to be used for storage of petroleum or petroleum product. It is the criteria that the Department contends is not met in this case; i.e., that the discharges were not intended for storage. Section 376.3071(4), Florida Statutes, specifically limits the use of the Environmental Protection Trust Fund to incidents of inland contamination related to storage of petroleum or petroleum product. * * * The Department recently became aware that prior to 1983, contaminated water was disposed of directly from tanks at the site with no pretreatment by an oil/water separator. As with the disposal of oil and sludge to a pit, the act of intentionally disposing of contaminants to the ground is not "related to storage" as required by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. * * * Wherefore, The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation hereby requests that the Hearing Officer allow for the amendment of the notice of denial of eligibility to include the following basis for denial: Contamination at the site is related to the disposal of petroleum or petroleum product, or water contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. Disposal activities including the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water and/or fuel from tanks, oil water separators and sump areas, the intentional discharge and disposal of contaminated water to a percolation pond, the intentional discharge and disposal of oil and sludge to a disposal pit, and the intentional discharge and disposal of fuel to the ground at the loading rack. Among the causes of contamination of the Gulf Terminal are accidental overfills of tanks and leaks from an integral pipeline. Absent any other source of contamination, the discharges that occurred at the Gulf Terminal due to these causes would be eligible for the reimbursement. Respondent has determined, however, that the following additional sources of contamination render the entire response action ineligible for reimbursement: Discharges of dissolved hydrocarbon molecules contained in water which accumulated in storage tanks; Discharges of petroleum or petroleum products at the loading rack at the terminal; and The discharge of crude oil and of crude oil tank bottoms. TANK OVERFILL During the operation of the Gulf Terminal, petroleum and petroleum products have been accidentally discharged onto the ground. In 1955, an unknown quantity of petroleum or petroleum products was accidentally discharged onto the ground in the areas of tanks 104 and 105 as a result of these tanks being over- filled. Following this massive spill, between 5,000 - 10,000 barrels of product was recovered, while an unknown quantity could not be recovered. PIPELINE LEAK Since 1955, approximately 15,000 additional barrels of petroleum or petroleum products were leaked from an underground pipeline that is integral to the storage system in an area between the loading rack and tank 101, extending toward the west to between tanks 110 and 102. This is the vicinity where the heaviest free floating petroleum contamination exists. DISCHARGE OF CONTAMINATED WATER Florida has adopted the standard code for the design of aboveground storage tanks prepared by the American Petroleum Institute (API-650). The tanks at the Gulf Terminal are in compliance with API-650. The accumulation of water in storage tanks is a problem associated with the storage of petroleum or petroleum products in the storage tanks at the Gulf Terminal and at the other terminals at Port Everglades. Water accumulates in the storage tanks from rainfall and from condensation. The records of the US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Station 08063163 (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) accurately depict the rainfall levels at the terminal facility. The total annual rainfall levels are as follows: 1980, 69.67 inches; 1981, 57.9 inches; 1982, 82.92 inches; 1983 75.16 inches; 1984, 59.4 inches; 1985, 63.74 inches; 1986, 64.14 inches, 1987, 58.50 inches; 1988 40.66 inches. Because water is heavier than petroleum and petroleum products, the water accumulates at the bottom of the tanks. It is essential to the proper storage of the petroleum or petroleum products that the water be removed for at least three reasons. First, if the water is not removed, the tanks would eventually become filled with water instead of product. Second, the product contaminated by water, particularly fuel for motor vehicles and aircraft, would not meet specifications. Third, water in the tanks speeds the corrosion of the tank. In order to remove this water that accumulates at the bottom of the storage tanks, a water draw-off mechanism located at the bottom of the tank is a design feature of API-650. When water accumulates in the bottom of the tank, the water is drained out through the water draw-off mechanism. The storage tanks located at the Gulf Terminal are equipped with such a water draw-off mechanism. Throughout the existence of the facility, accumulated water in the tanks has been controlled by discharging the water through the water draw-off mechanism. From 1948 to 1980, water was drained out of the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and on to the ground. Beginning in 1980, the water was taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism and piped to a catch basin where an effort was made to recover petroleum product by skimming the water before the water was discharged into the ground. Since 1985, the water taken from the tanks through the water draw-off mechanism has been treated by an oil/water separator which effectively removes all petroleum product before the water is discharged. The purpose of the oil/water separator is to separate petroleum product from water so that the petroleum product can be returned to the storage tank and the water can be discharged. This process serves to prevent the discharge of petroleum product. Up to 1988, the discharges to the ground from the oil/water separator at the Gulf Terminal accumulated in a holding pond. In 1988, the holding pond was eliminated and the water discharges from the oil/water separator were routed to a holding tank prior to treatment by an air stripper and subsequent discharge into the canal adjacent to the property. At all times since 1983, the water drawn out of the tanks has been the subject of permits issued by Respondent which approve the use of the oil/water separator. While it is necessary for the operation of the storage tanks that water be drawn from the tanks, it is not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks for the contaminated water to be discharged onto the ground. The purpose of discharging the water was to dispose of it. There was no intent to recover the contaminated water after it was discharged. Any water coming out of a storage tank is contaminated with dissolved petroleum. It may have solids in it and floating residue or product on it. Between 1946 and 1980, when this water from the storage tanks was discharged to the ground, any contaminates in the water would be discharged along with it. Water has been drained from tanks numbered 101, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112 113, and 114 on a daily basis. The other tanks are drained after a rainfall. An average of one or two inches of water was drained off each time it rained. Following a rainfall, in excess of 30 barrels of water would be drained from the smaller tanks, while approximately 300 barrels of water would be drained from the larger tanks. The discharge of the water drawn from the storage tanks contributed to the contamination of the groundwater at the Gulf Terminal. This type contamination exists in almost all areas of the site. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the contamination to the groundwater caused by the discharge of contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks from contamination to the groundwater which resulted from other causes. Petitioner failed to establish that the contribution to this contamination to the groundwater by the discharge of the contaminated water drawn from the storage tanks was insignificant. THE LOADING RACK The loading rack at the Gulf Terminal is the apparatus by which the petroleum in the storage tanks is dispensed to tanker truck for distribution to consumers. The loading rack is a series of dispensers which operate much like at a service station except that it fuels tanker trucks rather than automobiles. The loading rack is connected by permanent integral piping to the storage tanks. The purpose of the loading rack is to load the transport trucks. Without the storage tanks at the terminal, there would be no need for a loading rack. Over the years, discharges have occurred in the loading rack, usually as the result of human error. Occasional overfills in the 10-15 gallon range have occurred while a truck was being filled. This type discharge is analogous to a spill which occurs at a service station when an automobile is being fueled and the fuel splashes back or overfills the automobile's fuel tank. The supervisor of Respondent's Reimbursement Section testified that this type discharge, absent other causes, would probably be eligible for reimbursement. This testimony conflicts with the official position taken by Respondent in this proceeding that the cleanup caused by the operation of the loading rack is ineligible for reimbursement. In other incidents, small amounts of product ranging from a teacup to less than a gallon, were occasionally discharged while a truck was being drained of one type of product so that the truck could transport another type of product. The loading rack is an integral part of the storage system because without a means of moving the product out of storage and into the distribution system, the storage tanks could not provide a meaningful function. The discharges which occurred at the loading rack during the course of both loading and unloading trucks are insignificant when compared with the other sources of contamination at the site. TANK BOTTOMS In 1956, a storage tank was emptied for the purpose of switching product from crude oil to diesel fuel. At the time the change in product was made, approximately 1000 barrels of sludge and crude oil were disposed of in a pit adjacent to tank 101. Also disposed of was the tank bottom, a hard tar residue which formed at the bottom of the tank. Oil occasionally oozes to the surface in the vicinity of the pit adjacent to tank 101, but the area around the sludge pit has not been found to be contaminated, and the tank bottom has remained a hardened mass. Each tank on the site also had a pit alongside the tank where a tank bottom was disposed. Although it was necessary to remove the sludge and the tank bottoms to be able to properly operate the storage tanks, it was not necessary for the operation of the storage tanks to dump the sludge and the tank bottoms onto the ground or into the pits. The purpose of discharging the crude oil sludge and the tank bottoms was to dispose of them. There was no intent to recover the crude oil sludge or the tank bottoms water after they were discharged. CONTAMINATION PHASES The contamination at the site exists in three phases, floating petroleum product contamination, dissolved petroleum groundwater contamination, and sludge contamination. The contamination in the form of floating petroleum was caused by discharges of petroleum or petroleum products following the tank overfills, the pipeline leaks, and spills at the loading rack. The dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by two primary sources. First, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by floating petroleum product coming into contact with groundwater. Upon such contact, molecules from the floating petroleum would dissolve into the water, causing contamination. Second, the dissolved groundwater contamination was caused by the discharge of the contaminated water that had been drawn off from the storage tanks. Petitioner was unable to distinguish the dissolved groundwater contamination that was caused by accidental discharges of product from the contamination caused by the discharge of the contaminated water. Petitioner was also unable to establish that the dissolved groundwater contamination caused by the contaminated water was insignificant. The sludge contamination was caused by the discharge of crude oil and crude oil tank bottoms. CLEANUP The sludge contamination is capable of being cleaned up separately from the free floating petroleum contamination and the groundwater contamination at the site. The sludge contamination is separate and distinct from the other contamination at the site both as to the location of the contamination and as to the methods that would be employed to clean up that type of contamination. Free floating petroleum contamination is recovered by drawing down the water level in a well by use of a pump so that a cone of depression is created. The cone of depression is a funnel shaped depression that causes the surface of the underground water table to bend down towards the well in all directions. The free floating petroleum which flows on top of the underground water surface is then recovered by use of a second pump. The free floating petroleum is then pumped into a holding tank where the recovery of free floating petroleum is completed. The recovery of free floating petroleum contamination is usually more expensive to accomplish than groundwater cleanup because more equipment is required. Groundwater cleanup usually takes a longer period of time to accomplish than does free floating product cleanup. The same or a similar well used to recover the free floating petroleum can also be used for the cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The contaminated groundwater is pumped from the well into an oil/water separator where the water and dissolved petroleum is separated, water is taken off the bottom, put through an air stripper, and is returned to the ground through an infiltration unit. Respondent has previously found sites eligible for the reimbursement program even though those sites experienced discharges which alone would render a site ineligible for the reimbursement program. The basis for finding these sites eligible was that the ineligible discharges had become indistinguishable from the eligible discharges and were insignificant by comparison. Petitioner has complied with all procedural requirements for seeking eligibility contained in Section 376.3701, Florida Statutes. Respondent has not been denied access to the Gulf Terminal. Respondent has made no determination that there has been gross negligence in the maintenance of the petroleum storage system locate at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not willfully concealed the existence of a serious discharge at the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not falsified any inventory records maintained with respect to the Gulf Terminal. Petitioner has not caused any intentional damage to the Gulf Terminal. The Gulf Terminal is not owned by the federal government. Petitioner's challenge to Respondent's order of ineligibility was filed in a timely manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Recommended that Respondent enter a final order which determines that the subject site is eligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the free floating petroleum contamination, but that the subject site is ineligible to participate in the reimbursement program for the cleanup of the sludge contamination and for the cleanup of the groundwater contamination. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE 89-4521 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner in its Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 1-16, 18-25, 27-30, 33, 36-42, 44, 47-50, and 53-54 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 17, 31-32, 46, and 51-52 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being contrary to the findings made and to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 26 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in part and are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings contained in paragraph 34 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as not being established by the greater weight of the evidence. The testimony cited by Petitioner in support of these proposed findings do not establish the proposed findings. The proposed findings conflict with the contents of the Report of Ground-Water Quality Assessment accepted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. The proposed findings contained in paragraphs 35 , 43, and 45 of the Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected to the extent the proposed findings conflict with the findings made and the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact contained in Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order and in Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5, 7-19, 23, 25-31, 33-34, 39- 52, 55-68, and 70-72 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are adopted in material part. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 6, 20-22, 24, 32, 35-38, and 69 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 53 and 54 of Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order are rejected because the testimony referred to by Respondent in support of the proposed findings relates to amounts discharged following rainfalls, not amounts discharged daily. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-14 of Respondent's Supplemental Proposed Recommended Order are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Gray Early, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert W. Wells, Esquire Ignacio E. Sanchez, Esquire KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN 2400 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 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
The Issue Whether the application of Getty Oil Company for a permit to conduct dredge and fill activities by the construction of an oyster shell platform and by dredging (drilling) in East Bay, Santa Rosa County, should be approved, pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, F.S. Whether the application of Getty Oil Company for a variance from Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), F.A.C., to construct a shell foundation pad and to drill one natural gas exploratory well in East Bay, Santa Rosa County, should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. Whether the application of Getty Oil Company for a permit for natural gas flare construction should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. Whether the application of Getty Oil Company for a drilling permit should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 377, F.S. These proceedings stem from Getty Oil Company's intent to erect a structure and drill a test well in East Bay, Santa Rosa County, for the purpose of natural gas exploration. The waters of East Bay are Class II, approved for shellfish harvesting. Getty holds leasehold rights for drilling at the proposed site under an assignment of a lease granted by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund in 1968. DER issued Notices of Intent to grant Getty's three applications, subject to specific conditions, as follows: Request for Variance By letter of April 3, 1980, the DER Director of Division of Environmental Permitting issued its Notice of Intent to grant a variance from Section 17- 4.28(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 403.201(1)(a)(c) Florida Statutes, to permit the requested dredge and fill activities in an area approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Dredge and Fill permit By letter of April 3, 1980, the DER manager of the Northwest District issued Notice of Intent to issue a dredge and fill permit for the construction of the exploratory gas drilling platform provided that the applicant obtained a variance from the requirements of Sections 17-4.28(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Natural Gas Flare Construction Permit By letter of June 16, 1980, the DER manager of the Northwest District issued Notice of Intent to issue a permit for natural gas flare construction at the East Bay test site in Santa Rosa County. DNR issued the following Notices of Intent regarding the Chapter 377 drilling permit: By letter of June 18, 1980, as amended by letter of June 23, 1980, the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources issued Notice of Intent to recommend denial of Getty's application for a permit to drill in East Bay for the reason that Section 377.242, Florida Statutes, prohibits the construction of structures for the production of oil, gas and other petroleum products on submerged lands within the lease area. However, by further order of the Executive Director, dated duly 28, 1980, Notice of Intent was issued to recommend approval of the drilling permit application, subject to specified conditions in the event that the legal opinion expressed in his prior letters concerning the prohibition against drilling as set forth in Section 377.242, Florida Statutes, was found to be incorrect. Although the DER cases were originally scheduled for hearing in August, 1980, the consolidation of the DNR cases resulted in the granting of a motion for a continuance of the hearing until November, 1980. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties announced that they had arrived at a stipulated settlement and that all issues raised in the consolidated cases were, with two exceptions, withdrawn by the parties with respect to the three permit applications and the variance application. The two issues reserved by the Stipulation involved the application of Section 377.242(1), Florida Statutes, with respect to the requested drilling permit from the Department of Natural Resources. The Stipulation was accepted by the Hearing Officer as sufficiently comprehensive to meet the requirements of pertinent statutes and regulations with regard to the permits under consideration. Paragraph VI of the Stipulation provides that paragraphs II and IV of the Stipulation shall be specifically incorporated into the agency permits or variance to which those paragraphs refer. In view of the agreed resolution of the two DER permit applications, a hearing on those matters became unnecessary. However, as to the application for variance, subsection 403.201(2), Florida Statutes, mandates that the Department hold a hearing on each application for variance. Inasmuch as the parties to the proceedings had resolved all factual and legal questions in their Stipulation, the only remaining purpose for a hearing was to permit public participation. Accordingly, twelve public witnesses testified at the hearing (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1), four of whom submitted documentary materials (Exhibits 1-4). These included a petition signed by local area citizens in support of the project, a favorable recommendation by the Pensacola Area Chamber of Commerce, a statement from the League of Women Voters from the Pensacola Bay Area expressing concern for preservation and protection of estuaries and wetlands, and various publications submitted by one witness. After the receipt of public testimony, the hearing was continued until November 24, 1980 for presentation of evidence concerning the two remaining issues reserved by the parties in their Stipulation. Due to the fact that the DER was not a party to the matters remaining for consideration, its representative did not participate in the further proceedings. During the hearing sessions on November 12- 13, 1980, twenty eight exhibits were provisionally received in evidence. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2) . Eight additional exhibits were received in evidence during the session on November 24-25, 1980. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2) By Recommended Order, dated December 15, 1980, the Hearing Officer recommended to DER that the Stipulation of the parties be accepted, and that the requested DER permits and variance be issued in accordance with the terms thereof. The two issues reserved by the Stipulation involving the application of Section 377.242(1), Florida Statutes, are as follows: Whether Section 377.242(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits the proposed drilling on submerged lands located in East Bay. Whether Section 377.242(1), Florida Statutes, can be constitutionally applied to prohibit Getty from conducting the proposed drilling on submerged lands located in East Bay. Evidence was received at the hearing as to whether Getty Oil Company is authorized by the statutory provision in question to drill at the proposed site. As to the constitutional issue, Getty was permitted to proffer testimony to preserve such issue for any future judicial determination. The following findings of fact are restricted accordingly.
Findings Of Fact Getty Oil Company proposes to drill a hydrocarbon exploration well pursuant to State Drilling Lease No. 2338. The lease was issued by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida on July 9, 1968, to J. Melvin Young, Arden A. Anderson, and Philip D. Beall. Getty purchased the lease from the original lessees on March 10, 1970. The lease grants the right to explore for and produce oil and gas from the state-owned submerged water bottoms of East Bay, Blackwater Bay, and that portion of Escambia Bay lying in Santa Rosa County, a combined total of 47,932 acres. The proposed well would be drilled from submerged lands located in approximately the center of East Bay to a depth of approximately 17,800 feet. (Testimony of Anderson, Exhibits 6, 27) The well site will be located some 2.7 miles from the nearest shore and about six miles from the Gulf of Mexico. The site is not within one mile from the seaward boundary of the Yellow River Marsh Aquatic Preserve, the Fort Pickens State Park Aquatic Preserve, or the Gulf Islands National Seashore. East Bay is an estuary which is part of an estuarine "system" in the immediately surrounding area of Pensacola. An estuary is an area that is a buffer zone between the open ocean where the salinity is equal to 35 parts per thousand, and the fresh water river areas which drain into the system. The fresh water runoff carries nutrients into the system which in turn result in productivity of plants and organisms, including fish, shrimp, oysters, and other shellfish of various types. Estuarine systems are therefore one of the most productive types of ecosystems. East Bay is one of the best parts of the estuarine system from the standpoint of both water quality and general health of the system. Although during the major periods of river drainage in the winter and spring months, low water salinity exists on the surface of East Bay, the bay is not considered to be a fresh water lake, river or stream from an ecological standpoint. (Testimony of Herbert, Livingston, Exhibits 6, 15, 26, 29-32) The coastline of Florida in the vicinity of East Bay coincides with the seaward boundary of Santa Rosa Island, a barrier island, and extends across the mouth of the entrance to Escambia Bay. East Bay is connected to Escambia Bay, but does not connect directly to the Gulf of Mexico. (Stipulation, Exhibits 29, 31 and 32) Based on seismic data obtained from a 1970 survey of the Getty Oil Company's leased area, including East Bay, the only possible structure where hydrocarbons could be located beneath submerged lands is one covering 2,860 acres or approximately 4 1/2 square miles. The proposed well site is at the top center of the structure, which extends some 17,800 feet below the surface of the submerged land. There is no evidence that there are commercially recoverable deposits of salt, brines, or sulphur under the lands of the leasehold area. Hydrocarbon accumulations tend to occur along the crest of regional arches. The crest of the Santa Rosa Arch has been projected to be underneath the East Bay area. (Testimony of McCarthy, Greenwell, Exhibits 34-35) Studies conducted by Getty Oil Company to determine the advisability of drilling at the proposed site led it to the conclusion that there is one chance in twelve that hydrocarbons would be present in the target structure in commercially productive amounts. These studies also produced an estimate that Getty would accrue about $537,000,000 before state and federal income taxes if it vertically drilled four producing and one non-producing wells in the area. (Testimony of Greenwell) Directional well drilling is performed by the oil industry to maximum lateral deviations of 10,000 to 12,000 feet, depending upon varying conditions at the site. In such instances, an angle is formed at periodic intervals which eventually deviates sufficiently to reach the target structure. Straight-line slant drilling is only feasible in cases of shallow wells. Directional drilling creates varying problems based on the depth and lateral deviation required in a particular place. The "doglegs" required in creating the necessary angles pose extreme difficulties in removing cuttings from the drill hole. The angles created in the process produce tremendous torque and cause pipe "fatigue." Drill collars are subject to sticking and, at extreme depths, it is doubtful if turning of the pipe can be achieved. Such a method of drilling makes it difficult to control direction, particularly at great depths. Additionally, at extreme depths where the temperature is some 325 degrees, the rubber material of "down-hole" motors is melted. (Testimony of Porterfield, Moore) In order for Getty Oil Company to directionally drill from land to the target structure under East Bay, it would be necessary to commence drilling on land approximately 3.3 miles from the bay site at a point about 1 1/4 miles due north of White Point. Drilling at that location would require a 50 percent lateral deviation of some 17,500 feet and a total drilling distance of some 25,000 feet. Such a distance has never been attempted in the history of directional drilling and is considered by experts in the field to be virtually impossible from a technological standpoint. Such a well would require that 2 1/2 degree angles be formed every 100 feet. These bends in the well hole through which the pipe must be extended and bent would create extremely severe pipe failure problems and exacerbate the other traditional difficulties encountered in directional drilling. Further, the cost of directional drilling at the Getty site would make such an undertaking economically undesirable even if it were technically possible. In view of all the considerations, Getty Oil Company does not consider directional drilling a viable alternative to vertical drilling, and therefore would not undertake drilling by such a method. Getty does not own or hold property interests in any dry-land areas near the shore of East Bay. (Porterfield, Moore, Englert) Prior to 1972, the Department of Natural Resources issued permits to drill in submerged lands of the state. Subsequent to the 1972 enactment of Section 377.242(1), Florida Statutes, no such permits have been issued and the pending application of Getty Oil Company is the only one which has been received by the Department since that time. Based on prior policy, the Chief of the Department's Bureau of Geology recommended to the Executive Director that Getty's application be approved. His reason for such recommendation was that he had not been aware that there was a variation in the 1972 statute and the Department's prior policy. Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner, Executive Director, however, determined that the statutory provision prohibited the placement of structures for the purpose of producing oil or gas anywhere in submerged lands in the state within a mile seaward from the coastline, which he considered to be located at the seaward border of Santa Rosa Island. He interpreted additional language in the statutory provision (which prohibited the issuance of a drilling permit within one mile inland from the coastline unless estuaries, beaches and shore area were adequately protected in the event of accident) to refer to uplands, and that therefore unrestricted drilling on land could only occur more than a mile from the coastline. In this manner, he concluded that the legislature intended to protect all estuaries of the state. He views his decision to constitute a proposed departmental policy which would require ratification by the Governor and Cabinet as head of the Department. However, no rules have been issued in implementation of the statutory provision. Based on his interpretation of the statute, the initial letter of intent to deny the requested permit was issued on June 18, 1980, as amended by his letter of June 23, 1980. By his further letter of July 28, 1980, the Executive Director informed Getty Oil Company that he had been directed by the Governor and Cabinet to issue a Notice of Intent to recommend final agency action concerning the merits of the application in the event that his legal position was overruled. The letter stated that pursuant to that mandate, and after review of the application, he intended to recommend approval of a permit to drill the requested test well in East Bay for the reason that the application complied with all criteria set forth in Chapter 16C-2, Florida Administrative Code. Certain conditions were stated in the letter to which any permit would be subject. These conditions were the subject of tide later stipulation between the parties at the commencement of the final hearing in these proceedings. The statutory interpretation of the Executive Director was confirmed in a later departmental legal opinion. (Testimony of Henry, Gissendanner, Exhibits 15, 20, 36) Various legislative materials, including bills, committee reports, and transcripts of committee meetings which primarily were preliminary to or contemporaneous with the passage of the legislation that became Section 377.242(1), F.S., were admitted in evidence (Exhibit 33a-p). A post-hearing Motion of Getty Oil Company to supplement the record with additional legislative materials was granted in part by the official recognition of a Report of the House Committee on Environmental pollution Control (Exhibit 33q). A further post-hearing Motion of United Citizens Against pollution, Inc. to supplement the record with further pertinent legislative materials was similarly granted (Exhibit 33r, s).
The Issue Whether Alachua County Environmental Protection Department discriminated against Tilak B. Shrestha based upon his race or national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, by releasing Mr. Shrestha from his temporary assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department and by not hiring Mr. Shrestha for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist within the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida funds the Petroleum Cleanup Program (Petroleum Program) which is focused on removing petroleum contaminants from various sites within the State of Florida. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) administers the Petroleum Program, also known as the Underground Storage Cleanup Program. In 12 counties, including Alachua, Florida contracts with the county to manage the Petroleum Program. The Alachua County Environmental Protection Department (Alachua DEP) manages the Petroleum Cleanup sites in Alachua County. Mr. Chris Bird has been the director of the Petroleum Program since 1993. He has worked with Alachua County since 1986. In the 1994-1995 fiscal year, the Florida Legislature was facing a deficit; therefore, the Legislature significantly reduced the funding for the Petroleum Program. As a result, DEP froze the Petroleum Program, and dropped several active sites. The lack of funding resulted in downsizing at both the county and state levels at the beginning of 1995. At the beginning of 1995, the Alachua DEP had three funded positions in the Petroleum Program. Mr. Alex Vieira occupied the position of full-time Professional Engineer. The Alachua DEP also had funding for an administrative position and a full-time Environmental Engineer/Geologist. The Environmental Engineer/Geologist position was vacant at the beginning of 1995. The Alachua DEP originally advertised for the position. However, when the State reduced funding for the Petroleum Program, the Alachua DEP decided not to fill the position with a permanent employee and ultimately froze this permanent position. In order for the Petroleum Program to continue at a minimum level of operation, the Alachua DEP hired temporary employees through Temp Force, a temporary employment agency. Temp Force served as an independent contractor for the Alachua DEP. Temp Force provided Mr. Tilak Shrestha and Mr. Mike Shuler to the Alachua DEP Petroleum Cleanup Program. Mr. Shuler began working at the Alachua DEP through Temp Force two months prior to Mr. Shrestha's Temp Force assignment to the Petroleum Program. At the time of the assignment through Temp Force, Shrestha was not credentialed as a Ph.D. Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler were employees of Temp Force, received their paychecks from Temp Force and acquired no benefits from Alachua County. Mr. Shrestha worked as a Temp Force employee for six months at Alachua DEP and was assigned to various projects at the Alachua DEP. As supervisor for the Petroleum Program, Mr. Vieira assigned projects to both Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler. Mr. Shrestha described his working conditions during his assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua DEP as "good, no complaints," and "good on average." In 1995, the Florida legislature ultimately reduced funding for the Petroleum Program from $1.2 million to approximately $250,000. When the Alachua DEP received notice of these funding cuts, Mr. Bird advised Mr. Vieira that he needed to release one of the Temp Force employees from his assignment with the Alachua DEP. Mr. Vieira retained Mr. Shuler and informed Mr. Shrestha that he would no longer be working on the Petroleum Cleanup assignment through Temp Force. Mr. Shrestha's assignment through Temp Force with the Alachua DEP was terminated on August 10, 1995. During Fall 1995, the legislature substantially changed the law and administration pertaining to the Petroleum Program, both at the county and state levels. In October 1995, Ms. Pegeen Hanrahan became the Petroleum Program supervisor following Mr. Vieira's resignation. Ms. Hanrahan earned a Bachelor's degree in Environmental Engineering and Sociology and a Master's degree in Environmental Engineering. She is a registered Professional Engineer and a certified Hazardous Materials Manager. She began working for Alachua County in 1992 as an Environmental Engineer and later served for three years as Hazardous Materials Program Supervisor for Alachua County. When Ms. Hanrahan became supervisor of the Petroleum Program in Fall 1995, the Petroleum Program had essentially entered a "stand-by" mode. The Alachua DEP declined to send any additional work to its sub-contractors. Therefore, the technical duties involved in the Petroleum Program were reduced and the administrative duties became more important. During the Fall of 1995, there were no permanent employees on staff. Mr. Shuler remained as the only temporary employee in the Petroleum Program and according to Ms. Hanrahan was doing a "perfectly adequate job." Based on the new and reduced Petroleum Program budget for the 1995-1996 fiscal year, the Alachua DEP acted in October 1995 to establish the position of Senior Environmental Specialist in lieu of the Environmental Engineer/Geologist position. The position was advertised in December 1995. The main role of the Senior Environmental Specialist was to assist the Professional Engineer in the area of the administration involved in the Petroleum Program. The duties included filing reports, tracking sites, and submitting task orders and invoices to the office in Tallahassee. Due to the increasing changes in the Petroleum Program, the Alachua DEP required a Senior Environmental Specialist who understood the Petroleum Program's administrative tasks, as well as the State policies pertaining to the Petroleum Program. The Senior Environmental Specialist candidate was required to have a technical background in fields including, but not limited to, engineering, biology or geology. The Professional Engineer, not the Specialist, was assigned the technical review of the Petroleum Program. An applicant's understanding of the technical and administrative duties was necessary. In 1995, the Alachua DEP advertised the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, which included printing an advertisement in the local newspaper, per the County regulations. The Alachua DEP described the administrative tasks of Senior Environmental Specialist to include: preparing reports; making recommendations; receiving and investigating complaints; conducting performance evaluations; counseling, hiring and terminating employees. The Alachua DEP described the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the Senior Environmental Specialist to include: thorough knowledge of the technical methods and procedures involved in the administration of environmental regulations, programs, and policies; knowledge of local, state, and federal rules, regulations, and ordinances related to environmental protection; ability to create concise, clear, and succinct technical reports; and ability to research technical problems, formulate recommendations, and compile related reports. The Alachua DEP described the minimum qualifications for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist as: Bachelor's degree in environmental or natural science, civil or environmental engineering, geology, or hydrology, or related field, and two years' professional level environmental-related experience; or any equivalent combination of related training and experience. The County received 14 applications for the position as Senior Environmental Specialist from applicants, which included Mr. Shrestha and Mr. Shuler. Ms. Hanrahan was supervisor of the Petroleum Program in January 1996 and responsible for the hiring of the Senior Environmental Specialist. She received an Application Referral Document from personnel, stating that each of the applicants met the County's minimum requirements for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Upon receipt of the re?sume's and applications, Ms. Hanrahan initially screened the applicants for those who had petroleum-related experience. She narrowed the applicants to four individuals, who included Mr. Shrestha, Mr. Shuler, and two others. On January 22, 1996, Ms. Hanrahan conducted a telephone interview of each of the four applicants who passed the initial screening. The telephone interview was customary hiring practice within the Alachua DEP. During the telephone interview, Ms. Hanrahan asked each applicant the same series of ten questions, designed to test the applicant's level of knowledge regarding technical and administrative aspects of the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Mr. Shrestha answered five out of a possible eleven answers correctly. This was the second highest score out of the four applicants. Shuler achieved the highest score, answering eight-and-one-half out of eleven answers correctly. Three interview questions specifically addressed administrative issues. Question six asked, "What does RBCA stand for?" Question seven stated, "This year the Florida Petroleum Cleanup Program has adopted a new mechanism for review and approval of work on petroleum contaminated sites. Can you tell me what that program is called?" Question nine stated, "Give two examples of policy decisions under RBCA." Mr. Shrestha failed to answer question six, seven or nine correctly. Mr. Shrestha's failure to correctly answer each of the administrative questions indicated to Ms. Hanrahan that he was unaware of the changes within the Petroleum Program. Another purpose of the telephone interview was to assess the applicants under pressure. Ms. Hanrahan also sought to evaluate how the applicants responded to her authority. During the telephone interview, Mr. Shrestha challenged Ms. Hanrahan regarding the relevance of the questions to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist and she noted his argumentative attitude during the interview. He conceded at the hearing that he did ask her about the relevancy of the questions. Based upon his argumentative tone, Ms. Hanrahan questioned Mr. Shrestha about his ability to accept her supervisory decisions. She decided not to hire Mr. Shrestha for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist based on his limited knowledge of the administration of the Petroleum Program, a factor essential to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, and his inability to accept her authority as supervisor. Ms. Hanrahan was also aware of critical statements that Mr. Shrestha allegedly had made to female co-workers during his assignment through Temp Force at the Alachua DEP. Ms. Robin Hallbourg is currently employed as Senior Environmental Specialist with the Alachua DEP. Ms. Hallbourg has been with the Alachua County DEP for 15 years. Ms. Hallbourg worked with Mr. Shrestha at the Alachua DEP during Mr. Shrestha's assignment through Temp Force. Ms. Hallbourg testified that Mr. Shrestha told her that "she should be home with her child" and that she "should allow a man to have her job." After this conversation, Ms. Hallbourg discussed his statements with others in the Alachua DEP, including Ms. Hanrahan. Ms. Hanrahan recalled the discussion with her. Ms. Hanrahan hired Mr. Shuler for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist because he proved himself to be the most qualified candidate during the interview process. Ms. Hanrahan kept an interview log on which she noted Mr. Shuler's strong qualifications for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. She noted his "excellent experience in the Petroleum Cleanup Program and his significant applicable training and experience in program administration." Ms. Hanrahan also noted that his "application and interview showed strong computer skills." Mr. Shuler's Bachelor's degree in Microbiology met the education requirements for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Moreover, at the time of Shuler's application, there had been a growing emphasis placed on bi-remediation, which is currently a regularly used process. Given Ms. Hanrahan's education, training,and experience as a Professional Engineer, she determined that a Bachelor's degree in Microbiology was an appropriate background for the position. In addition, Mr. Shuler had the technical knowledge of processes, performance of groundwater sampling, and drilling, as well as other relevant technical knowledge pertaining to the position of Senior Environmental Specialist. Additionally, due to his continued assignment in the Alachua DEP, he was aware of the new administrative duties required of a Senior Environmental Specialist. Ms. Hanrahan had personally observed Mr. Shuler from October 1995 until January 1996, and was extremely satisfied with his performance. As part of the usual hiring process, Ms. Hanrahan submitted her interview log, personnel action form, and applications to the personnel department to support her hiring decision. Mr. Bird approved the hiring decision in his capacity as director, and the personnel department, budget department, and Equal Employment Office then approved the decision. Since his hire, Mr. Shuler has been commended by the Alachua DEP and his supervisors. Ms. Hanrahan informed Mr. Shrestha that he had not been hired for the position during a telephone conversation on January 23, 1996. She did not base her decision to hire Mr. Shuler over Mr. Shrestha on the basis of race or national origin. Ms. Hanrahan is fully aware of Alachua County's Equal Employment Opportunity policy through her position as advisor on the Equal Opportunity Advisory Committee. There is no evidence of any discriminatory hiring decision. In fact, on the same day that Ms. Hanrahan hired Mr. Shuler for the position of Senior Environmental Specialist, she also hired Mr. Gus Olmos for the position of Environmental Engineering Supervisor. Mr. Olmos is from Panama and is Hispanic. Moreover, Dr. Prasad Kuchibhotla is a Professional Engineer with a Bachelor's, Master's and Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering. He is from India and is Asian. Alachua County hired Dr. Kuchibhotla in 1997 and is the current Petroleum Cleanup Program Manager for Alachua DEP. Dr. Kuchibhotla currently has a Senior Environmental Specialist working for him within the Petroleum Program. As was the case in December 1995, the current Specialist's primary duty is to assist him with the detailed administrative tasks involved with the Petroleum Program. On January 27, 1997, Mr. Shrestha filed a formal Charge of Discrimination. The charge was date stamped as received by the Florida Commission on Human Relations on January 30, 1997. Mr. Shrestha is currently employed with Bell South in Atlanta, Georgia. He earns $47,000 per year and receives health benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Petitioner, Tilak B. Shrestha is not entitled to any relief relating to his charge of discrimination under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 2nd day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilak B. Shrestha 3579-C Meadowglen Village Lane Doraville, Georgia 30340 Robert M. Ott, Esquire County Litigation Attorney Post Office Box 2877 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicant, Kanter Real Estate, LLC (Kanter), is entitled to issuance of an Oil and Gas Drilling Permit, No. OG 1366 (the Permit).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Kanter is a foreign limited liability company registered to do business in the State of Florida. Kanter owns 20,000 acres of property in western Broward County, on which it seeks authorization for the drilling of a vertical exploratory well. The exploratory well is to be located on a five-acre site that is subject to an ERP (the Well Site). The Department is the state agency with the power and duty to regulate activities related to the management and storage of surface waters pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and to regulate oil and gas resources, including the permitting of activities related to the exploration for and extraction of such resources, pursuant to chapter 377, Florida Statutes. Miramar is a Florida municipal corporation located in Broward County, Florida. Broward County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida with jurisdiction extending to the Kanter property and the Well Site. The Application On July 2, 2015, Kanter submitted its Application for Permit to Drill (Application) to the Department. The proposed Well Site is on land to which Kanter owns the surface rights and subsurface mineral rights. The Application contemplates the drilling of an exploratory well to a depth of approximately 11,800 feet. The Application is not for a production well. The well is to be drilled, and ancillary activities are to be performed on a fill pad of approximately five acres, surrounded by a three-foot high perimeter berm on three sides and the L67-A levee on the fourth. The pad is the subject of an ERP which, as set forth in the Preliminary Statement, is not being challenged. The pad is designed to contain the 100-year, three-day storm. The engineering design incorporates a graded area, berm, and containment with a water control structure and a gated culvert to manipulate the water if necessary. The entire pad is to be covered by a 20 mil PVC liner, is sloped to the center, and includes a steel and concrete sump for the collection of any incidental spills. The pad was designed to contain the full volume of all liquids, including drilling fluid, fuel, and lubricating oil, that are in tanks and containers on the facility. The Application includes technical reports, seismic data, and information regarding the geology and existing producing oil wells of the Upper Sunniland Formation, which Kanter filed for the purpose of demonstrating an indicated likelihood of the presence of oil at the proposed site. The third Request for Additional Information (RAI) did not request additional information regarding the indicated likelihood of the presence of oil at the proposed site. After it submitted its response to the third RAI, Kanter notified the Department of its belief that additional requests were not authorized by law. As a result, the Department completed the processing of the Application without additional RAI’s. On November 16, 2016, the Department entered its Notice of Denial of the Oil and Gas Drilling Permit. The sole basis for denial was that Kanter failed to provide information showing a balance of considerations in favor of issuance pursuant to section 377.241.1/ There was no assertion that the Application failed to meet any standard established by applicable Department rules, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30. In particular, the parties included the following stipulations of fact in the Joint Prehearing Stipulation which are, for purposes of this proceeding, deemed as established: The structure intended for the drilling or production of Kanter’s exploratory oil well is not located in any of the following: a municipality; in tidal waters within 3 miles of a municipality; on an improved beach; on any submerged land within a bay, estuary, or offshore waters; within one mile seaward of the coastline of the state; within one mile seaward of the boundary of a local, state or federal park or an aquatic or wildlife preserve; on the surface of a freshwater lake, river or stream; within one mile inland from the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean or any bay or estuary; or within one mile of any freshwater lake, river or stream. The location of Kanter’s proposed oil well is not: within the corporate limits of any municipality; in the tidal waters of the state, abutting or immediately adjacent to the corporate limits of a municipality or within 3 miles of such corporate limits extending from the line of mean high tide into such waters; on any improved beach, located outside of an incorporated town or municipality, or at a location in the tidal waters of the state abutting or immediately adjacent to an improved beach, or within 3 miles of an improved beach extending from the line of mean high tide into such tidal waters; south of 26°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s west coast and south of 27°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s east coast, within the boundaries of Florida’s territorial seas as defined in 43 U.S.C. 1301; north of 26°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s west coast to the western boundary of the state bordering Alabama as set forth in s. 1, Art. II of the State Constitution; or north of 27°00'00? north latitude off Florida’s east coast to the northern boundary of the state bordering Georgia as set forth in s. 1, Art. II of the State Constitution, within the boundaries of Florida’s territorial seas as defined in 43 U.S.C. 1301. 19. The proposed oil well site does not contain Florida panther habitat and is located outside of the primary and secondary habitat zones for the Florida panther. 21. There are no recorded archaeological sites or other historic resources recorded within the area of the proposed oil well site. Kanter submitted a payment of $8,972.00 for its oil and gas permit application on June 30, 2016 pursuant to Rule 62C- 26.002(5)(c), F.A.C. Kanter’s application includes sufficient information and commitments for performance bonds and securities. DEP and Intervenors do not claim that the application lacks the information required in rule 62C-26.002, F.A.C. Kanter’s application includes an organization report that satisfies the requirements of rule 62C-26.003(3), F.A.C. Kanter’s engineering aspects of the site plan for the proposed project site, are appropriate. Kanter’s survey submitted to DEP in support of its application includes a suitable location plat which meets the minimum technical standards for land surveys. Kanter’s application includes an appropriate description of the planned well completion. DEP and Intervenors do not claim that the drilling application lacks the information required by rule 62C-26.003, F.A.C. Kanter’s Application proposes using existing levees to provide access to the proposed Kanter well site. Kanter did not propose to construct additional roads for access. Kanter’s proposed well site is located 332 feet from the L67-A levee, which serves as a roadway for trucks used to perform operations and maintenance on the levees and canals in the area. Kanter’s application does not lack any information required by DEP with respect to the location of roads, pads, or other facilities; nor does it lack any information regarding the minimization of impacts with respect to the location of roads. DEP and Intervenors do not contend that the permit should be denied based upon the proposed “spacing” of the well, or drilling unit, as that term is used in rule 62C-26.004, F.A.C. Kanter’s application includes appropriate plans for the construction of mud tanks, reserve pits, and dikes. Kanter agrees to a reasonable permit condition requiring that if water is to be transported on-site, that it will add additional tanks for the purpose of meeting water needs that would arise during the drilling process. Kanter’s design of the integrated casing, cementing, drilling mud, and blowout prevention programs is based upon sound engineering principles, and takes into account all relevant geologic and engineering data and information. Kanter’s proposed casing plan includes an additional casing string proposed in its response to DEP’s Third Request for Additional Information. This casing plan meets or exceeds the requirements of 62C-27.005, F.A.C. Kanter’s proposed casing and cementing program, as modified, meets or exceeds all applicable statutory and rule criteria.[2/] Kanter’s response and documents provided in response to DEP’s 3rd RAI satisfactorily resolved DEP’s concern regarding the risk of passage of water between different confining layers and aquifers resulting from the physical act of drilling through the layers of water and the intervening soil or earth. Kanter’s application includes a sufficient lost circulation plan. Kanter’s application is not deficient with respect to specific construction requirements which are intended to prevent subsurface discharges. Kanter’s drilling fluids plan is appropriate and is not deficient. Kanter’s blowout prevention equipment and procedures are appropriate and are not deficient. Kanter’s plans for blowout prevention are not insufficient. Kanter’s proposed oil pad is above the 100 year flood elevation and under normally expected circumstances would not be inundated by water if constructed as proposed in Kanter’s application. Kanter’s application includes a Hydrogen Sulfide Safety Plan that includes standards which are consistent with the onshore oil and gas industry standards set forth in the American Petroleum Institutes’ Recommended Practice. DEP and Intervenors do not claim any insufficiencies with respect to Kanter’s Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Contingency Plan, the sufficiency of secondary containment, its construction plans for a protective berm around the drilling site and storage tank areas of sufficient height and impermeability to prevent the escape of pad fluid, its pollution prevention plan, its safety manual, or its spill prevention and cleanup plan. DEP and Intervenors do not contend that the permitting of the well would violate section 377.242(1), F.S., regarding permits for the drilling for, exploring for, or production of oil, gas, or other petroleum products which are to be extracted from below the surface of the land only through the well hole(s). DEP and Intervenors do not contend that Kanter’s application violates the applicable rule criteria for oil and gas permitting set forth in Chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30, Florida Administrative Code. In addition to the foregoing, Kanter is not seeking or requesting authorization to perform “fracking,” and has agreed to a permit condition that would prohibit fracking. As a result of the foregoing, the parties have agreed that the Application meets or exceeds all criteria for an exploratory oil well permit under chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30. The Property Kanter owns two parcels of land totaling 20,000 acres in the area of the proposed Well Site: a northern parcel consisting of approximately 11,000 acres and a southern parcel consisting of approximately 9,000 acres. Kanter assembled its holdings through a series of acquisitions by deeds from 1975 to 1996. The Well Site is to be located within the southern parcel. On August 7, 1944, Kanter’s predecessor in title, Dallas Investment Co., acquired by tax deed all interests in a parcel within the 9,000-acre southern parcel described as “All Section 23 Township 51 South, Range 38 East, 640 Acres,” including, without reservation, the oil, gas, minerals, and phosphate. The evidence of title submitted as part of the Application indicates that a “Kanter” entity first became possessed of rights in Section 23 in 1975. By virtue of a series of transactions extending into 1996, Kanter currently holds fee title to all surface rights, and title to all mineral rights, including rights to oil, gas, and other mineral interests, within Section 23 Township 51 South, Range 38 East. The Well Site specified in the Application is within Section 23, Township 51 South, Range 38 East. Kanter’s property is encumbered by a Flowage Easement that was granted to the Central and Southern Flood Control District in 1950, and is presently held by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The Flowage Easement guarantees Kanter access to the entire easement property “for the exploration or drilling for, or the developing, producing, storing or removing of oil, gas or other . . . in accordance with sound engineering principles.” Kanter has the legal property right to locate and drill the well, and the exploratory well is consistent with Kanter’s ownership interest. The Well Site is located in a 160-acre (quarter section) portion of the 640-acre tract described above, and is within a “routine drilling unit,” which is the block of land surrounding and assigned to a well. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62C-25.002(20) and 62C-25.002(40). The Kanter property, including the Well Site, is in the historic Everglades. Before efforts to drain portions of the Everglades for development and agricultural uses, water flowed naturally in a southerly direction through land dominated by sawgrass and scattered tree islands. The tree islands were generally shaped by the direction of the water flow. Beginning as early as the late 1800s, dramatically increasing after the hurricane of 1947, and extending well into the 1960s, canals, levees, dikes, and channels were constructed to drain, impound, or reroute the historic flows. Those efforts have led to the vast system of water control structures and features that presently exist in south Florida. The Well Site, and the Kanter property as a whole, is located in Water Conservation Area (WCA)-3. WCA-3 is located in western Broward County and northwestern Miami-Dade County. It was constructed as part of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project authorized by Congress in 1948, and was created primarily for flood control and water supply. In the early 1960s, two levees, L67-A and L67-C, were constructed on a line running in a northeast to southwest direction. When constructed, the levees separated WCA-3 into WCA-3A to the west and WCA-3B to the southeast. The Well Site is in WCA-3A.3/ The area between L67-A and L67-C, along with a levee along the Miami Canal, is known as the “Pocket.” There is no water control in the Pocket. Although there is a structure at the south end of the Pocket, it is in disrepair, is rarely -- if ever -- operated, and may, in fact, be inoperable. The Well Site is located within the Pocket, on the southern side of L67-A. L67-A and L67-C, and their associated internal and external canals, have dramatically disrupted sheet flow, altered hydrology, and degraded the natural habitat in the Pocket. Water inputs and outputs are entirely driven by rainfall into the Pocket, and evaporation and transpiration from the Pocket. From a hydrologic perspective, the Pocket is entirely isolated from WCA-3A and WCA-3B. The Pocket is impacted by invasive species, which have overrun the native species endemic to the area and transformed the area into a monoculture of cattails. Vegetation that grows in the Pocket dies in the Pocket. Therefore, there is a layer of decomposing vegetative muck, ooze, and sediment from knee deep to waist deep in the Pocket, which is atypical of a functioning Everglades system. L67-A and L67-C, and their associated internal and external canals, impede wildlife movement, interfering with or preventing life functions of many native wildlife species. The proposed Well Site, and the surrounding Kanter property, is in a rural area where future residential or business development is highly unlikely. The property is removed from urban and industrial areas and is not known to have been used for agriculture. The Department has previously permitted oil wells within the greater Everglades, in areas of a more pristine environmental nature, character, and location than the Pocket. The Raccoon Point wellfield is located 24 miles west of the Proposed Project Site within the Big Cypress National Preserve. It is within a more natural system and has not undergone significant hydrologic changes such as the construction of canals, levees, ditches, and dikes and, therefore, continues to experience a normal hydrologic flow. Mr. Gottfried testified that at Raccoon Point, “you can see the vegetation is maintaining itself because the fact that we don’t have levees, ditches canals, dikes, impacting the area. So you have a diversity of plant life. You have tree islands still. You have the normal flow going down.” The greater weight of evidence shows that the Kanter Well Site is far less ecologically sensitive than property at Raccoon Point on which the Department has previously permitted both exploration and production wells. The Biscayne Aquifer The Biscayne Aquifer exists in almost all of Miami- Dade County, most of Broward County and a portion of the southern end of Palm Beach County. It is thickest along the coast, and thinnest and shallowest on the west side of those counties. The western limit of the Biscayne Aquifer lies beneath the Well Site. The Biscayne Aquifer is a sole-source aquifer and primary drinking water source for southeast Florida. A network of drainage canals, including the L-30, L-31, L-33, and Miami Canals, lie to the east of WCA-3B, and east of the Well Site. Those canals penetrate into the substratum and form a hydrologic buffer for wellfields east of the Well Site, including that operated by Miramar, and isolate the portions of the Biscayne Aquifer near public wellfields from potential impacts originating from areas to their west. The canals provide a “much more hydraulically available source” of water for public wellfields than water from western zones of the Biscayne Aquifer, and in that way create a buffer between areas on either side of the canals. The Pocket is not a significant recharge zone for the Biscayne Aquifer. There is a confining unit comprised of organic soils, muck, and Lake Flint Marl separating the Pocket and the Well Site from the Fort Thompson formation of the Biscayne Aquifer. There is a layer of at least five feet of confining muck under the L67-A levee in the area of the Well Site, a layer that is thicker in the Pocket. The Well Site is not within any 30-day or 120-day protection zones in place for local water supply wells. The fact that the proposed well will penetrate the Biscayne Aquifer does not create a significant risk of contamination of the Biscayne Aquifer. The drilling itself is no different than that done for municipal disposal wells that penetrate through the aquifer much closer to areas of water production than is the Well Site. The extensive casing and cementing program to be undertaken by Kanter provides greater protection for the well, and thus for the aquifer, than is required by the Department’s rules. A question as to the “possibility” that oil could get into the groundwater was answered truthfully in the affirmative “in the definition of possible.” However, given the nature of the aquifer at the Well Site, the hydrological separation of the Well Site and well from the Biscayne Aquifer, both due to the on-site confining layer and to the intervening canals, the degree of casing and cementing, and the full containment provided by the pad, the testimony of Mr. Howard that “it would be very difficult to put even a fairly small amount of risk to the likelihood that oil leaking at that site might possibly actually end up in a well at Miramar” is accepted. The Sunniland Formation The Sunniland Formation is a geologic formation which exists in a region of South Florida known as the South Florida Basin. It is characterized by alternating series of hydrocarbon-containing source rock, dolomite, and limestone of varying porosity and permeability and evaporite anhydrite or mudstone seal deposits. It has Upper Sunniland and Lower Sunniland strata, and generally exists at a depth of up to 12,000 feet below land surface (bls) in the area of the Well Site. Underlying the Sunniland Formation is a formation generally referred to as the “basement.” The basement exists at a depth of 17,000-18,000 feet bls. Oil is produced from organic rich carbonate units within the Lower Cretaceous Sunniland Formation, also known as the Dark Shale Unit of the Sunniland Formation. The oil produced in the Sunniland Formation is generally a product of prehistoric deposits of algae. Over millennia, and under the right conditions of time and pressure, organic material is converted to hydrocarbon oil. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that active generating source rock capable of producing hydrocarbons exists in the Sunniland Formation beneath the Kanter property. The preponderance of the evidence also indicates that the oil generated in the Sunniland Formation is at a sufficient depth that it is preserved from microbial degradation, which generally occurs in shallower reservoirs. The Upper Sunniland Formation was formed in the Cretaceous geological period, between 106 and 100 million years ago. Over that period, sea levels rose and fell dramatically, allowing colonies of rudists (a now extinct reef-building clam) and oysters to repeatedly form and die off. Over time, the colonies formed bioherms, which are reef-like buildups of shell elevated off of the base of the sea floor. Over millennia, the bioherms were exposed to conditions, including wave action and exposure to air and rainwater, that enhanced the porosity of the component rudist and oyster shell. Those “patch reefs” were subsequently buried by other materials that formed an impermeable layer over the porous rudist and oyster mounds, and allowed those mounds to become “traps” for oil migrating up from lower layers. A trap is a geological feature that consists of a porous layer overlain by an impervious layer of rock that forms a seal. A trap was described, simplistically, as an upside down bowl. Oil, being lighter than water, floats. As oil is generated in source rock, it migrates up through subterranean water until it encounters a trapping formation with the ability to create a reservoir, and with an impervious layer above the porous layer to seal the trap and prevent further migration, thus allowing the “bowl” to fill. The reservoir is the layer or structure with sufficient porosity and permeability to allow oil to accumulate with its pores. The thickness of the layer determines the volume of oil that the reservoir is capable of retaining. Although rudist mounds are generally considered to be more favorable as traps due to typically higher porosity, oyster mound traps are correlated to producing wells in the Sunniland Formation and are primary producers in the Felda field and the Seminole field. The Lower Sunniland Formation is a fractured carbonate stratum, described by Mr. Aldrich as a rubble zone. It is not a traditional structural trap. Rather, it consists of fractured and crumbling rock thought to be created by basement shear zones or deep-seated fault zones. It has the same source rock as the Upper Sunniland. There is little information on traps in the Lower Sunniland, though there are two fields that produce from that formation. A “play” is a group of prospects or potential prospects that have the same source rock, the same reservoir rock, the same trap style, and the same seal rock to hold in the hydrocarbons. The producing oil fields in the Sunniland Formation, including Raccoon Point, Sunniland, Felda, West Felda, and Lake Trafford are part of a common play known as the Sunniland Trend. The Sunniland Trend is an area of limestone of greater porosity within the Sunniland Formation, and provides a reasonable extrapolation of areas that may be conducive to oil traps. The Sunniland Trend extends generally from Manatee County on the west coast of Florida southeasterly into Broward County and the northwestern portion of Miami-Dade County on the east coast of Florida. The trend corresponds to the ancient Cretaceous shoreline where rudist and oyster bioherms formed as described above. In 2003, the “Mitchell-Tapping” report, named after the husband and wife team, identified two separate trends within the Sunniland Trend, the rudist-dominant West Felda Trend, and the more oyster-based Felda Trend. Both are oil-producing strata. The Felda Trend is more applicable to the Kanter property. Throughout the Sunniland Trend, hydrocarbon reservoirs exist within brown dolomite deposits and rudist and oyster mounds. Dolomite is a porous limestone, and is the reservoir rock found at the productive Raccoon Point oil wellfield. The evidence indicates that a brown dolomite layer of approximately 20 feet underlies the Well Site, and extends in all directions from the Well Site. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Kanter property, including the Well Site, is within the Sunniland Trend and its Felda Trend subset.4/ Oil produced from wells in the Sunniland Trend is typically thick, and is not under pressure. The oil does not rise through a bore hole to the surface, but must be pumped. The Raccoon Point Field, which is the closest productive and producing wellfield to the proposed Well Site, is located approximately 24 miles to the west of the Well Site, within the Sunniland Trend. Raccoon Point contains numerous well sites, of which four or five are currently producing, and has produced in the range of 20 million barrels of oil since it began operation in the late 1970s. Cumulative production of oil from proven fields in the South Florida Basin, including fields in the Sunniland Formation, is estimated to be in excess of 160 million barrels. Estimates from the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) indicate that 25 new fields capable of producing five million barrels of oil each are expected to be found within the Lower Cretaceous Shoal Reef Oil Assessment Unit, which extends into the Kanter property. Estimates of the potential reserves reach as high as an additional 200 million barrels of oil. The Dollar Bay Formation Another formation that has potential for oil production is the Lower Cretaceous Dollar Bay Formation, also in the South Florida Basin. The Dollar Bay Formation exists beneath the Kanter property at a shallower depth than the Sunniland Formation, generally at a depth of 10,000 feet in the vicinity of the Well Site. Most of the Dollar Bay prospects are on the east side of the South Florida Basin. Most of the wells in the South Florida Basin are on the west side. Thus, there has not been much in the way of exploration in the Dollar Bay Formation, so there is a lack of data on traps. Dollar Bay has been identified as a known oil-bearing play by the USGS. It is a self-source play, so the source comes from the Dollar Bay Formation itself. Dollar Bay exists both as potential and mature rock. It has known areas of very high total organic content (TOC) source rock; logged reservoir in the formation; and seal rock. There have been three oil finds in the Dollar Bay formation, with at least one commercial production well. Kanter will have to drill through the Dollar Bay Formation to get to the Upper Sunniland formation, thus allowing for the collection of information as to the production potential of the prospect. Although Dollar Bay is not generally the main “target” of the Permit, its potential is not zero. Thus, consideration of the Dollar Bay Formation as a factor in the calculation of risk/success that goes into the decision to drill an exploratory well is appropriate. Initial Exploratory Activities In 1989, Shell Western E&P, Inc. (Shell), conducted extensive seismic exploration in south Florida. Among the areas subject to seismic mapping were two lines -- one line of 36,000 feet mapped along the L67-A levee, directly alongside the Well Site, and the other of approximately 10 miles in length along the Miami Canal levee. The lines intersect on the Kanter property just north of the Well Site. The proposed exploration well is proposed to extend less than 12,000 feet deep. The seismic mapping performed by Shell was capable of producing useful data to that depth. The seismic methodology utilized by Shell produced data with a high degree of vertical and spatial resolution. Given its quality, the Shell data is very reliable. Shell did not use the seismic data generated in the 1980s, and ultimately abandoned activity in the area in favor of larger prospects, leaving the smaller fields typical of south Florida for smaller independent oil companies. The Shell seismic data was purchased by Seismic Exchange, a data brokerage company. In 2014, Kanter purchased the seismic data from Seismic Exchange for the lines that ran through its property. With the purchase, Kanter received the original field tapes, the support data, including surveyors’ notes and observer sheets which describe how the data was acquired, and the recorded data. As a result of advances in computer analysis since the data was collected, the seismic data can be more easily and accurately evaluated. It is not unusual for companies to make decisions on whether to proceed with exploration wells with two lines of seismic data. Mr. Lakin reviewed the data, and concluded that it showed a very promising area in the vicinity of the L67-A levee that was, in his opinion, sufficient to continue with permitting an exploratory oil well. Mr. Lakin described the seismic information in support of the Application as “excellent data,” an assessment that is well-supported and accepted. Mr. Pollister reviewed the two lines of seismic data and opined that the information supports a conclusion that the site is a “great prospect” for producing oil in such quantities as to warrant the exploration and extraction of such products on a commercially profitable basis. Seismic Data Analysis The seismic lines purchased by Kanter consist of line 970, which runs southwest to northeast along the L67-A levee, and a portion of line 998, which runs from northwest to southeast along the Miami Canal levee. The lines intersect at the intersection of the two levees. The data depicts, among others, the seismic reflection from the strata of the Sunniland Trend, and the seismic reflection from the basement. The depiction of the Sunniland Trend shows a discernable rise in the level of the strata, underlain by a corresponding rise in the basement strata. This rise is known as an anticline. An anticline is a location along a geologic strata at which there is an upheaval that tends to form one of the simplest oil traps that one can find using seismic data. In the South Florida Basin, anticlines are typically associated with mounded bioherms. A “closed structure” is an anticline, or structural high, with a syncline, or dip, in every direction. A closed structure, though preferable, is not required in order for there to be an effective trap. Most of the Sunniland oil fields do not have complete closure. They are, instead, stratigraphic traps, in which the formation continues to dip up and does not “roll over.” Where the rock type changes from nonporous to porous and back to nonporous, oil can become trapped in the porous portion of the interval even without “closure.” Thus, even if the “bowl” is tilted, it can still act as a trap. Complete closure is not necessary in much of the Sunniland Trend given the presence of an effective anhydrite layer to form an effective seal.5/ The seismic data of the Kanter property depicts an anticline in the Sunniland Formation that is centered beneath the Well Site at a depth in the range of 12,000 feet bls. Coming off of the anticline is a discernable syncline, or dip in the underlying rock. Applying the analogies used by various witnesses, the anticline would represent the top of the inverted bowl, and the syncline would represent the lip of the bowl. The evidence of the syncline appears in both seismic lines. The Shell seismic data also shows an anhydrite layer above the Sunniland Formation anticline. The same anticline exists at the basement level at a depth of 17,000 to 18,000 feet bls. The existence of the Sunniland formation anticline supported by the basement anticline, along with a thinning of the interval between those formations at the center point, provides support for the data reliably depicting the existence of a valid anticline. A basement-supported anticline is a key indicator of an oil trap, and is a feature commonly relied upon by geophysicists as being indicative of a structure that is favorable for oil production. The seismic data shows approximately 65 feet of total relief from the bottom to the top of the anticline structure, with 50 feet being closed on the back side. The 50 feet of closed anticline appears to extend over approximately 900 acres. There is evidence of other anticlines as one moves northeast along line 970. However, that data is not as strong as that for the structure beneath the Well Site. Though it would constitute a “lead,” that more incomplete data would generally not itself support a current recommendation to drill and, in any event, those other areas are not the subject of the permit at issue. The anticline beneath the well site is a “prospect,” which is an area with geological characteristics that are reasonably predicted to be commercially profitable. In the opinion of Mr. Lakin, the prospect at the location of the proposed Well Site has “everything that I would want to have to recommend drilling the well,” without a need for additional seismic data. His opinion is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and is credited. Confirmation of the geology and thickness of the reservoir is the purpose of the exploratory well, with the expectation that well logs will provide such confirmation. Risk Analysis Beginning in the 1970s, the oil and gas industry began to develop a business technique for assessing the risk, i.e., the chance of failure, to apply to decisions being made on drilling exploration wells. Since the seminal work by Bob McGill, a systematic science has developed. In 1992, a manual was published with works from several authors. The 1992 manual included a methodology developed by Rose & Associates for assessing risk on prospects. The original author, Pete Rose,6/ is one of the foremost authorities on exploration risk. The Rose assessment method is a very strong mathematical methodology to fairly evaluate a prospect. The Rose method takes aspects that could contribute to finding an oil prospect, evaluates each element, and places it in its perspective. The Rose prospect analysis has been refined over the years, and is generally accepted as an industry standard. The 1992 manual also included a methodology for assessing both plays and prospects developed by David White. The following year, Mr. White published a separate manual on play and prospect analysis. The play and prospect analysis is similar to the Rose method in that both apply mathematical formulas to factors shown to be indicative of the presence of oil. Play and prospect analysis has been applied by much of the oil and gas industry, is used by the USGS in combining play and prospect analysis, and is being incorporated by Rose & Associates in its classes. The evidence is convincing that the White play and prospect analysis taught by Mr. Aldrich is a reasonable and accepted methodology capable of assessing the risk inherent in exploratory drilling. Risk analysis for plays and prospects consists of four primary factors: the trap; the reservoir; the source; and preservation and recovery. Each of the four factors has three separate characteristics. Numeric scores are assigned to each of the factors based on seismic data; published maps and materials; well data, subsurface data, and evidence from other plays and prospects; and other available information. Chance of success is calculated based on the quantity and quality of the data supporting the various factors to determine the likelihood that the prospect will produce flowable hydrocarbons. The analysis and scoring performed by Mr. Aldrich is found to be a reasonable and factually supported assessment of the risk associated with each of the prospects that exist beneath the proposed Well Site and that are the subject of the Application.7/ However, Mr. Aldrich included in his calculation an assessment of the Lower Sunniland Formation. The proposed well is to terminate at a depth of 11,800 feet bls, which is within the Upper Sunniland, but above the Lower Sunniland. Thus, although the Lower Sunniland would share the same source rock, the exploration well will not provide confirmation of the presence of oil. Therefore, it is more appropriate to perform the mathematical calculation to determine the likelihood of success without consideration of the Lower Sunniland prospect. To summarize Mr. Aldrich’s calculation, he assigned a four-percent chance of success at the Well Site for the Dollar Bay prospect. The assignment of the numeric scores for the Dollar Bay factors was reasonable and supported by the evidence. Mr. Aldrich assigned a 20-percent chance of success at the Well Site for the Upper Sunniland play. The assignment of the numeric scores for the Upper Sunniland factors was reasonable and supported by the evidence. In order to calculate the overall chance of success for the proposed Kanter exploratory well, the assessment method requires consideration of the “flip side” of the calculated chances of success, i.e., the chance of failure for each of the prospects. A four-percent chance of success for Dollar Bay means there is a 96-percent (0.96) chance of failure, i.e., that a commercial zone will not be discovered; and with a 20-percent chance of success for the Upper Sunniland, there is an 80-percent (0.80) chance of failure. Multiplying those factors, i.e., .96 x .80, results in a product of .77, or 77 percent, which is the chance that the well will be completely dry in all three zones. Thus, under the industry-accepted means of risk assessment, the 77-percent chance of failure means that there is a 23-percent chance of success, i.e., that at least one zone will be productive. A 23-percent chance that an exploratory well will be productive, though lower than the figure calculated by Mr. Aldrich,8/ is, in the field of oil exploration and production, a very high chance of success, well above the seven-percent average for prospecting wells previously permitted by the Department (as testified to by Mr. Linero) and exceeding the 10- to 15-percent chance of success that most large oil companies are looking for in order to proceed with an exploratory well drilling project (as testified to by Mr. Preston). Thus, the data for the Kanter Well Site demonstrates that there is a strong indication of a likelihood of the presence of oil at the Well Site. Commercial Profitability Commercial profitability takes into account all of the costs involved in a project, including transportation and development costs. Mr. Aldrich testified that the Kanter project would be commercially self-supporting if it produced 100,000 barrels at $50.00 per barrel. His testimony was unrebutted, and is accepted. The evidence in this case supports a finding that reserves could range from an optimistic estimate of 3 to 10 million barrels, to a very (perhaps unreasonably) conservative estimate of 200 barrels per acre over 900 acres, or 180,000 barrels. In either event, the preponderance of the evidence adduced at the hearing establishes an indicated likelihood of the presence of oil in such quantities as to warrant its exploration and extraction on a commercially profitable basis.9/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: Approving the Application for Oil and Gas Drilling Permit No. OG 1366 with the conditions agreed upon and stipulated to by Petitioner, including a condition requiring that if water is to be transported on-site, it will add additional tanks for the purpose of meeting water needs that would arise during the drilling process, and a condition prohibiting fracking; and Approving the application for Environmental Resource Permit No. 06-0336409-001. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2017.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner Gary L. Neal, is qualified by virtue of experience, training and education, in accordance with the provisions of Section 633.521, Florida Statutes, to sit for the Fire Protection Systems Contractor V examination for licensing.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Gary L. Neal seeks to take a written examination for purposes of ultimate licensure as a "Fire Protections Systems Contractor V." The Contractor V license enables a license holder to install underground water mains that are connected to a fire protection system, such as a sprinkler system. The Petitioner presently holds a Certified Plumber's License in the State of Florida and has been so licensed since March 11, 1981. He also holds a Master Plumber's License for the State of Georgia. Prior to the creation of a separate license for installation of underground water mains connected to Fire Protection Systems, the Contractor V license for which the Petitioner seeks to be examined, installation of these water mains was performed by certified plumbing contractors, including the Petitioner, and by underground utility contractors. Underground water mains installed for potable water and fire protection systems were once one and the same, before Fire Code changes mandated that these be separate lines. Even after the creation of the Contractor V license, local code enforcers took the position that plumbers and underground utility contractors could perform this work, so long as they did so under the supervision and control of Fire Protection Contractors, which practice continued until 1996. The Petitioner established that, as a Certified Plumbing Contractor since 1981, he has installed underground water mains for many years, including water mains connected to fire protection systems, as well as those connected to potable water systems. His testimony was corroborated by the sworn deposition testimony of persons who have supervised his work. See Exhibits 43, 44 and 45, in evidence. The trenching, excavation and pipe assembly skills required for installing underground water mains are the same whether the water main is used for Fire Protection Systems or used for potable water. The only substantive difference is the materials used and the testing procedures. For water mains connected to Fire Protection Systems, materials and testing are controlled by the National Fire Protection Association Code (NFPA), as adopted by the State of Florida. Knowledge of that fire code is tested on the Contractor V examination, which the Petitioner seeks to take. All other aspects of installing underground water mains, whether for use by Fire Protection Systems or for potable water, are governed by the National Plumbing Code, which applies to the work of Certified Plumbing Contractors such as the Petitioner, Certified underground utility contractors and Fire Protection Contractor V contractors. Both Florida and Georgia allow persons holding plumbers licenses to install underground utilities, work that may also be performed by underground utility and excavation contractors in Florida. Both Florida and Georgia require plumbing contractors to take continuing education courses in subjects that include the installation of underground utilities and excavation. In Florida these courses include NFPA Code material. The Petitioner demonstrated, through un-rebutted evidence that he has satisfied the continuing education requirements (annually) of both Florida and Georgia through taking formal classroom education courses in subjects that have included course work in trenching, excavation and installation of underground water mains. These classes have included course work in the National Fire Protection Association Code governing the installation of components of fire protection systems. Prior to obtaining his Certified Plumber's License in 1981, the Petitioner was employed by various underground utility and excavation contractors, including Junger Utilities, as well as certified plumbing contractors who performed underground utility and excavation contracting. The Petitioner's experience included excavation for and installation of underground water mains. The Petitioner's experience with these companies was established by his un-refuted sworn testimony since these companies are no longer in existence and could not have a representative to testify or supply letter documentation. The Petitioner has established a total experience of more than 28 years in the installation of underground water mains and other underground utilities, including the installation of water mains connected to fire protection systems. This was established through the un-rebutted testimony of the Petitioner and corroborated by the deposition testimony of witnesses Thomas M. Brown, Dale R. Cowie and Jimmy Patrick Riley. This experience was gained both as an employee of companies performing underground utilities work and through directly contracting for such work by virtue of holding a license that authorized him to contract for underground utilities work. (Certified Plumber's License). The Petitioner is employed by Professional Plumbing of NWF, Inc., as President, Chief Executive Officer, as well as qualifying agent. Professional Plumbing of NWF, Inc., the Petitioner's own corporation, is a company that, because of the Petitioner's certified plumbers license, is authorized to perform and does perform trenching, excavation and installation of underground water mains as part of its underground utilities work. The Petitioner has been employed in that position since 1987. The Petitioner's 28 years of experience in performing layout, design, excavation and underground pipe assembly has included, without limitation, the same work for which he seeks to sit for an examination; i.e., the installation of the underground components of Fire Protection Systems. The fact that the Petitioner has successfully performed not only closely related work involving installation of underground water mains, but has successfully performed and completed the very same work for which he seeks to be licensed (by virtue of his Certified Plumber's License) is relevant to the issue of whether he has demonstrated sufficient education and experience to qualify him to sit for the Contractor V examination. During the Petitioner's 28 years in his profession he has worked as a laborer, a foreman, a project superintendent and a qualifying agent for a company (Professional Plumbing of NWF, Inc.) that installs underground water mains. His experience has included layout, design, financial administration and project management for underground utilities work. The Petitioner, by virtue of being a State Certified Plumber, has gained experience in "laying-out, fabricating, installing, inspecting, altering, repairing, or servicing fire protection systems" for purposes of qualifying for the "highest level" or scope of fire protection systems license, the Contractor I license. Although such experience is not a prerequisite to qualify for the lowest level or scope of fire protection license, the Contractor V license which the Petitioner seeks; the fact that the Department recognizes by Rule 4A-46.010, Florida Administrative Code, that the Petitioner, as a plumber, gains such experience is relevant to whether the Petitioner is qualified to sit for the Contractor V examination. The Department has conceded that a Contract I License is a "higher license" or higher or broader scope of license than that of a Contractor V, the license which the Petitioner seeks. The Department also concedes that a Contractor I, without holding a separate Contractor V license, may nonetheless perform every aspect of the work that may be performed by a Contractor V. Thus a Contractor V's license is a "lesser included" license to that of a Contractor I or a Contractor II. Similarly, it has been established that an underground utility and excavation contractor's license is a "lesser included" license to that of a Certified Plumbing Contractor, as a Certified Plumbing Contractor can perform all aspects of underground utilities and excavations that may also be performed by the holder of that "lesser" license. The minutes of the Construction Industry Licensing Board in evidence, together with the associated letter in evidence, establishes that that Agency, which is charged with the jurisdiction of regulating licensure and practice of both Certified Plumbing Contractors and underground utility and excavation contractors, interprets the latter license as being a lesser included license to that of Certified Plumbing Contractor and that a Certified Plumbing Contractor can perform all aspects of underground utility and excavation contracting. See Petitioner's Exhibits 3, 4, 36, 37, 38 and 42, in evidence. The Department's witness at hearing conceded that the Petitioner's more than 20 years of experience as a Certified Plumbing Contractor was the "equivalent of" the experience that would be gained from "working for" an underground utility contractor for four years. Given that concession, and in determining whether the Petitioner qualifies by the combination of education and experience method contained in the statute relating to qualification for the Contractor V examination, it must be determined whether the "education" he has attained is equal to that he would have gained in the "employment of" a Certified Underground Utilities Contractor." In this regard, given his acknowledged 28 years of experience, the Department acknowledged that the amount of education that the Petitioner would need to demonstrate would be minimal. The Respondent has also acknowledged that the "education" that the Petitioner must show to sit for the Contractor V examination would be the type of education the Petitioner would have gained by working for an underground utility contractor for four years. It was established that the type of education that could be expected from working for an underground utility contractor for four years would not be college education or necessarily formal classroom education but rather acquiring that body of knowledge required to install underground utilities including water mains through education on the job and through continuing education courses. Even if it were assumed that the Petitioner's Certified Plumbing Contractor's license is not at least "equal to" that of an underground utility and excavation contractor's license, which therefore would automatically qualify the Petitioner to sit for the examination, the Petitioner amply demonstrated at hearing that he had obtained the same body of knowledge, i.e., "education," at a minimum, that he would have obtained by virtue of being employed for four years by a company holding the "lesser included" license, i.e., the underground utility and excavation contractor's license. The Petitioner established that he acquired the "equivalent to" education through on-the-job training during more than 28 years in the business of installing and supervising the installation of underground utilities, as well as through attending more than 100 hours of formal classroom education in subjects that taught the skills required for the bidding, estimating, layout, design and performance of underground utilities work. The Petitioner established this education through his sworn testimony, as well as documentary evidence. He introduced into evidence, supplemented by his sworn testimony, all of the documentation of these courses within his possession and control. These continuing education courses are not graded, therefore, there could be no "transcripts." Although not specifically required by the governing statute, Chapter 633, the Petitioner demonstrated that his formal classroom education includes some 53 hours of instruction in the National Fire Protection Association Code governing fire protection contractors. He demonstrated that he has obtained formal classroom instruction in courses teaching the skills required for the performance of underground utilities work. In fact it was established that Certified Plumbing Contractors such as the Petitioner and Certified Underground Utility and Excavation Contractors, such as Lee Brown, who testified for the Petitioner, often take the same continuing education courses, in the same subject, due to the overlap in their scope of work. These courses are typically taught by industry professionals who know their subjects, rather than by local colleges. In fact, the Petitioner has more than 100 hours of classroom education on subjects including course material in the NFPA Codes, as well as technical issues relating to the installation of underground utilities.
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 a final order be entered by the Respondent Agency allowing the Petitioner to sit for the Contractor V examination. It is further, RECOMMENDED that if the Petitioner seeks to pursue a claim for attorney's fees and costs on the basis that the Respondent Agency's position was not substantially justified, that a proper petition within the time constraints of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, must be filed, which has not been accomplished, since no final order has yet been entered in this matter. Thus the purported claim for attorney's fees and costs cannot be addressed at this time. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward M. Fleming, Esquire McDonald, Fleming, Moorhead, Ferguson Green & Smith, LLP 4300 Bayou Boulevard Suite 13 Pensacola, Florida 32503-2671 Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether CJC Properties, Ltd. (CJC), is eligible for state restoration funding assistance under the Petroleum Contamination Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Insurance Program for one or more discharges of gasoline at DEP Facility No. 378943938 (“the facility”).
Findings Of Fact The Facility CJC is a Florida Limited Partnership. It is the current owner of property located at 5691 U.S. Highway 27 North, in Tallahassee. Prior to CJC’s acquisition of the property, the property was owned by Carolyn J. Chapman, John W. Chapman, Jane Chapman Latina, and Carolyn Chapman Landrum (“the Chapmans”). The property was leased to various entities and operated as a gas station. The tanks and dispensers remained in service until November, 1995. The last operator of the facility was Lake Jackson 76, Inc. There were five underground petroleum storage tanks at the facility. Before 1991, one of the tanks at the facility was used for regular, leaded, gasoline. When leaded gasoline was phased out, the tank was used for unleaded gasoline. Site Assessments and Sampling Data On November 30, 1995, the Chapmans employed Petroleum Contractors, Inc., to remove the five storage tanks. During the tank removal, Environmental and Geotechnical Specialists, Inc. (“EGS”) performed an assessment to determine whether the facility was contaminated with petroleum or petroleum products. The Underground Storage Tank Removal Report prepared by EGS noted that all five tanks appeared to be intact. Soils in the tank pit wall and bottom were not discolored. No significant contamination was observed directly below the tanks. Soil from the tank pit was stockpiled on the site. EGS observed no significant signs of contamination of this soil. The soil stockpile was also screened with a Flame Ionization Detector Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA). No organic vapors were detected. An OVA detects any organic vapor, but is used as a screening tool to find petroleum vapors. Department rules require that an OVA reading be performed both unfiltered and filtered. The filtered reading screens out everything but methane and is “subtracted” from the unfiltered reading to determine the presence of petroleum vapors. Twenty-four soil samples were taken from various depths at nine locations in the tank pit. These samples were tested using an OVA. Nine of the soil samples, taken from four locations, had corrected OVA readings indicative of petroleum contamination. EGS concluded that “soil contamination detected in the tank pit is likely the result of a leak in the piping” between the dispensers and the tanks. Soil samples were also taken from three borings in the vicinity of the dispenser island and OVA-tested. In boring D-2, organic vapors were detected from the surface to a depth of approximately seven feet. The OVA readings from D-2 declined with depth. EGS reported that “some contamination was detected beneath a dispenser; however, it does not ‘appear’ to significantly extend below six (6) feet.” EGS did not report both filtered and unfiltered OVA readings for the soil samples taken from the dispenser area, as it had done for soil samples taken from the tank pit and the stockpile. For the dispenser area soil samples, EGS reported a single OVA reading for each sample, without indicating whether the reading was “corrected” after filtering. For this reason, the Department contends that these data are unreliable. CJC points out that EGS stated in the text of its report that the soil samples were filtered. CJC also argues that, because the filtered OVA readings for soil samples taken from the tank pit area were not different from their unfiltered readings, the OVA readings for the soil samples from the dispenser area would not have changed after filtering. The preponderance of the evidence is that the contamination in the dispenser area was petroleum. Based on EGS’ findings during the tank removal in November 1995, Petroleum Contractors, Inc., filed a Discharge Reporting Form on December 1, 1995, stating that there had been a discharge of unleaded gasoline at the facility. In January 1996, the Chapmans applied to participate in FPLRIP based on the discharge reported on December 1, 1995. By order dated January 26, 1996, the Department determined that the reported discharge was eligible for state-funded remediation assistance under FPLRIP. In 1997, another consultant, Levine Fricke Recon (LFR) conducted a site assessment at the facility and submitted its Interim Site Assessment Report to the Department. As part of its own soil sampling at the site, LFR collected a “direct push” soil boring in the dispenser island area, near the place where EGS had reported organic vapors. The boring data showed no petroleum vapors until the interval 16-to-20 feet below ground surface. LFR also collected and analyzed groundwater samples from the site. It reported that a sample taken from beneath the former diesel dispenser contained lead. Because lead occurs naturally in soils, its presence in a water sample does not confirm that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. In 1998, LFR conducted a second assessment of the facility site. It installed and sampled four shallow monitoring wells, designated MW-1S through MW-4S, and three deep monitoring wells, designated MW-2D through MW-4D. Groundwater samples from MW-3S and MW-3D were analyzed for lead, ethylene dibromide (EDB), and 1,2-Dichloroethane. All three substances are usually detected in a groundwater sample contaminated with leaded gasoline. On August 28, 1998, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment II to the Department, which shows lead and EDB were found in a sample taken from MW-3S, but not 1,2-Dichloroethane. LFR did not conclude or express a suspicion in either of its two assessment reports that leaded gasoline had been discharged at the facility. The deadline for submitting a Discharge Reporting Form or written report of contamination was December 31, 1998. A site assessment report received by the Department before January 1, 1999, which contained evidence of a petroleum discharge, was accepted by the Department as a “report of contamination.” The petroleum discharge information received by the Department before January 1, 1999, consisted of the Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, the FPLRIP claim, the Interim Site Assessment Report, and the Interim Site Assessment Report II. Post Deadline Site Assessment Data After the statutory deadline, LFR submitted its Interim Site Assessment III. This report includes January 1999 groundwater sampling data from four monitoring wells which show the presence of low levels of EDB. When EDB is found in a groundwater sample, it is a common practice to re-sample the well from which the sample was taken. Of the wells that showed the presence of EDB, only MW- 10D was re-sampled, after January 1, 1999. There was no EDB present in the groundwater when MS-10D was re-sampled. In June 2000, as part of the remediation of the contamination at the facility, an area of contaminated soil was removed to a depth of 14 feet. The area of soil removed included the former dispenser area. In January 2003, the Department notified CJC that the $300,000 FPLRIP funding cap would soon be reached. In March 2003, CJC signed a Funding Cap Transition Agreement, acknowledging that “At no time will the DEP be obligated to pay for cleanup of this discharge any amount that exceeds the funding cap.” CJC further acknowledged that it “is responsible for completing the remediation of the discharge in accordance with Chapter 62-770, F.A.C.” In 2005, CJC re-sampled one of the monitoring wells for lead and EDB. Neither substance was present. The site is not currently being actively remediated. Periodic groundwater sampling indicates that concentrations of contaminants are dropping. No further active remediation has been proposed. The cost to complete remediation is a matter of speculation. The record evidence is insufficient to make a finding about future remediation costs. Eligibility Determinations On September 2, 2003, CJC submitted a PCPP Affidavit to the Department, seeking state funding under PCPP. On October 30, 2003, the Department denied CJC eligibility for PCPP funding on the basis that the contamination was covered under FPLRIP and, therefore, was excluded from funding under PCPP. The Department has never granted PCPP eligibility for the cleanup of a discharge previously being funded under FPLRIP. Apparently, in 2005, CJC hired Glenn R. MacGraw, an expert in the assessment of petroleum-contaminated sites, to review the EGS and LFR assessments. In a letter to CJC’s attorney dated August 19, 2005, MacGraw expressed the opinion that “at least 2 discharges have occurred on this site, one in the former tank area, and one in the former dispenser area.” MacGraw’s opinion that there had been a discharge of leaded gasoline was based on the detection of EDB and lead in the groundwater. He also thought the presence of methyl tetra-butyl ether (MTBE) in groundwater samples taken from the tank pit area showed a tank leak of unleaded gasoline. CJC requested FPLRIP funding for the other alleged discharges at the facility. On March 23, 2006, the Department issued a letter formally stating its disagreement that there were other reported discharges and denying eligibility for FPLRIP funding. On March 30, 2006, the Department issued an Amended Order of Ineligibility under PCPP. The amended order added a second ground for denial, that the reported discharge was not shown to have occurred before January 1, 1995. Whether There Was A Second Discharge Eligible for Funding CJC argues that the presence of lead and EDB in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3S shows that there was a discharge of leaded gasoline at the facility. However, LFR reported that the well screen for MW-3S had probably been damaged during installation, because a significant amount of filter sand was observed in the purge water. The Department contends, therefore, that the source of the lead detected in the groundwater sample from MW-3S could have been (naturally) in the soil that entered the well. The Department also discounts the detection of EDB in the groundwater sample because EDB is an ingredient of some pesticides and can show up in groundwater when pesticide has been applied to the overlying land. Furthermore, EDB was not detected in the groundwater sample taken from MW-3D, a deeper well located near MW-3S. MacGraw does not think the EDB came from a pesticide application, because the EDB contamination at the site occurs in an elongated “plume,” in the former dispenser area, whereas one would expect to see EDB distributed evenly over the site if the source was a pesticide application. MacGraw mapped the plume of EDB by using data obtained after the discharge reporting deadline. Michael J. Bland, a Department employee and expert in geology and petroleum site assessment, believes the data from the facility are insufficient to confirm the presence of EDB or its distribution. LFR reported in its Interim Site Assessment that no significant soil contamination was found near the dispenser island. Groundwater samples from MW-3D, a deep monitoring well near MW-S3, showed no EDB, lead, or 1,2-dichlorothane. Bland opined that, if the detection of EDB in the shallow well was reliable, EDB would have been detected in the deep well, too, because EDB is a “sinker.” EDB is persistent in groundwater, so when it is not detected when a well is re-sampled, reasonable doubt arises about the detection in the first sample. Of all the wells sampled in 1999 that showed EDB, only MW-10D was re-sampled in 2003. When the well was re-sampled, there was no EDB. CJC contends that EDB was not found in the re-sampling of MW-10D because of the soil removal in 2000, but the Department contends that the soil removal would not have affected the presence of EDB in MW-10D, because the well is significantly down-gradient of the area of soil removal. It was undisputed that the presence of 1,2- dichoroethane in MW-S3 was not reliably determined. There is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that the contamination reported in the dispenser area is the source of contamination which persists at the facility. The reported contamination only affected the top six feet of soil. The soil removal to a depth of 14 feet in that area in 2000 should have fully remediated the reported contamination. The data upon which CJC relies in claiming eligibility under FPLRIP or PCPP for a second discharge are, at best, incomplete and ambiguous. CJC failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge of leaded gasoline occurred. CJC also failed to prove that the reported contamination in the dispenser is associated with a discharge that still exists to be remediated with state assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that CJC is ineligible to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program for the discharge reported to the Department on December 1, 1995, and that CJC has not demonstrated eligibility to participate in the Petroleum Cleanup Participation Program or the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program for any other discharges. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2008.
