Opinion ID: 1921947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Hydrocarbon Spill Decision Tree

Text: ¶ 23 DownEast also argues that the Department's Hydrocarbon Spill Decision Tree was treated as if it were an enforceable rule even though the Decision Tree had not been adopted pursuant to 5 M.R.S.A. §§ 8052-8054 (1989 & Supp. 1999). There is no dispute that the Decision Tree has not been adopted as a Department rule. An agency may, however, provide guidance for its employees and the public without adopting the guiding materials as rules, as long as those materials are not intended to have, and are not given, the force and effect of law. See York Mut. Ins. Co. of Me. v. Superintendent of Ins., 485 A.2d 239, 242 (Me. 1984). [7] ¶ 24 The Department argues that the Decision Tree was not intended to supplant the statutory requirements for Fund reimbursement, and that it does not treat the Decision Tree as if it were a judicially enforceable rule. Rather, the Decision Tree is intended to provide guidance to professionals and site owners in determining what expectations the commissioner may have regarding the extent of cleanup required at particular sites. ¶ 25 Regardless of the Department's use of the Decision Tree, however, the Board did not rely on the Decision Tree in its own conclusions regarding reimbursement eligibility. The Board relied, instead, on the language of the statute declaring eligible costs to be those costs that are necessary to clean up discharges of oil to the satisfaction of the commissioner and cited, correctly, the applicable statute, 38 M.R.S.A. § 562-A(7-A). Finding that the Commissioner had not required removal of soil unless it was petroleum saturated, [8] and that DownEast was aware of the requirement, the Board concluded that DownEast had not proved that its removal of the soil from either site was necessary to meet the requirements of the Commissioner on the facts specific to each site. [9] We find no error in that conclusion. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.