Findings Of Fact NFS filed an application with the Department for a renewed operations permit, Permit No. A016-126149. The Department entered a Notice of Permit Issuance indicating its intent to grant NFS' permit application. The Department, however, informed NFS that it was imposing several specific conditions on the permit being issued to NFS. NFS requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the imposition of several of the specific conditions it had been informed the Department intended to impose. At the commencement of the final hearing, the parties represented that they had resolved their dispute concerning all of the specific conditions at issue except one. The parties represented that the only remaining condition imposed by the Department which was still at issue hearing was specific condition number 9. Pursuant to specific condition number 9, NFS was required to comply with the requirements of Rule 17-2.650(2)(c)11.b.(i), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 17-2.650(2)(c)11.b.(i), Florida Administrative Code, requires the following: No owner or operator of a source governed by Rule 17-2.650(2)(c)11., F.A.C., shall cause, permit, or allow any visible emissions (five percent opacity) from such source(s) except that at the point where material is being discharged to the hold of a ship from a conveyor system. When the conveyor and/or hatch covering is moved, an opacity of 10 percent will be allowed. NFS has not filed a challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, to the requirements of Rule 17-2.650(2)(c)11.b.(i), Florida Administrative Code. NFS failed to offer any proof that Rule 17-2.650(2)(c)11.b.(i), Florida Administrative Code, and the rule's 5% opacity limit does not apply to it. NFS suggested that it "could not live with" the 5% opacity requirement. Rule 17-2.650(2)(c)11.b.(i), Florida Administrative Code, does contain an exemption from the 5% opacity requirement of the rule. NFS did not, however, offer any proof that it qualifies for any exemption from the 5% opacity requirement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order dismissing North Florida Shipyard, Inc.'s challenge to the Department's Notice of Permit Issuance. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX Case Number 92-2822 The Department has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Hereby accepted. 2 4-5 3 5. 4 7-8. 5 8. COPIES FURNISHED: North Florida Shipyard, Inc. Commodores Point - Administrative Office Attn: John B. Shiffert Post Office Box 3863 Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Jefferson M. Braswell Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement, pursuant to Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact On or about April 4, 2003, Petitioner applied for a certified plumbing contractor's license by endorsement. Applicants who seek a licensure by endorsement must have passed an examination that is substantially equivalent to the examination given in Florida or hold a license in another state or territory of the United States where the criteria for issuance of the license is substantially equivalent to Florida's criteria. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was licensed or certified as a plumber in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. For the purpose of his application for licensure by endorsement, Petitioner submitted information to the Board regarding the examination he took in Georgia. Petitioner was not precluded from submitting information regarding the examinations he took in Alabama and Tennessee. However, Petitioner submitted the information regarding the examination he took in Georgia because it was the one he had taken most recently. Georgia gives three different plumbing examinations and issues three different plumbing licenses. One examination is for a journeyman's license. Another examination is for a Class I restricted plumbing license. Still, another examination is given for a Class II unrestricted plumbing license. In order to obtain his plumbing license in Georgia, Petitioner successfully completed the Class I Restricted Georgia Examination (Georgia Examination). Florida issues only one certified plumbing contractor's license and that license is the equivalent of Georgia's Class II unrestricted plumbing license. To meet the examination requirement for licensure as a plumber in Florida, an applicant must successfully complete the Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors (Florida Examination or Certification Examination for Plumbing Contractors). Stephen Allen, a psychometrician employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, evaluated the Georgia Examination to determine if it were substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. In determining whether the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination were substantially equivalent, Mr. Allen considered and compared the material covered; the emphasis placed on various topics; the actual content of the examinations; the general characteristics of the examination; the number of questions; the amount of time allowed to complete the examination; the weight given to various areas or categories of the examinations; and the method of measuring knowledge in the various content areas. Based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the Georgia Examination and the Florida Examination, Mr. Allen properly determined that the Georgia Examination was not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. The area in which the examinations are significantly different is the isometric area or category. First, the relative weight on the isometric area of the examinations varies greatly. On the Florida Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is 31 percent. On the Georgia Examination, the weight given to the isometric area is, at most, only 6 percent. Second, the knowledge of isometrics is measured differently on the examinations. The Florida Examination requires that the candidate demonstrate knowledge of isometrics by having the candidate draw five different isometric drawings, which show the room's plumbing based on the fixtures to be installed. The five drawings are graded on legibility, orientation, flow, angles, piping, labeling, and vents. The Georgia Examination is a multiple choice examination and measures knowledge of isometrics by the candidate's selecting the correct answer from four possible answers. The Georgia Examination successfully completed by Petitioner to obtain his master plumber's restricted license is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination. Petitioner is ineligible for licensure by endorsement because the examination he took in Georgia is not substantially equivalent to the Florida Examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William Lantrip 927 Lakewood Drive Dunedin, Florida 34698-7218 Timothy Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert C. Kany, P.E., committed the acts or omissions alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether those acts or omissions constitute the violations alleged; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed (as submitted in the parties' Joint Pre-hearing Submission).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a licensed Professional Engineer with license PE 16739. On or about February 12, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed two pages of plans for a project described as "Renovations to Existing Facilities 8245 Curryford Road, Orlando." Respondent did not have a contract with or any communication with the Curryford Road owner. Between April 26, 2002, and on or about July 8, 2003, Respondent signed and sealed five pages of plans for a project identified a "2008 Corena Drive." Respondent did not have a contract with or any communication with the Corena Drive owner. Petitioner is the State of Florida agent that provides investigative and prosecutorial services for the Florida Board of Professional Engineers. The Florida Board of Professional Engineers regulates the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes (2001). Joint Exhibit 1, "Renovations to Existing Facilities 8245 Curryford Road, Orlando," and Joint Exhibit 2, "2008 Corena Drive," contain deficiencies regarding mechanical, electrical, and plumbing design. Some deficiencies can be cured by the plans examiner's refusing to approve the plans and requesting clarifying information regarding the noted deficiency. In Florida, an electrical contractor can assume responsibility for electrical design requirements for residential properties that require less than 600 amps systems. However, when an engineer seals the plans, the engineer assumes that responsibility. The initial step in plans approval in Orange County, Florida, is submission of the plans to the Orange County Zoning Department. Both sets of plans in question were initially reviewed by the zoning department. The "Curryford" plans were submitted to the Orange County Building Department for review and were not approved. While the "Corena" plans were retained by Orange County, there is no evidence that these plans were submitted for building department review. It is not atypical for plans to be rejected by the Orange County Building Department and returned to the engineer for additions or corrections. While one small deficiency exists to the structural design of Joint Exhibit 1, "Renovations to Existing Facilities 8245 Curryford Road, Orlando," there was no threat to public safety. There are myriad structural engineering deficiencies in Joint Exhibit 2, "2008 Corena Drive," which are the sealed plans for the residence at that address. The deficiencies may be a result of the fact that the plans were incomplete due to the owners' failure to decide on a cathedral or closed ceiling. If the plans were preliminary, Respondent should not have sealed them. The plans depicted in Joint Exhibit 2, "2008 Corena Drive," do not meet minimum engineering standards; the engineer of record, Respondent, was negligent in sealing these plans. It is acceptable practice in the engineering community for an engineer to work with a designer who drafts design documents and is independently employed. It is also acceptable practice in the engineering community for an engineer working with a designing draftsman not to visit a particular project site if sufficient detail of the project is related to the engineer by the draftsman. It is acceptable practice in the engineering community for a draftsman to design complete drawings and then present the drawings to an engineer for engineering review and approval as long as the draftsman is known to the engineer and the engineer is aware of the draftsman's skill and expertise. Respondent has practiced his profession for 65 years, the last 25 in Florida. He has known Robert Thomas, the individual who drafted both sets of plans in question, for seven or eight years. Respondent considers Mr. Thomas to be a "darn good" draftsman with considerable knowledge of the building industry. When Mr. Thomas brings plans to Respondent for review, they discuss the project and the plans; Respondent then makes appropriate changes to assure that the plans comply with or exceed code. This process meets the "responsible charge" standard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers reprimand Respondent, Robert C. Kany, P.E., for his negligence in sealing incomplete plans. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 14th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel M. Greene, Esquire Kirwin & Morris 338 West Morse Boulevard, Suite 150 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Bruce Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Doug Sunshine, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267
The Issue Whether Respondent's professional engineers' license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent, Lester M. Maples, P.E., has been registered as a licensed engineer in the State of Florida, holding license number PE 10214. He has been licensed since 1964. There was no evidence that Respondent had been disciplined by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers in the past. Panhandle Fire Protection, Inc. (Panhandle) is owned by Chris Thomas and is in the business of designing and constructing fire protection systems. Respondent is the engineer for Panhandle. Respondent is the engineer of record for the fire protection plans for Longleaf Elementary and McArthur Elementary in Pensacola, Florida. Both plans were prepared in conjunction with Panhandle, the eventual contractor for the construction of the fire protection systems at both schools. The fire protection plans for both schools were signed, sealed, and dated by Respondent, with some revision dates also listed. The date does not appear immediately under Respondent's signature. However, the technicality of placement of the date is at best a de minimus violation which does not warrant discipline. Since the plans are dated, the portion of the Administrative Complaint alleging that Respondent failed to date the plans should be dismissed. Both plans were drawn by using data generated by a generally recognized computer program used for designing fire protection systems and generating the hydraulic calculations for such a system. Both plans show a fairly detailed layout of the fire protection piping and sprinkler heads at each school. Lengths of pipe, as well as diameter are shown. By looking at the plans, a person can generally trace the route of the pipes planned for each school and determine each system's construction. Both drawings are drawn to scale and otherwise appear to meet rule and building code criteria for such drawings. See Florida Building Code 104.2.1 and Rule 61G15-32.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Indeed, both school's fire safety systems have been constructed and are in place at each school. However, prior to construction, Gene Schmidt, P.E., was the engineer of record for the Escambia County School Board. Fire protection systems is not his area of specialty. While he was not responsible for the fire safety plans for the two schools, he performed a courtesy review of the fire protection drawings and hydraulic calculations for Longleaf Elementary and McArthur Elementary. After review, Mr. Schmidt felt that the hydraulic calculations could not be reconciled with the drawings. He felt the plans did not comply with NFPA 13 with which fire protection plans must comply in Florida. NFPA 13 6-1.1.1 only requires that the hydraulic reference points or nodes shown on the plan correspond or correlate with comparable reference points on the hydraulic calculation sheets for the drawings. Hydraulic reference points or nodes are any intersection of piping where the flow of water through the pipes can change. Nowhere in NFPA, rule or statute, is the manner for describing these intersections or sections of pipe prescribed. Mr. Schmidt had difficulty in identifying the node points and section of pipe listed in the hydraulic calculations on the drawings. Once the method of description used by Respondent to describe these nodes and sections of pipe was explained to Mr. Schmidt, he could identify the reference point calculations on the drawings. Indeed, at the hearing, Mr. Thomas, a contractor, and another independent witness with expertise in engineering design principles, had no problem in tracing through the hydraulic reference points on the drawings. Both witnesses were of the opinion that the drawings contained sufficient information and continuity so that a person could trace through or determine how the water would flow throughout the sprinkler system. On the other hand, Petitioner's expert witness had great difficulty in so doing. He was of the opinion that Respondent's drawings lacked continuity and a person could not trace through or follow the flow of water through the system because the hydraulic reference points were not all defined or locatable on the drawings. What was clear from the evidence was that these various experts had real disagreements over the terminology to be used for describing hydraulic reference points and the theory underlying one method of description over another. In any event, the evidence showed that Respondent's descriptive methods were valid even if somewhat unique and that the hydraulic reference points did correlate to the hydraulic calculations for the two projects. As indicated, both systems were built and accepted by the owner. Therefore, the portions of the Administrative Complaint related to the lack of detail or clarity in the drawings and the relation of the hydraulic reference points to the drawings should be dismissed. The drawings do show pipes penetrating rated walls in corridors and around the kitchen at angles other than at 90 degrees. However, there is nothing in any rule, building code, or NFPA provision which prohibits such a design. Indeed, Petitioner's expert, who decried the angled design, has designed piping in such a manner. Additionally, the drawings do not specify the type of sealant the contractor should use when a pipe penetrates a firewall. However, there is no code or rule requiring such a specification. Indeed, proper sealing of the pipes in the area of penetration of a firewall, as is proper sealing of windows and doors, is required by Section 104.2 of the Florida Building Code. However, such standard building code requirements are not required to be specified in the drawings since all such construction requirements must be met by the contractor and is not otherwise a special design detail to be specified on the drawings by an engineer. Therefore, the portions of the Administrative Complaint related to the sprinkler systems' pipes entering the wall at an angle other than 90 degrees and the failure of Respondent to specify the type of sealant to be used where pipes penetrate a firewall should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Alvin L. Peters, Esquire Peters & Scoon 25 East Eighth Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Douglas Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Cobo Company, Inc., is a mechanical contractor located in Miami, Florida, whose qualifying agent, Jose Cobo, is certified in that capacity pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. By letter of August 18, 1980, Respondent Department of General Services confirmed Petitioner's annual prequalification as a potential bidder for building construction contracts pursuant to Section 255.29, Florida Statutes, for the "type or class as defined in your license." (Testimony of Cobo, Exhibit 1) At an undisclosed date, Respondent published an advertisement for bids for Project No. DGS-7969-C, "Major Repairs-Chiller Replacement, Graham Building, Miami, Florida." The advertisement required all bidders to submit prequalification data of their eligibility to submit proposals if not previously qualified for the current fiscal year. The advertisement and invitation for bids stated that bids must be submitted in full in accordance with the requirements of the drawings, specifications, bidding conditions, and contractual conditions, and that sealed bids would be opened on September 30, 1980. Section B-2 of the specifications required that the bidder present evidence that he was "authorized to perform the work required in these documents in accordance with the applicable provisions of Florida Statutes governing contractors." (Exhibit 4) Respondent's Instructions to Bidders further required that bidders submit evidence of ability to provide necessary performance and labor and material payment bonds, and that bids should be accompanied by a bid guarantee of not less than 5 percent of the amount of the bid. The instructions also required bidders to submit a list of previous contracts involving similar work which had been satisfactorily completed, and to list those qualified subcontractors which the bidder intended to be employed on the contract. They further required a bidder to indicate bid prices on the proposal form for the entire work and for any alternates on which he bids. The instructions stated that if the base bid was within the amount of funds available to finance the contract and the owner (Respondent) wished to accept alternate additive bids, contract award would be made to that responsible bidder submitting the low combined bid, consisting of the base bid plus alternate additive bids. Section B-24 of the contract document reads in part as follows: B-24 CONTRACT AWARD The Contract will be awarded by the Executive Direction, Department of General Services, as soon as possible, to the lowest qualified bidder provided his bid is reasonable and it is in the best interest of the Owner to accept it. The Owner reserves the right to waive any informality on bids received when such waiver is in the interest of the Owner. The Agreement will only be entered into with reasonable contractors, found to be satisfactory by the Owner, qualified by experience and in a financial position to do the work specified. Section 01010 of the specifications provides in part as follows: SECTION 01010 - SUMMARY OF WORK 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION. The project in general consists of the construction of the contract entitled Major Repairs-Chiller Replacement, Graham building, Miami, Florida, State Project NO. DGS-7069-C. A general description of the project and its scope include the following: Replacement of chiller for central air conditioning system. Install new cooling towers and pump. The contract drawings and specifications provided for the removal of a portion of an interior wall, and removal of an exterior wall window and masonry work below the window to provide access for removal of the existing chiller and its replacement with new equipment. In addition, the contract included electrical work incident to the installation of the chiller, removal of an existing hand rail for clear access to the equipment and later replacement, installation of pitch pans for pipes and other openings on the roof, and the erection and installation of structural steel cooling towers. The specifications call for painting, plaster work, replacement of flooring and ceiling, and installation of a window wall panel, as required in restoring the demolished area. They further called for a replacement demountable interior wall partition to provide future access to the air conditioning equipment, as an alternate portion of the project. Section 01021 of the specifications described the bid items as a Base bid, Additive Alternate No. 1 for using higher efficiency chiller, and Additive Alternate No. 2 for installation of the demountable partition. However, the specifications had been altered prior to the issuance of the bid invitation to provide for the higher efficiency chiller as part of the base bid, but Section 01021 had not been changed accordingly. Respondent's proposal form for use by bidders, however, had provisions for entry of only a Base bid and Alternate No. 1 for the installation of the demountable partition. (Testimony of Karagianis, Exhibits 4-6) Petitioner submitted its bid for the project on September 30, 1980. Its base bid was $225,440. It also bid on the alternate for installation of demountable partitions in the sum of $1,170, and added to the bid form an alternate for the use of higher efficiency chiller in the amount of $1,150. Seven other bids were submitted on the proposal ranging from $239,300 by Sam L. Hamilton, Inc., to a high bid of $430,624. Hamilton's additive bid for the alternate partitions was in the amount of $1,950. Petitioner enclosed with its proposal the required contractor's qualification statement showing previous experience as a mechanical contractor, bid bond, and other required information. It listed L. Milton Construction, Inc., as a general construction subcontractor and Sparta Insulation as an insulation contractor. Although Petitioner intended that Lloyd N. Jones perform the electrical work on the project, he was not listed as a subcontractor because Petitioner did not know at that time whether he would be a subcontractor of Milton or of his own firm. Petitioner included the alternate bid for the higher efficiency chiller because it was required under Section 01021 of the specifications. Milton's bid to Petitioner for the construction work on the contract was in the sum of $7,000. (Testimony of Cobo, Exhibits 2-3) By letter of October 7, 1980, Respondent informed Petitioner that it intended to contract with Sam L. Hamilton, Inc., which had been determined the qualified low bidder meeting the requirements of the specifications. The letter advised the Petitioner that is bid was rejected because it was not a certified or registered general or building contractor as required by Section 489.105, Florida Statutes. Attached to the letter was a copy of a letter of William J. Roberts, attorney for the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, to Respondent, dated October 18, 1977, setting forth a legal opinion that a mechanical contractor could not be the prime contractor on a state contract in which the bulk of the work is mechanical in nature, but the remaining portion is to be subcontracted to a general contractor. Roberts testified at the hearing that he had drafted legislation which changed the definition of "contractor" previously found in subsection 478.102(1), and in his view, under such definition, a mechanical contractor would not be authorized to become a prime contractor is it were necessary for him to subcontract any non-mechanical work called for under the contract provisions which he was not qualified to perform. (Testimony of Roberts, Exhibit 7) Respondent's project director estimates that the chiller replacement project was approximately 90 to 93 percent mechanical in nature, and 7 to 10 percent requiring general construction and electrical work. It was his understanding of departmental policy that if any portion of a contract involved general construction work, only a general contractor would be eligible to receive the award and that, in this case, Petitioner could not therefore be accepted as a prime contractor. Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Construction has instructed Bureau personnel not to award contracts to mechanical contractors which involve non-mechanical work unless the contractor is certified in the non-mechanical area for which the work is required. Several contracts awarded by Respondent to mechanical contractors in 1980 which involved non-mechanical work were "incorrect" awards, in the view of the Chief of the Bureau of Construction. (Testimony of Karagianis, Scaringe, Composite Exhibit 8) General contractors and mechanical contractors are required to be licensed under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Any person who desires to be certified statewide in a particular contracting area must establish his competency and qualifications by a combination of education and experience, plus the successful completion of an appropriate examination. The general contractor's examination and mechanical contractor's examination have similar portions relating to applicable federal and state laws and regulations in the contracting field. The remaining and major portion of the mechanical contractor's examination deals with subjects of that specialty such as air conditioning, refrigeration, heating, and the like. The general contractor's examination primarily covers matters relative to construction, such as site work, excavation, structural steel, masonry walls, piles, columns, and form work. (Testimony of Allen, Composite Exhibits 9-10) In the opinion of an expert in the field of architecture, there are no parts of the chiller replacement project which require the services of a general contractor. The demolition of the interior partition and the window wall properly may be accomplished by a mechanical contractor and installation of demountable partitions in lieu thereof can be obtained from speciality suppliers. Other aspects of the project, such as concrete pads, installation of cooling tower, pitch pans, and painting similarly are all considered to be incidental work to a project that is basically mechanical in nature. Certain large mechanical contractors customarily employ qualified individuals to perform specialty tasks such as painting and demolition work, but smaller contractors accomplish such portions of a job by subcontract. (Testimony of Coxen) A recent contract award was made by Dade County to a mechanical contractor for a project similar to the one here in controversy. In that case, the mechanical contractor had listed a general contractor as a subcontractor for the project. (Exhibit 11)
Findings Of Fact All parties involved concurred that there is a necessity for expanded generating capacity to serve Gulf's customers and that the two initial units of 500mw each can meet this requirement. The parties stipulated that the power plant site certification application submitted by Gulf (Exhibit 1) deals sufficiently with the issue of operational safeguards and further that DER's proposed conditions of certification contain a condition that adequately addresses that issue. All agencies involved recommended certification; however, DER's recommendation was predicated upon Gulf complying with the general and special conditions or certifications contained in Exhibits 4 and 5. Gulf agreed to all those conditions but three, viz: 1. That the water intake and return lines to the river cross the wetlands on a trestle instead of the causeway proposed by Gulf; 2. A more extensive monitoring program and without termination date than the fixed period monitoring program proposed by Gulf; and 3. Restrictions upon use of herbicides to clear transmission line corridors in excess of those placed by federal and state authorities. In addition DER proposed in general conditions of certification 11(a) and (b) to modify in the future the conditions of certification by any new or more stringent department rule enacted pursuant to Chapter 120 F.S. Gulf objected to this condition of certification and submitted a brief in opposition thereto. I With respect to Item number 1 the proposed causeway will occupy some 8 acres of wetlands. It is proposed to commence the causeway at elevation + 58 feet (above MSL), which is the 25 year predicted high water flood level in the Choctawhatchee River flood plain, and continue the causeway some 2400 feet at this elevation tot he river bank. The base of the proposed causeway will have a maximum width of 130 feet at a point near the river's edge where the causeway height will be 23 feet (T91). The top width is roughly 60 feet (T90) of which 18 feet will be paved surface. To the north of the access road will be a buried electrical service to carry electricity to the pumps. In the causeway to the south of the access road will be buried two intake lines of 30 inch diameter and one water discharge line. Near the river end of the causeway a vehicle turn-around area will be provided. The causeway across the wetlands will run in a southwesterly direction from plant site parallel to the principal direction of flood water flow when the river is out of its banks. Five oval-shaped culverts will be placed in the causeway at the lowest points of natural contour and permit water to pass through the causeway to equalize levels on both sides of the causeway. These culverts will be 6 feet wide by 3 feet 8 inches high. During the wet season water will be standing in most of these culverts. If the causeway were built in the same location, but without culverts, so as to block any flow normal to the causeway, the build up of water on the north side of the causeway would be only 1 or 2 inches at full flood stage of 57 feet (T146).1 Accordingly, the causeway would have little, if any, effect on the water flow in the wetlands over which this causeway passes; and, but for the 8 acres of wetlands eliminated by the construction of the causeway, the ecological function of these wetlands will be virtually unimpaired. As a collector of sediment from the flood waters the flood plain would also be unimpaired by the construction of the causeway (T154). The cost of constructing the causeway as proposed is $216,000. As a condition of certification (Ex 5 D 1 b) DER prescribed "a trestle shall be used for access to the platform for all areas west of station 14 + 00." This includes the access across the wetlands and presumably it is DER's position that the intake and discharge pipes from the Choctawhatchee River shall be placed upon a trestle structure rather than upon a causeway. The only evidence presented with respect to the cost of the trestle structure was presented by Gulf that a concrete pile trestle to support the pipes and access road would cost some $900,000. A creosoted pile trestle to perform the same function would cost approximately $600,000 and to provide fire protection for the piling would cost another $250,000, which would place the cost of either type trestle some four times the cost of the causeway. No maintenance costs or useful life comparisons of the trestle and causeway were presented. Both trestle and causeway would require the same corridor to be cleared thus the construction of either would result in the same ecological damage. Thereafter, however, the vegetation and other indicia of wetlands could return under the trestle. While evidence was presented that the causeway would occupy 8 acres of former wetlands no evidence was presented of the area occupied by the piling of the trestle. It is obvious that this would be a small fraction of the area occupied by the causeway, but not necessarily insignificant. Gulf opposed the trestle concept for two additional reasons. The exposed pipe on the trestle, if of steel, would require painting and would conduct heat from the sun to the water passing through the pipe. Testimony was presented that ecologists not present had evaluated wetlands in general as having an ecological value of between $1,000 and $20,000 per acre per year. If these figures have economic reality all wetland should have a market value of at least $10,000 per acre. Regardless of this if we assume the values presented are real and the cost for the access corridors are correct, the following economic comparisons can be made. The difference in the cost of the causeway and trestle is approximately $700,000. If this money is borrowed by Gulf at 8 1/2 percent interest the interest cost is almost $60,000 per year. Since this would be a valid capital expense this interest cost will be reflected in the rates of Gulf's customers. If the wetlands are ecologically worth $7,500 per acre per year the 8 acres here involved would also have a value of $60,000 per year. In this connection it should be noted that DER's condition of certification specifying trestle across wetlands was based solely on ecological factors and cost was not considered (T308). During the course of the hearing considerable evidence was presented regarding a third alternative for piping water to and from the river, viz. in pipes buried across the wetlands. This evidence was insufficient in numerous aspects to give it viability; however, several aspects of this proposal are worthy of note. Any pipe that is used to carry cooling water requires some degree of slope to permit the pipe to be drained. From a position near SR 179 (where if underground pipes are used the pumps would have to be placed to provide access for maintenance) the pipe could be buried; but, at some point in the flood plain, the pipe would have to be placed upon a trestle to maintain slope to the river's edge (T287). Burying pipes across the wetlands would have the least ecological impact upon the wetlands. Once the pipe path was trenched, suitable bearing material placed in the trench to support the pipe, the pipe laid and the trench back filled the wetlands would return to natural state and the area involved resume most of the characteristics of wetlands. Problems associated with this proposal include providing all-weather access to the inside of the pipe; obtaining suction on pumps located 2400 feet laterally and 12 + feet above the level of the water to be pumped; long periods of shutdown in case a section of pipe required replacement; and routine engineering problems in obtaining a constant slope upon installation. Regardless of the path taken by these pipes some difficulties with corbicula clams are expected. These creatures are endemic to the Choctawhatchee River and will be entrained in the pipe. There they will attach themselves and as they grow restrict the flow in the pipes. Although chlorination at the inlet is expected to help control this problem periodic cleaning of the intake pipes may be required. Accordingly, access to these pipes at all stages of the water level in the flood plain is an important concern. While testimony presented that it was possible to obtain suction with pumps located 2400 feet laterally and 12 feet higher than the level of the water to be pumped, it was also acknowledged that this 2400 feet of 30 inch pipe would "probably" have to be primed before the pumps could pick up suction. (T305-306). Cost and feasibility of providing all weather access to the buried pipes, and of providing capability to prime the remote pumps was not presented. Furthermore the cost associated with burying the pipes across the wetlands was not presented. Accordingly this concept should not be further considered. II With respect to the biological monitoring program to be carried out by Gulf to determine the effects of the power plant on river organisms, DER, as a condition of certification, proposes a program that will continue for the life of the plant regardless of the conclusions reached from such monitoring. Gulf, on the other hand, proposes a monitoring program to commence prior to the operation of Unit I to determine the base line conditions and continue for one year after commencement of operations of Unit I. Thereafter when Unit II comes on line the monitoring program would be reinstituted and continue for one more year. Since Unit II is scheduled to come on line one year after Unit I the monitoring program proposed by Gulf would actually be continuous for about 2 1/2 years. All parties generally agreed that monitoring is required to ascertain the ecological effects of the plant on the aquatic life in the river. One type monitoring is needed to determine the effect of impingement and entrainment at the intake. The intake structure is designed so the plant of the intake screen is parallel to the current flow. This largely eliminates impingement of fish and other aquatic life on the intake screen as the current flow would tend to wash aquatic life off the screen. Since water is drawn into the intake at a speed of 1/2 foot per second those aquatic life in the volume of water entering which are small enough to pass through the screens will be entrained and killed in the filters. It is to determine the quantity and composition of the aquatic life so destroyed that this part of the monitoring program is intended. The second part of the monitoring program involves ascertaining the aquatic life in the river above the plant and below the point of discharge of the returned cooling water in order to ascertain the effect of the discharged water on the aquatic organisms. With respect to the entrainment monitoring there was considerable confusion in the testimony regarding anticipated findings. Gulf's witness stated that at low river and low flow conditions the greatest number of organisms would be entrained. While it is obvious that the greatest percentage of available water will be removed from the river during low flow conditions (since the same quantity or volume of water will be withdrawn as at high flow conditions) it is not obvious that there will be a higher density of aquatic organisms in the river at this same time; and no one so testified. In fact the testimony was that various organisms in the water may change radically (of a magnitude of 1,000 to 1) at various times throughout the year. It would appear that whatever concentration of aquatic organisms that exist in the thalweg of the river would exist in the water withdrawn through the intake pipes and be entrained. Those organisms that exist in slack water portions of the river, swim or otherwise remain out of the current passing near the intake would not be entrained. Thus a sampling point in the current near the intake would provide adequate information on the effects of entrainment. The program proposed by Gulf and contained in Exhibit 21 appears adequate for this determination. With respect to the monitoring required to ascertain the effects of the plant operation on the river ecosystems Gulf proposed sampling only periphyton while DER's condition or certification (Exhibit 5) provides for a sampling to include phytoplankton, zoo plankton, ichthyoplankton, nutrient analysis, benthos and fish. These samples would be taken at points above and below the plant intake and discharge for the obvious determination of the effects on the river ecological system resulting from the discharge of the used cooling water back into the system. In this regard it should be pointed out that the water to be discharged will be treated to remove heat, solids, and other concentrations that would affect compliance with the EPA standards. No valid cost estimates for the monitoring program proposed by either Gulf or DER was presented. One witness upon cross examination gave a ball park "guesstimate" of $50,000 per year for Gulf's proposed program and $100,000 per year for DER's program. The witness expressly disallowed any credit for the accuracy of these figures and accordingly they are disregarded. They are inserted here simply because cost of the end product, electricity, is a factor to be considered in determining under what conditions this certification should be granted. As noted above, Gulf proposes to continue the monitoring program for approximately 30 months (until one year after Unit II has come on line) while DER proposes a monitoring program that will continue for the life of the plant. The biological community sampling program contained in Exhibit 5, part II C should be followed. The time during which these programs should be continued will be discussed under Conclusions. III All parties generally agreed that the use of herbicides was required to clear vegetation from transmission line corridors in wet areas where mechanical equipment cannot operate. Gulf proposes to use Kuron, a herbicide approved by both state and federal authorities. It will be used in wet areas only at a frequency not to exceed once per year and in accordance with manufacturer's instructions admitted into evidence as Exhibit 22. At the hearing DER appeared to take the position that approval by DER should be obtained prior to each time the herbicide is used. The evidence presented clearly shows that Kuron is a safe non- persistent herbicide which, when applied in accordance with instructions, will cause no harm to untargeted vegetation. All of the transmission line routes were not finalized at the time of the hearing but when the remainder of these corridors are finalized there appears to be no reason that Gulf should not provide DER with a map of these corridors indicating thereon those areas in which herbicides will be used. IV No factual evidence regarding general conditions of certification 11(a) and (b) was presented. Accordingly these will be treated solely as a matter of law.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the application of Gulf Power Company for a power plant site certificate be granted so as to authorize the construction and operation of a coal-fired steam generating electrical power plant near Carryville, Florida in accordance with Exhibit 1. It is further RECOMMENDED that this approval be conditioned upon compliance by Gulf with the conditions of certification contained in Exhibit 4 and 5 except conditions II D 1 (b) (Exhibit 5), general conditions 11(a) and (b), (Exhibit 4), and that condition II C (Exhibit 5) be modified to provide such monitoring shall commence not less than six months prior to completion of Unit I and continue for a period of three years after completion of Unit II. At this time Gulf may petition DER for authority to discontinue said monitoring or to modify same and if such request is not approved Gulf shall be entitled to a hearing at which evidence shall be presented from which a determination can be made whether the benefits of said monitoring program justify the costs involved. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Raylin Steel Erectors, Inc., employed persons in the State of Florida without obtaining workers' compensation coverage meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. If Respondent failed to obtain the required insurance, the subsequent issue is whether the penalty in the amount of $140,975.32, was properly assessed by Petitioner, Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. The Division maintains records of all Notices of Coverage for workers' compensation reported to it. Insurers are required by law to report all Florida workers' compensation policies to the Division. Respondent is a Georgia corporation located in Adel, Georgia. Respondent is in the business of erecting pre- engineered metal buildings not exceeding two stories in height. Respondent, at all times involved in this matter, was engaged as a subcontractor to various general contractors for construction work performed in the State of Florida. All of the work performed in Florida for purposes of these proceedings was actually performed by sub-subcontractors of Respondent. Respondent testified that it did not use any of its own employees to perform work at any of the sites involved in these proceedings. Petitioner, based upon field interviews, determined that at least some of the employees working at Respondent's job site in Jacksonville, Florida, claimed to be employed by Respondent. Respondent had obtained workers' compensation coverage in Georgia which provided for out-of-state coverage for Florida under Section 3C of the policy, but no listed coverage for Florida under Section 3A. Four of the sub-subcontractors used by Respondent to perform work in Florida, Celaya Steel Co., DC Construction, Ronald Weeks, d/b/a RTW Construction, and JCB Steel Erectors, Inc., had "other states coverage" in force, including Florida, in Section 3C (but not 3A) of their workers' compensation policies. Two companies used by Respondent to perform work in Florida, Edward Leggett and Southern Steel Erectors, were not covered by the "other states coverage" provision of Georgia workers' compensation policies. On September 16, 2004, Edward Leggett, as a sub- subcontractor to Respondent, was engaged in the construction of a pre-engineered metal building located at 3615 Dupont Center, Jacksonville, Florida. The general contractor on this job was BEKKA Corporation. Allen DiMaria, Petitioner's investigator, observed the type of work being performed on the project, patch work on the roof. No steel erection, or any other type of work was observed being performed on this project. Respondent's workers' compensation code as its principal business is listed under sheet metal work, NCCI Code No. 5538. Petitioner admitted that this was the most appropriate code classification to describe Respondent's principal type of work. The type of pre-engineered metal buildings erected by Respondent's sub-subcontractors required various types of work. The first phase of the work is steel erection, also known as "red iron work." The next phase is erecting walls and performing various types of trim work involved with sheet metal. The third phase is roof work, and the final phase is trim work and any punch list work required to complete the project. Respondent's standard payment draw requests to its customer, the general contractor, follows a sequencing under which 25 percent is paid for steel erection, 50 percent for sheet metal work and trim out, and 25 percent for roofing. Respondent's sub-subcontractors are also paid in this same manner. Further, Respondent's sub-subcontractors, who all were out-of-state Georgia employers, generally provide per diem travel expenses to their employees and account for overhead and profit. On September 17, 2004, after conducting a CCAS database search which resulted in his finding no record of workers' compensation coverage for either Respondent or Edward Leggett, Mr. DiMaria issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Order required Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. After the Stop Work Order was issued, Mr. DiMaria sent a request for business records to Respondent. Linda Rowan, Respondent's secretary/treasurer, responded that Respondent had no employees doing any work at any job sites in Florida, and that all work was being performed by sub-subcontractors of Respondent. Mr. DiMaria then requested that Respondent send copies of any subcontracts, payment records, and insurance information regarding work performed in Florida by Respondent's subcontractors from 2002 to September 17, 2004, the date of the Stop Work Order. In response to this request, Ms. Rowan mailed copies of all subcontracts Respondent had with its sub- subcontractors, all payment records related to these contracts, and insurance certificates furnished by the sub-subcontractors. Because Respondent had no employees performing any of the work, it had no payroll records to send to Petitioner. Petitioner requested no business records from Respondent's sub-subcontractors to determine what actual payroll was performed on the jobs in question. Once the information was furnished to Petitioner, Respondent heard nothing further from Petitioner until the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued in the amount of $150,598.05. Petitioner, on the eve of hearing, further amended the penalty assessment to the amount of $140,975.32. In calculating the further Amended and Final Penalty Assessment, Petitioner asserted that it utilized the total payments made by Respondent to its sub-subcontractors in lieu of any payroll records, as the calculation of gross payroll. The actual amounts paid to DC Construction on the BEKKA Corporation job, performed from June 18, 2004 to August 19, 2004, and from July 29, 2004 to September 23, 2004, were overstated by $5,518.00. The amount of assumed payroll for the work performed by Southern Steel from April 12, 2002 to April 30, 2002, was understated by $800.00, based upon the actual payments received. These assumed payroll amounts were then multiplied by the NCCI classification code rates for steel erection for all work performed by Respondent's sub-subcontractors in Florida during 2002, 2003, and 2004. That figure was then multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at the penalty assessment. Celaya Steel performed work in Florida between August 28, 2003, and September 30, 2003, for which it was paid $7,602.00, by Respondent. On a separate job, Celaya Steel was paid $7,000.00, for work performed between September 24, 2003, and September 30, 2003. These precise breakdowns by job performed by Celaya Steel are not included in the further Amended Stop Work Order and Penalty Assessment, but were included in the original Penalty Assessment dated October 14, 2004. After deducting amounts paid for equipment rentals, the cost of work performed by Celaya Steel after October 1, 2003, is $13,528.00. Southern Steel Erectors performed work as a sub- subcontractor of Respondent from April 12, 2002, to April 30, 2002, for which it was paid $7,300.00. Ronald Weeks, d/b/a RTW Construction, performed work on May 14, 2004, with a gross payroll of $1,420.00. JCB Steel Erectors, Inc., performed work from October 30, 2003 to December 04, 2003, with a gross payroll of $5,873.00. Based upon insurance certificates received from its sub-subcontractors, Respondent believed that its sub- subcontractors' workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance. Petitioner calculated its original and final Amended Penalty Assessments using Florida premium rates and the class code for steel erection only. In the Final Penalty Assessment, the penalty was revised slightly due to equipment charges that were offset against the sub-subcontract amounts so that the assumed payroll was calculated based upon actual payments received by the sub-subcontractors, not the original subcontract amounts, except as to DC Construction where the subcontract amount, not the actual payments made to DC on the BEKKA Corporation job were used. Celaya Steel started this job, was later replaced by DC Construction, which was further replaced by Edward Leggett which finished the remaining roof-patching work on the project and was paid $4,000.00 for its work.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation issue a further and final Amended Penalty Assessment Order as follows: Edward Leggett. The gross payroll of $4,000.00 should be multiplied at the rate of 40 times the Roofwork NCCI approved manual rate of $46.17 per hundred, then times 1.5 for a revised final penalty of $2,770.20. DC Construction. The actual payments made to DC Construction were $43,321.58 which should be applied at the rate of 25 percent of the payment times the NCCI steel erection code 5059 rate, 50 percent of the payment times the sheet metal and trim NCCI code 5538 rate, and 25 percent of the payment times the roofing work NCCI code 5551 rate. This results in a revised penalty for the DC Construction work of $28,971.32. Celaya Steel Co. Only the amounts for work performed after October 1, 2003, $13,528.00 shall be applied for assessment purposes. Applying the appropriate codes as used for the DC Construction work (25 percent steel erection, 50 percent sheet metal and trim, and 25 percent roofing) yields a final revised penalty of $9,047.07. Southern Steel. No work was performed by Southern Steel Erectors after October 1, 2003. Accordingly, no penalty is to be assessed for any work performed by Southern Steel Erectors. Ronald Weeks d/b/a RTW Construction. Applying the same NCCI codes as applied to the work performed by DC Construction and Celaya Steel Co. (25 percent steel erection, 50 percent sheet metal and trim, and 25 percent roofing), yields a final revised penalty of $768.33. JCB Steel Erectors. Applying the same NCCI codes as applied to the work performed by DC Construction, Celaya Steel Co., and Ronald Weeks d/b/a RTW Construction (25 percent steel erection, 50 percent sheet metal and trim, 25 percent roofing) yields a final revised penalty of $2,883.73. The total revised penalties and assessments (Items 1-6 above) are $44,440.65. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 19th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Allen P. Clark, Esquire Foley & Lardner, LLP One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carlos G. Muñiz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Luther E. Council, Jr., who is now 32 years old, is no stranger to the business of contracting. His father, Luther E. Council, Sr., began instructing him in the trade when Petitioner was approximately 10 years old. Mr. Council, Sr. operates Council Brothers, Incorporated, a commercial plumbing, heating and air conditioning contracting firm. From July 1969 until July 1973 Petitioner was employed as a plumber by Prescott Plumbing Company in Tallahassee, Florida. His duties included assembling and repairing pipes and fixtures for heating, wastewater, and drainage systems according to specifications and plumbing codes. In September 1973 Petitioner entered the United States Navy where he served as an aviation electrician. He attended numerous training schools including electrical, electronics, and avionics schools at the Naval Air Station in Memphis, Tennessee, and at the Naval Air Station at Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida. This instruction included over 1,500 hours of classroom time. After two years of service he was honorably discharged. Upon his discharge from the Navy in 1975, Petitioner went to work for Litton Industries at their Ingalls Shipyard in Pascagoula, Mississippi. He began in the position of Maintenance Electrician B but was promoted to Journeyman in less than six months. After approximately one and a half years at Ingalls Petitioner was hired at Brown & Root Construction Company as a Journeyman Electrician on their electrical termination crew. In that position he was responsible for the termination of all electrical equipment in the steam power plant for Mississippi Power Company. He remained in that position until the plant was shut down. Petitioner then returned to Ingalls where he was a Maintenance Electrician on the automated equipment crew. He maintained and repaired equipment such as boilers, welding machines, x-ray machines, air compressors, bridge cranes, communications equipment, sheet metal shop equipment, and fire and security alarm systems. This period of employment was from July 8, 1976 until February 2, 1977. Thereafter Petitioner was again employed by Brown & Root Construction Company, this time in Axis, Alabama. In his position as Work Leaderman Electrician (assistant foreman) he was responsible for the construction, installation, and termination of all electrical equipment for a particular utilities area at the Shell Chemical Plant. He worked on equipment such as boilers, air compressors, water treatment facilities, pump motors, hot oil furnaces instruments, monitoring and control panels, and incinerators with a crew of up to 18 men. Petitioner did not have a foreman but was directly responsible to the project superintendent. From June 1978 until June 1979 Petitioner was employed as an electrician by Union Carbide in Theodore, Alabama. As the only electrician on duty at night, Mr. Council was responsible for the electrical maintenance of all machinery ranging from the power plant distribution system to overhead bridge cranes to small electronic devices. Included within his responsibilities were maintaining air conditioning systems, interior and exterior lighting systems, and repairing huge sandblasting equipment. Upon completion of his work for Union Carbide he returned home to Council Brothers, Inc. Since his return to Council Brothers in June of 1979 Petitioner has had a variety of responsible duties. His functions can be placed in two categories: roving foreman and estimator. Council Brothers is a mechanical contractor with a gross profit of over 1.1 million dollars for the year 1983. Some of the firm's recent projects include installing heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment at several local high schools; pressurizing the stairwells and elevator shafts in the State Capitol building, modification of HVAC systems at several state office buildings in Tallahassee, Florida, and renovation work at the State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida. As an estimator Petitioner supervises the project design and is responsible for the firm's mechanical contracting projects. On most of its projects Council Brothers is the general contractor for the mechanical work. It then subcontracts out the specific electrical work required. In his capacity as a roving foreman Respondent serves as a trouble shooter available to assist those projects which may encounter particular problems. He is then responsible for solving the problems through a redesign of the project, the use of alternative equipment, or some other means. Since August of 1981 however, Mr. Council has spent most of his time in the office estimating and bidding jobs. On August 4, 1983 Petitioner became Vice-President of Council Brothers, Inc. The firm first registered as an electrical contractor in June 1983. Petitioner holds licenses as a certified building contractor, plumbing contractor, mechanical contractor and underground utilities contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner permission to take the examination for licensure as a certified electrical contractor. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 14th day of February, 1984.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Administrative Hearing should be dismissed for failure to state a cause cognizable under Florida Law.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1998, Suwannee American filed its application and fee for an air construction permit for a dry process, preheater/precalciner type portland cement plant. The cement plant will emit oxides of nitrogen as a result of the combustion of fuels. A small fraction of the nitrogen oxides will, through oxidation, convert to nitrate. Some of the nitrate will become available for deposition as fall- out through two mechanisms: (a) dry deposition from particulate deposition; and (b) wet deposition from rainfall. Nitrate that lands on land and water surfaces can remain there, be taken up by vegetation, or enter ground and surface waters. The cement plant will also emit mercury. Joseph Kahn, a permit engineer in the Department's Division of Air Resources, Bureau of Air Regulation, was assigned to review the application. Early in the review process, Mr. Kahn became aware that members of the public and the Department's staff in its park's division had concerns about the atmospheric deposition of mercury and nitrate emissions from the cement plant. By letter dated December 29, 1998, Mr. Kahn requested the applicant to furnish additional information, including but not limited to, an additional impacts analysis of mercury and nitrogen deposition pursuant to Rule 62-212.400(5)(e), Florida Administrative Code. 1/ Specifically, the December 29, 1998, letter made the following inquiries: 8. Please compare other NOx [nitrogen oxide] limits established by BACT (for LaFarge and Great Star Cement, for example) with the proposed NOx limit and discuss the variables that affect emissions of NOx from Portland cement plants that are applicable to the proposed facility. * ** Please discuss the basis for the estimated emissions of mercury and provide illustrative calculations. Please estimate the possible impact or deposition of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Please perform an additional impact analysis in the PSD [prevention of significant deterioration] Class II area near the facility including the Ichetucknee springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility. This analysis must include impact on growth, soils and vegetation, and visibility. On February 25, 1999, the Department received Suwannee American's response to the December 29, 1999, letter. The response states as follows in regards to the deposition of mercury: Response: The PSD report used an emission factor for mercury from AP-42, Table 11.6-9, for cement Kilns with fabric filters. The other available emission factor in AP-42 is for cement kilns with ESPs. As this kiln will utilize an ESP for the pyroprocessing system, this response uses the ESP emission factor: 0.00022 pounds/ton of clinker X 839,5000 tons/year = 185 tons per year. Mercury emission data from nine cement plants ere evaluated as reported in the EPA Document Locating and Estimating Air Emission From sources of Mercury and Mercury compounds. These data are shown in the following table: [Table Omitted] The use of the average value from these tests results in a lower and consistent value: 0.000171 pounds/ton of clinker X 839,500 tons/year = 144 pounds per year. Emission estimates based on expected mercury levels in limestone, clay, sand, fly ash, and coal that will be used by Suwannee American result in an estimated emission rate of 129 pounds per year. The ambient air impact of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility is estimated as 0.00003- 0.00005 ug/m 3/ as a maximum annual concentration. The Reference Air concentration (RAC) for mercury (40 CFR 266, Appendix IV) is 0.3/m 3/ annual average. The deposition of mercury at the Ichetucknee Springs State Park and the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers in the vicinity of the proposed facility is estimated as 0.00002- 0.00005 g/m 2/ as a maximum annual deposition. If this level of deposition continued for 50 years and if all deposited mercury was to accumulate in the top six inches of soil, the increase in mercury levels in the soil would be on the order of 0.006 mg/kg. Safe mercury levels in soil established by Rule 62-785, F.A.C., are 3.7 mg/kg for direct exposure and 2.1 mg/kg for groundwater protection. After receiving the applicant's response to the December 29, 1998, request for additional information, Mr. Kahn performed independent evaluations to determine whether nitrate or mercury deposition would be of special concern in the area around the proposed plant. As to nitrate deposition, Mr. Kahn determined that approximately 50 tons per year of the NOx would be converted and deposited as nitrate within a 23-mile radius of the plant. He concluded that the estimated nitrate deposition from the cement plant was not significant because it was less than 0.1 percent of the annual total loading rate of nitrate (50,000 tons per year) from all other sources in the counties surrounding the Suwannee River. Mr. Kahn's independent analysis of mercury deposition yielded similar results. He concluded that, compared to the background levels of mercury existing in the soils around the proposed facility, and compared to the criteria of the Department's direct exposure soil criteria, 2/ the estimated additional mercury deposition from the cement plant would not be significant. Mr. Kahn and the applicant made several conservative assumptions in making an analysis of mercury deposition. For example, they assumed that mercury would be emitted and deposited in the cement plant's vicinity at a constant rate for 50 years. They also assumed that all of the mercury deposited on the ground would remain in the top six inches of the soil and would not migrate into any other media. On March 25, 1999, the Department conducted a public meeting on Suwannee American's application. The public commented on various issues. As to atmospheric deposition of substances, the public's comments were not structured enough for the Department to consider them per se in the application review. By letter dated March 26, 1999, the Department summarized the public concerns and requested Suwannee American to furnish the following information in relevant part: 2. Estimate potential mercury emissions from the pyroprocessing system, and characterize the fraction of mercury that will come from other raw material, coal, petroleum coke and tires. Please evaluate control methods for mercury emissions. * * * 8. What portion of the proposed plant's Nox emissions will be deposited as nitrate through dry and wet deposition within an area 25 miles radius from the site? Investigate pollution prevention techniques that may result in lower overall NOx emissions. On or about April 21, 1999, Suwannee American responded to the above-referenced questions. As to question no. 2, the responses states as follows: Response: Potential mercury emissions were submitted to the Department on February 25, 1999. Using three different approaches, the projected emissions were in all cases below the 200 pound per year threshold established by Rule 62-212.400(2)(f) and Table 212.400-2, F.A.C. as a significant emission rate increase (for PSD permitting purposes). Because the expected emissions are below the threshold amount, there is no regulatory requirement to apply BACT review for the de minimis emissions that are expected. Approximately 40 percent of the mercury will be contributed by fuel (coal) and 60 percent by raw materials. When petroleum coke or tires are used as fuel, the mercury contributed by fuel is expected to decrease. As to question no. 8, Suwannee American's response stated as follows: Response: The applicant notes that the matters inquired of in this request are not related to those matters allowed under Section 403.0876(1), F.S., and therefore requests that the Department begin processing the permit application under Section 403.0876(2)(a), F.S. However, in a continuing effort to be responsive to the concerns behind the questions asked, the applicant submits the following information, provided the submittal does not affect the permit processing time clock. Approximately 7% or less of the plant's NOx emissions will be deposited as nitrate through dry and wet deposition within an area 25 miles radius from the site. This is approximately 0.1 pounds per acre per year, and is less than one percent of the wet and dry background deposition measured at the Bradford Forest, near Starke, Florida. This analysis was very conservative, as it assumed nitrate deposition between five miles and 25 miles to be equal to the deposition rate at five miles (i.e., there was no credit taken for the decrease in deposition rate with distance beyond five miles). This approach is also conservative in that it assumed all NOx from the plant would immediately convert to nitrate and be available for deposition. This is a worst case assumption. Pollution prevention operating procedures that may result in lower overall NOx emissions are being evaluated. One technique planned for the facility is the stockpiling of limestone to allow natural drainage before pyroprocessing. Lower material moisture contents allow for the use of less fuel and hence, less NOx. After receiving Suwannee American's response to the Department's March 26, 1999, letter, Mr. Kahn reviewed the applicant's analysis. He compared information presented by the applicant with his own estimates of nitrate and mercury deposition. Suwannee American's data confirmed Mr. Kahn's prior conclusion that atmospheric depositions of mercury and nitrate from the cement plant would not be a significant fraction of the existing total deposition and total loading of those elements from all sources. Mr. Kahn did not perform any further analysis to estimate the impact of nitrate or mercury emissions on the area surrounding the proposed plant. He never made any comparisons to the Department's surface water quality criteria or standards related to Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) bodies. In other words, Mr. Kahn did not attempt to discern the specific impact of mercury and nitrate deposition on the ground water and surface water surrounding the proposed plant. His additional impact analysis was limited to comparing the estimated mercury and nitrate depositions from the proposed facility to the existing total loading of those elements from all sources in the area around the cement plant. Concluding that the impacts would be insignificant, he then informally advised certain members of the public, including Mr. Greenhalgh and some of Sierra Club/SOS' members, that the water pollution and OFW rules did not apply. The Department's Division of Air Resources never applies the standards relating to water quality or an OFW. Those standards are applied and enforced by the Department's staff in its water resource division when a water pollution permit is required. If there are off-site impacts that are not covered by the PSD rules, the applicant will be required to apply for other applicable permits. 3/ The parties do not assert that, in order to construct the cement plant, Suwannee American requires a separate water pollution permit to determine its compliance with the OFW rules. No one from the Department's water resource division officially reviewed the application at issue here. In performing his independent evaluation of additional impacts, Mr. Kahn sought information regarding the total nutrient loading in the Middle Suwannee River Basin from all sources from the Department's water resource staff, including Mr. Greenhalgh. Mr. Greenhalgh is a professional geologist who works for the Department in its water resource division. Specifically, Mr. Greenhalgh is one of the individuals working on the Department's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis for the Middle Suwannee River Basin. In response to Mr. Kahn's inquires, Mr. Greenhalgh stated that the basin had already exceeded its assimilative capacity and could not tolerate additional inputs of nitrate. Other members of the Department's water resource division gave Mr. Kahn similar opinions. However, Mr. Greenhalgh admits that he has not done any calculations to determine the impact of atmospheric deposition of nitrates from the proposed plant on the surrounding area. Mr. Greenhalgh directed Mr. Kahn's attention to a paper written by David Hornsby, an employee of a water management district, concerning the total nitrate loading from all sources in the Middle Suwannee River Basin. Mr. Kahn used data from the paper to make his comparisons between the total nitrate loading from all sources in the area to his estimate of nitrate deposition from the proposed plant. Mr. Kahn then informed Mr. Greenhalgh that the Department could not deny the permit on the basis of nitrate atmospheric deposition because the Department did not regulate all sources of nitrate in the basin. Except for the applicant, and the informal consultations with members of the Department's Division of Water Resources, no one furnished Mr. Kahn with any technical information regarding the atmospheric deposition of mercury and nitrates. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency has not developed or approved methods for calculating air deposition rates for emissions. In the absence of such standards, the methods used by Suwannee American and Mr. Kahn to determine the proposed facility's additional impact on the surrounding area were appropriate and reliable. The Department has adopted the federal government's acid rain rule (Rule 62-214.420, Florida Administrative Code.) That rule specifically addresses water quality impacts from the emissions and atmospheric deposition of sulfur dioxide and NOx from certain electric power plant facilities. The parties agree that the acid rain rule does not apply in this case. Permits for electrical power plants are issued under the authority of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. The Governor and Cabinet sitting as the electrical power plant siting board approve power plant siting applications. The Department's Division of Air Resources performs a PSD review for electric power plant siting applications. Unlike the circumstances in this case, an electrical power plant siting application also requires other sections of the Department to consider impacts on water quality, solid waste, and land use. Under the terms of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, the Department has required one other applicant to perform the type of additional impact analysis that was performed in this case. That application involved an existing Florida Power and Light Company, Inc. (FP&L) electrical power plant located near Tampa Bay, an OFW. The FP&L electrical power plant requested permission to convert to orimulsion fuel. In the FP&L power plant case, the Department took the position that water quality concerns were satisfied by a demonstration of compliance with air quality standards. There is no specific permit application that one would fill out or apply for to determine if one would be in compliance with the OFW rule. The OFW rule is usually considered in the context of another permit. However, there is no evidence that the Department has ever considered the OFW rule in the context of a new source PSD permit application. Suwannee American's proposed cement plant will be located within three miles of an OFW. There is no evidence that the Department has ever considered another application for a new source PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) permit within such close proximity to an OFW. Sierra Club/SOS' only factual allegation is that Suwannee American has not provided reasonable assurances that it would not significantly degrade the Santa Fe River, an OFW, through the atmospheric deposition of mercury, in contravention to Rule 62-302.700, Florida Administrative Code. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing in DOAH Case No. 99-3096, with prejudice for lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1999.
