The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether violations of Section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61C-1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code, as well as Chapter 4A-3, Florida Administrative Code, had been committed by the Respondent in terms of two specific safety violations allegedly occurring at the Respondent's lodging establishment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with regulating the operation of hotel or lodging establishments in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, at all times material hereto, has been licensed or otherwise subject to the Petitioner's jurisdiction. On September 28, 2001, and again on October 16, 2001, an inspector of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division) inspected the Respondent's lodging premises. The Division inspector noted certain deficiencies at her first inspection and that those deficiencies where still outstanding and uncorrected at the end of her second inspection at that location. In light of the deficiencies noted at both inspections, the Division issued its Administrative Complaint on November 16, 2001, alleging that the fire extinguisher near Apartment Number One was in the "re-charge zone," meaning that it was inoperable on September 28, 2001, and was missing on October 16, 2001. The Complaint also charged that the balcony railing near Apartment Number Four was loose and, therefore, in an unsafe condition in violation of Rule 61C-1.004(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. In response, the Respondent testified that he does not live on the premises and that, although the fire extinguisher deficiency has occurred repeatedly, it is because children who are present on the premises keep discharging it. He testified that whenever it has been discharged he, or his maintenance man, immediately has it recharged by the Daytona Fire and Safety Company. Mr. Rampersad also testified that he did everything in his power to bring the railing up to proper code requirements by re-drilling holes and re-anchoring the railing in concrete. He contends that an "inspection supervisor" observed the railing and opined that it had been brought up to code, but there is no direct evidence of that observation. He established that, as of the time of the hearing, all necessary repairs to the railing had been made and that the fire extinguisher was charged and fully operable. He testified that at the time the fire extinguisher was missing upon the re-inspection date, found above, that it was at the service company being recharged.
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 Department of Business and Professional Regulation, imposing a fine in the amount of $750.00; That the Respondent's license be suspended for six months, but with the suspension held in abeyance contingent upon timely payment of the administrative fine being received upon a schedule agreed to between the Respondent and the Director of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. The failure to continue to make timely payments of the fine amount should result in imposition of the suspension of the Respondent's license; and That the Respondent be required to attend a Hospitality Education Program class under the auspices of the Petitioner within 60 days of the date of the final order herein and to provide satisfactory proof thereof to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2003, 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 the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Milton Rampersad 1201 Kennedy Road, Apartment 19 Daytona Beach, Florida 32117 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents illegally or improperly conducted testing of backflow prevention devices on fire line assemblies, and, if so, whether Petitioner should issue a Cease and Desist Order.
Findings Of Fact The Department, through its chief financial officer, who also acts as the state fire marshall, is the state agency responsible for, inter alia, the certification, licensing and monitoring of persons who engage in the business of layout, fabrication, installations, inspection, alteration, repair, or service of fire protection systems (other than pre-engineered systems). Respondents2 are licensed by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("DBPR") as a certified plumbing contractor, License No. CFC054896-00012. Respondents are not certified by the Department to engage in the business of layout, fabrication, installations, inspection, alteration, repair, or service of fire protection systems (other than pre- engineered systems). As of the date of the final hearing, Respondents had not filed an application to be so certified. On or about June 29, 2006, Respondents conducted the annual Backflow Prevention Assembly Test inspection and maintenance on a backflow prevention device installed on a fire sprinkler fire line located at the University Park Country Club Clubhouse, 7651 and 7671 The Park Boulevard, University Park, Florida. The University Park Country Club Clubhouse is located within the Southern Manatee Fire and Rescue District. After performing the test at the University Park Country Club, Respondents issued a Backflow Prevention Assembly Test and Maintenance Report, and a copy was sent to the Manatee County Cross Connection Control Coordinator. At the conclusion of the test, Respondents determined the backflow device to be operating appropriately and placed an inspection tag on the device. On or about September 4, 2006, Respondents conducted the annual test on a backflow prevention device installed on a fire sprinkler fire line located at the Chiquita Banana Warehouse, 4610 18th Street East, Bradenton, Florida 34203. The warehouse is also located within the Southern Manatee Fire Rescue District. After performing the test, Respondents issued a Backflow Prevention Assembly Test and Maintenance Report. This report was also forwarded to the Manatee County Cross Connection Control coordinator. Respondents also placed an inspection tag on the backflow prevention device. On or about September 4, 2006, Respondents conducted the annual Backflow Prevention Assembly Test inspection and maintenance on a device located at the Manatee County Rural Health Services Treatment Center, 1515 26th Avenue East, Bradenton, Florida 34208. This center is also located within the Southern Manatee Fire Rescue District. Upon completion of the test, Respondents placed an inspection tag on the device and forwarded a Backflow Prevention Assembly Test and Maintenance Report to the Manatee County Cross Connection Control coordinator. On or about September 6, 2006, Respondents conducted the annual test on a backflow prevention device located at Sam's Warehouse Club, 5300 30th Street East, Bradenton, Florida 34203. The Sam's Warehouse Club is also located within the Southern Manatee Fire Rescue District. Upon completion of the test at Sam's Warehouse Club, Respondents placed an inspection tag on the device and forwarded a Backflow Prevention Assembly Test and Maintenance Report to the Manatee County Cross Connection Control coordinator. The backflow prevention devices inspected by Respondents are tied into domestic water lines which provide water to the surrounding community. It is imperative to keep the domestic water as clean and pure as possible. Backflow prevention devices serve the purpose of keeping contaminated or unclean water from re-entering the domestic water lines. It is extremely important that all backflow prevention devices be inspected and maintained on a regular basis. Testing of backflow prevention devices on designated fire lines (i.e., those lines connecting the domestic water line to a sprinkler system or other fire prevention system) is done by entities which have received a certification from the Department. The Department requires certified individuals to carry liability insurance coverage. The purpose of such coverage is to ensure that there will be money to correct any mistakes made by the certified inspectors. If a backflow system fails, the Department will immediately inspect to determine if the certified contractor made a mistake. If so, the contractor and his insurer will be required to pay for all damages and corrective action needed. The Department does not have any authority over plumbing contractors who have not been certified by the Department. Respondents routinely perform inspections and maintenance on backflow prevention devices. Respondents do not, in their own estimation, perform inspections on fire protection systems. Respondents maintain that fire protection systems start at a point just beyond the backflow prevention devices. Respondents are not certified by the Department to perform inspections and maintenance on fire protection systems. However, based on a letter from the Office of the Attorney General to Ruth Tirado, executive director of the Florida Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors, Respondents believe they are authorized to inspect backflow prevention devices that exist on a fire sprinkler line. The letter, dated February 3, 2004, states in pertinent part: Re: Your inquiry regarding back flow prevention presented to the Construction Industry Licensing Board at the meeting of January 15, 2004. * * * After review, and based upon the documentation presented, the Construction Industry Licensing Board has determined that back flow prevention is within the scope of work of a plumbing contractor. Please keep in mind that this opinion is based solely on the facts set forth in your letter and is not intended to be an opinion of general applicability. Furthermore, the Board has not conducted an independent factual investigation to determine whether other relevant facts do or may exist or whether the facts set forth in your letter may be governed by laws or rules other than Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes and 61G4, Florida Administrative Code. It is clear the attorney general letter does seem to place backflow prevention within the "scope of work" of a plumbing contractor. However, there is no way to determine whether the opinion included any limitations, restrictions, or caveats, since the underlying letter it addresses was not placed into evidence. Nor is there any distinction in the letter concerning backflow prevention devices that are part of a fire sprinkler line. In October 2006, Henry Sheffield, deputy fire chief for the East Manatee Fire Rescue District, initiated a complaint against three plumbers relating to "fire line backflow preventers." A DBPR Uniform Complaint Form addressing one of the plumbers (a Mr. Jackson) indicates an alleged violation of Subsection 489.105(3), Florida Statutes. That statutory section deals with the scope of work for various kinds of contractors. A DBPR Uniform Complaint Form alleging violation of Section 633.021, Florida Statutes, is attached to the complaint form, but the DBPR Uniform Complaint Form does not indicate whether it relates to Mr. Jackson or one of the other plumbers. Also, admitted into evidence is a DBPR letter indicating dismissal of the complaint by one of the three plumbers (Mr. Wolf) relating to alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The complaints against the three plumbers in 2006 may or may not be related to the same issues facing Respondents, but there is no way to connect them based upon the evidence presented at final hearing. The Department interprets Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-46.040(2) to mean that the "point of service" for purposes of fire line backflow prevention to be the domestic water line where the fire line is tied in. That is, once there is a tie-in to the domestic water line, the Department has jurisdiction. This interpretation is reasonable and is based on the Department's experience over a number of years. Respondents maintain that the point of service begins immediately after the backflow prevention device. Therefore, they believe any work done on the backflow prevention device can be performed by a licensed plumbing contractor whether they have Department certification or not. This interpretation is not supported by the evidence presented. Respondents did not intentionally violate any provision of Chapter 633, Florida Statutes. All work performed by Respondents was done under the apparent authority given them by a state agency, the Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, ordering Respondents, Backflow Division of Systems Groups, Inc., and Robert H. Richey, Sr., to cease and desist from performing inspections and maintenance of backflow prevention devices on fire protection systems until such time that Respondents obtain the required certification to do so. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 26th day of February, 2009.
The Issue Does Petitioner owe Respondent sales tax for customer charges associated with the inspection/recertification of fire extinguishers, which activities were reported on invoices involving charges for parts, maintenance, recharge of fire extinguishers, provision of new fire extinguishers, pick-up and delivery, and maintenance, where the latter categories of activities included the payment of sales tax?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner does business in northeast Florida. Principally it inspects fire extinguishers at customer locations that must undergo inspection on an annual basis in accordance with Chapter 633, Florida Statutes. Petitioner also sells and services fire extinguishers to and for its customers. When performing an inspection, Petitioner's employee removes the fire extinguisher from its location, makes sure the powder in the fire extinguisher floats, checks the pressure gauge, makes sure that the pressure is acceptable in the extinguisher and examines the hose attached to the fire extinguisher; if these items are in good operating order the fire extinguisher is returned to its location and certified as operable for the upcoming period. The certification is evidenced by a tag placed on the fire extinguisher. That tag reflects a serial number, the name of the person who inspected and certified the extinguisher as acceptable, the permit number for the certifying person, and the kind of fire extinguisher that is under inspection. Beyond that point, if someone wishes to verify the status of the fire extinguisher that has been found acceptable, the tag evidences that acceptability. For the basic inspection, Petitioner charges its customers a fee depending on the number of fire extinguishers that are being inspected at a given location. If there is a problem with one of the fire extinguishers that has been inspected, Petitioner's employee will tell the customer the nature of the service that needs to be performed to assure that the fire extinguisher is in proper operating condition. In the event that a fire extinguisher has a problem which the customer wishes fixed, that fire extinguisher is removed from the customer's location and brought back to Petitioner's facility to be repaired. When the defective fire extinguisher is removed, an operable substitute fire extinguisher is provided to the customer pending repairs to the defective fire extinguisher. In effecting repairs, the customer is charged the cost of tangible items involved with the repair and for labor costs associated with the repair. The records which Petitioner maintained in the period in question in this case, reflect charges for the inspections of customer fire extinguishers and other activities and charges but not in the detail that has been set forth in the preceding paragraphs. The records are sales invoices. The invoices produced at the hearing are a fair representation of the experience associated with all invoices under question. In this case, Respondent intends to impose sales tax, penalties, and interest and an affiliated tax charge referred to as the Chartered Transit Systems Assessment, in relation to those items invoiced under the categories fire extinguisher inspected/fire extinguisher recertification/automatic fire extinguishing system inspected. These descriptions all refer to the process of fire extinguisher inspection. The invoices that are examples of this process show that sales tax and the associated charter tax have been collected for those other charges made by the Petitioner to its customers. Petitioner sought the advice of a CPA in establishing the manner in which its invoices reflect the collection of sales tax. This advice was sought through Mr. Schaefer. The audit period for which the Respondent has assessed additional tax, penalties, and interest is November 1, 1989 through October 31, 1994. The intent to impose tax penalties and interest resulted from an audit performed by the Respondent on Petitioner's business. An audit report was rendered on October 2, 1995; Petitioner objected to the findings in that audit report. Respondent affirmed the assessment in a Notice of Decision dated July 22, 1996. Petitioner sought reconsideration of that notice of decision. Respondent again upheld the assessment through its Notice of Reconsideration dated April 18, 1997. On June 19, 1997, Petitioner petitioned for formal hearing to contest the decision to impose the tax penalties and interest. The sample invoices by their terms state the following: FIRE DEFENSE CENTERS Invoice 3919 Morton Street 49217 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32217 (904) 731-0244 DATE ORDER NO 4/12/91 1613804 BR TO: Ramada Inn 6237 Arlington Expressway prices per contract Jacksonville, Fl 32211 Quantity Description Unit Price Total 24 Fire extinguisher inspected 65.00 2 5 lb. abc maintenance 20.00 3 Fire extinguisher inspected-unserviceable 9.00 3 5 lb. abc new fire extinguisher 114.00 2 10 lb. abc maintenance 28.00 2 Valve repair 10.40 1 Handle repair 3.95 1 Syphon tube 3.10 3 O rings 2.70 7 Pick up and delivery 8.00 After 15 days pay $282.09 264.15 QUADRUPLICATE Thank You Tax on 199.15 12.94 277.09 FIRE DEFENSE CENTERS Invoice 3919 Morton Street 49210 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32217 (904) 731-0244 DATE ORDER NO 4/12/91 1148265 JW TO: Clark Trailer Sales Serv. Mgr Linden Beane 5201 W. Beaver St prices per contract Jacksonville, Fl 32236 Quantity Description Unit Price Total 10 Fire extinguisher recertification 42.00 1 10 lb. abc hydrotest and recharge 38.00 1 Pick up and delivery 80.00 Tax on 38.00 2.47 82.47 After 15 days pay $87.47. QUADRUPLICATE Thank You FIRE DEFENSE CENTERS Invoice 3919 Morton Street JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA (904) 731-0244 32217 49208 DATE ORDER NO TO: 4/12/91 1851144 JW Walmart 6767 103 rd St Jacksonville, Fl 32216 annual inspection prices per contract Quantity Description Unit Price Total 25 Fire extinguisher recertification 75.00 4 5 lb. abc maint 40.00 2 5 lb. abc recharge 20.00 2 Valve repair 8.90 3 Locking pin 6.00 1 Syphon tube 3.10 2 O ring 1.85 6 Pick up and delivery 8.00 After 15 days pay $173.56 162.85 Tax on 87.85 5.71 168.56 QUADRUPLICATE Thank You FIRE DEFENSE CENTERS Invoice 3919 Morton Street 49203 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32217 (904) 731-0244 DATE ORDER NO 4/12/91 1592203 EF TO: Poultry Health Service 5695 Stuart Ave prices per contract Jacksonville, Fl 32205 Quantity Description Unit Price Total 20 Fire extinguisher inspected 65.00 1 Fire extinguisher inspected-unserviceable 3.00 1 5 lb. abc maintenance 10.00 1 5 lb. abc recharge 10.00 1 2 3/4 lb. abc complete maintenance 8.00 New 10 lb. abc fire extinguisher 58.00 Valve repair 8.90 Syphon tube 3.10 O ring 2.45 4 Pick up and delivery 8.00 1 Fire extinguisher installed 7.50 183.95 Tax on 118.95 7.73 191.68 After 15 days pay $ 196.98 QUADRUPLICATE Thank you FIRE DEFENSE CENTERS Invoice 3919 Morton Street 49202 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32217 (904) 731-0244 DATE ORDER NO 4/12/91 1363891 PV TO: Holiday Inn 14670 Duval Rd (I 95 & Airport) Dan Zuhowski Jacksonville, Fl 32218 741-4404 Quantity Description Unit Price Total 4 30 lb. automatic fire extinguishing 225.00 system inspected 1 10 lb. automatic fire extinguishing system inspection 1-hood 1 10 lb. automatic fire extinguishing 50.00 system inspected 2-hood 11 Fusible links 93.50 2 10 lb. abc maintenance F/X's 24.00 418.40 Tax on 143.40 9.32 427.72 After 15 days pay $436.30 QUADRUPLICATE Thank You 10 lb. CO2 maintenance 12.00 O rings 1.90 Pick up and delivery 12.00 Standing alone, the invoices do not sufficiently distinguish which, if any, of the fire extinguishers being inspected are receiving other attention, or whether the invoices refer to an entirely different set of fire extinguishers than those that had been inspected. The distinctions described in prior paragraphs between the inspection process and other business pursuits have been based upon extrinsic evidence, outside the invoices, as offered by Louis Schaefer, Petitioner's owner. More specifically, Mr. Schaefer's description of invoice 49217 concerning the entries on that document is extrinsic evidence concerning the meaning of that invoice. Again without the extrinsic evidence one cannot reasonably ascertain the relationship, if any, between the fire extinguishers inspected and other activities involving fire extinguishers for which charges were made on the invoice. Moreover, without extrinsic evidence one cannot ascertain the number of fire extinguishers for which Petitioner has replaced or repaired parts, performed other forms of maintenance, etc., aside from the inspection. The invoice alone does not make clear which of the fire extinguishers described in the inspection line received no tangible personal property which was incorporated or attached to a repaired item, as opposed to those that may have had tangible personal property incorporated into or attached to a fire extinguisher that had been inspected. The same problem exists with other sample invoices. Related to invoice 49217, Mr. Schaefer points out that twenty-four fire extinguishers were inspected at a charge of $65.00. Two five-pound fire extinguishers needed maintenance. That maintenance was the recharge of the two five-pound fire extinguishers at the cost of $20.00. Three fire extinguishers were found to be unserviceable following the inspection. For the determination of the unservicability the customer was charged $9.00. The next line refers to the provision of three five-pound abc new fire extinguishers. The charge for the new fire extinguishers was $114.00. Mr. Schaefer explained that the new fire extinguishers were sold to the customer to replace the unserviceable fire extinguishers. Two fire extinguishers needed valve repairs. The invoice shows a $10.40 charge for the valve repairs. One of the fire extinguishers had a bent handle that had to be replaced. The charge on the invoice for the handle repair was $3.95. One fire extinguisher had a siphon tube repair. The invoice reflects that the charge for that repair was $3.10. Three O rings were replaced for a charge to the customer of $2.70. Mr. Schaefer explains that seven fire extinguishers were picked up and delivered for a cost of $8.00 that was in relation to removal, repairing, and returning fire extinguishers and hanging them back in place at the customer's business. Mr. Schaefer pointed out what can be ascertained by a mathematical exercise, that is, that all charges, with the exception of the $65.00 for inspecting twenty-four fire extinguishers, had sales tax imposed as part of the charges. That tax is in relation to the $199.15 for items other than inspection of the fire extinguishers. The total of the tax is $12.94. Mr. Schaefer explained that the inspection process itself involved an estimate of whether the fire extinguisher was serviceable and whether it met the date codes required. Further, in relation to invoice 49217, Mr. Schaefer explained the total number of fire extinguishers that received some service or were replaced. The two five-pound abc maintenance for $20.00 referred to two of the twenty-four inspected. The three fire extinguishers inspected unserviceable and the three five-pound abc new fire extinguishers refers to the removal of three fire extinguishers and replacement of those three fire extinguishers with new ones. The total of the two five-pound maintained and the three replaced brings the count to a subtotal of five fire extinguishers of the twenty-four inspected. The reference to two ten-pound abc maintenance brings the total to seven fire extinguishers repaired or replaced. The two valve repairs, the handle repair, and the O rings described in the invoice, according to Mr. Schaefer, were in relation to the two five-pound abc maintenance and the two ten-pound abc maintenance mentioned earlier in the invoice. The seven pick-up and delivery refers to three fire extinguishers that had to be replaced as unserviceable by the provision of new fire extinguishers and four fire extinguishers that could be repaired and returned to the customer by Mr. Schaefer's explanation. Therefore, seven of the twenty-four fire extinguishers inspected needed to be repaired or replaced. In summary, without Mr. Schaefer's explanation one can not reasonably discern the meaning of invoice 49217, whether the fire extinguishers inspected were part of the fire extinguishers repaired or replaced, and beyond that consideration how many fire extinguishers were repaired and replaced.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered upholding of sales tax, penalty, and interest, and related Chartered Transit System Assessment of tax, penalty, and interest for the audit period November 1, 1989, through October 31, 1994. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 3rd day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric J. Taylor, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William B. McMenamy, Esquire Donahoo, Donahoo, and Ball, P.A. 50 North Laura Street, Suite 2925 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Marie A. Mattox, Esquire Mattox and Hood, P.A. 310 East Bradford Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether the Respondent should have his fire sprinkler contractor license disciplined for violations of the statutes and rules as alleged by the Petitioner’s Second Administrative Complaint, and Whether, if the Petitioner does not prove the allegations against the Respondent, the Respondent should recover his attorney’s fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Insurance and State Fire Marshall is charged with the licensure and regulation of fire protection system contractors. Ralph Hamm is now and was at all times relative to this case a certified fire protection system contractor holding certificate number 437539000188. Ralph Hamm is the president of W.F.P. Company, Inc. (WFP). As the certified contractor, he is responsible for the work done by the company. The Petitioner may discipline his license for violation of the code and statutes; however, the Petitioner does not license and has no jurisdiction over the company. The Department of Correction (DOC) let bids to install fire sprinkler systems in several of its facilities. WFP won several of these bids. These bids called for the design and installation of the systems based upon drawings of the facilities provided by DOC. The drawings accompanying the bid for Tomoka Correctional Institution (Tomoka) were incorrect, showing a structure similar to the Marion Correctional Institution, a job on which WFP had been the successful bidder. Tomoka’s maintenance and construction superintendent upon seeing the drawings prior to the receipt of bids, advised DOC’s project manager of the discrepancy in the drawings. The project manager acknowledged the problem, but advised that the bid would be published. It was the superintendent’s understanding that the contractor that won the bid would be permitted to build the system to fit the actual structure, and thereafter the work memorialized in “as built” drawings. This process was misleading to a bidder who accepted the drawings as accurate knowing that the Department had several prototype building designs which it replicated at its institutions based upon the nature of the facilities and topography. WFP, which had already designed a system for an identical building, could anticipate reusing its previous design, saving design costs, and presenting a lower bid. WFP won the contract. The record reveals that during the course of construction at Tomoka additional changes were made to include sprinkling rooms not originally indicated as being protected, altering the height of the pipes, changing the nature of the sprinkler heads from standard to institutional, and from hanging down (pendent) to being upright. NFPA 13, 1991 Edition, (NFPA) was the standard for the installation of the Tomoka sprinkler system. The bid for the Tomoka job called for all labor, materials, supervision equipment, services equipment, design and installation to comply with NFPA 13. In October 1995, Mr. Victor Higgs, a fire safety inspector with the State Fire Marshall’s Office (SFMO) with experience in general fire safety inspections, inspected Dorm B and Dorm E on the Tomoka job at the request of WFP during construction. Following his inspection, Higgs wrote a report finding essentially the same conditions in both dorms. Higgs found that the sprinkler installation was not in accordance with the on-hand drawings which had been approved by the SFMO; that hydraulic requirements for the systems as installed had not been recalculated; that there were no test certificates for the hydrostatic pressure of the above ground or below ground piping; that there was no indication of the type of sprinkler head to be used in the halls; and that smoke barriers had not been re-established where the pipes penetrated walls between areas. Of the observations made by Higgs, only the failure to re-establish the smoke barriers constituted a life threatening hazard prior to the conclusion of the job. The other conditions may have indicated an incomplete system, but did not increase the threat of fire. His other findings related to and were the result of having to do large portions of the job by change order. Higgs notified Ralph Hamm of his findings in October 1995. Subsequently, a conflict arose between the SFMO and WFP about the metal clamps being used by WFP to hold the pipe up against the ceilings and walls of the job. The personnel of the SFM advised WFP that the clamps were not to NFPA standard. The NFPA lists a number of approved clamps which a contractor may use or the contractor may use a clamp that has been tested and shown to hold five times the weight of the pipe with water in it plus 250 pounds. WFP asserted that the clamps it was using met the latter standard, but the SFM personnel wanted evidence of the testing. WFP wrote several letters regarding the clamps, but did not provide evidence of testing until after the administrative complaint was filed. In the meantime, WFP had replaced all of the clamps with a clamp listed in the NFPA, a Grinnel 262 pipe clamp, prior to the final approval of the job by the SFM. The test of the clamp originally used was conducted in accord with the standards provided to WFP’s engineer by Underwriter’s Laboratories, and showed that the clamp originally used met the strength requirements of the NFPA. A video of the test conducted by Foy Hamm was made and reviewed which shows the clamp holding a weight exceeding the NFPA standard. A conflict appears in the deposition testimony of WFP’s engineer, Gary West, regarding whether the clamp tested was the one originally used or the Grinnel 262. Foy Hamm, who conducted the test, testified that the clamp tested was the clamp WFP had originally used, and was not a Grinnel 262. The video was reviewed, and the clamp appears to be identical to those introduced at hearing and identified as clamps originally used by WFP. The test establishes that the original clamps met the NFPA standard when they were installed. Mezzapella, a fire safety inspector from SFMO, testified about as-built drawings, and stated that they had not approved by the SFMO. According to Mezzapella, as-built drawings are prepared by a contractor, approved by the SFMO and delivered to an owner who maintains them as a historical record. Gary West also testified about the procedure for approving as-built drawings of a job and re-certification of the drawings after changes have been made. The as-builts are not approved by the SFMO. Upon completion of the construction phase of the job, the as-built drawings are reviewed by the engineer, who makes new calculations as necessary, recommendations as necessary, and certifies the plans. Another of the alleged violations committed by WFP was failing to provide for drains in sections of the pipe installed that were lower than rest of the pipe. This condition resulted from DOC’s request that the height of the pipe be raised in the halls to prevent inmates from grabbing the pipes and swinging on them. As a result, in other places, such as the dayroom where the pipe had to be run under a major structural element of the building, the lower run of pipe would trap water. The NFPA provides that if more than five gallons of water can be trapped in such a low area, a drain must be provided; however, a pendent head may serve as such a drain. Ralph Hamm, the Respondent, drained the water in the dayroom area that was trapped, and it contained less than five gallons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding that the Respondent violated Section 633.539(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and fine the Respondent $1,000 for each of the three reported violations proven plus cost not to exceed $1,000. Further, that the Respondent be required to attend continuing education courses on the NFPA, and be placed on probation for one year from the date of the completion of said courses. And, further Respondent is not entitled to attorney's fees and costs. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Marc S. Nash, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 M. Lee Fagan, Esquire Suite 31 One San Joe Place Jacksonville, FL 32257 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, LL-26 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 22, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Office of the State Fire Marshall is the governmental entity responsible for regulating fire safety in Florida, including the installation, maintenance, and inspection of fire protection systems. Section 633.01, Florida Statutes (2000). Mr. Cabrera is currently licensed by the State Fire Marshall as a Class C and D fire equipment dealer (Class 0703 and 0704) and as a fire extinguisher and preengineered systems permittee (Class 0903 and 0904).2 At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Cabrera was issued preengineered systems permit number 435249000198. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Cabrera was the qualifier for A Fire Prevention Company, was authorized to act for the business organization in all matters connected with the business, and was required to supervise all activities undertaken by A Fire Prevention Company. A Fire Prevention Company has been in business since 1998. Prior to this time, a company referred to as "South Florida Fire" employed Mr. Cabrera. Mr. Cabrera currently holds, and, at the times material to this proceeding, held jointly with A Fire Prevention Company, a certificate qualifying A Fire Prevention Company to engage in business as a fire equipment dealer. At the times material to this proceeding, A Fire Prevention Company and Mr. Cabrera engaged in the business of servicing, repairing, recharging, testing, inspecting, and installing fire extinguishers and preengineered fire suppression systems. At the times material to this proceeding, Banner Beef and Seafood operated an industrial food processing facility in Miami, Florida. In the facility, meat and seafood moved through an industrial deep fat fryer on a conveyor belt and were then frozen, packaged, and sold for resale. An oil-heating unit, located in an alcove off the room containing the deep fryer, was attached to but separate from the deep fryer, and hot oil moved from the oil-heating unit through a filter into the deep fryer. The oil-heating unit held 200 gallons of oil, which was heated to 460 degrees Fahrenheit before flowing into the deep fryer. The oil-heating unit was made of stainless steel, with a stainless steel lid. The oil-heating unit was protected by a Kidde Sentinel HDR 25DC, DOT E-7042-360-K, Serial #33996, ("Kidde HDR 25DC") preengineered dry chemical fire protection system. On June 19, 2000, approximately three months after Mr. Cabrera performed a semi-annual inspection and maintenance of the Kidde HDR 25DC system, a fire originating in the oil- heating unit destroyed much of the Banner Beef facility. The Kidde HDR 25DC system was probably installed at Banner Beef in or around 1981. Mr. Cabrera was not involved in the installation of the system, but he began inspecting and maintaining the system approximately ten years before the fire. He occasionally performed the semi-annual inspection and maintenance of the Banner Beef system when he was employed by South Florida Fire, and he performed all of the semi-annual inspections and maintenance subsequent to March or July 1998, after he left South Florida Fire and established A Fire Prevention Company. Mr. Cabrera completed an inspection report and an invoice each time he inspected the Kidde HDR 25DC system. Mr. Cabrera was, however, able to produce to the State Fire Marshall only an invoice for a semi-annual inspection on October 5, 1998; an invoice and "Range Hood Inspection Report" for a semi-annual inspection on April 12, 1999; an invoice and "Range Hood Inspection Report" for a semi-annual inspection on September 27, 1999; and an invoice for a "semi-annual inspection and maintenance" on March 15, 2000. The Kidde HDR 25DC is a preengineered system, which means that components manufactured by Kidde were put together into a system designed to protect against a particular hazard. Kidde publishes a manual, bulletins, and memoranda that specify how the Kidde HDR 25DC system is to be installed, serviced, repaired, maintained, tested, and inspected. The Kidde HDR 25DC system was submitted to the Underwriters Laboratory ("UL") for testing. The system was found to be effective and to operate as specified, and the system and the manual for the system received UL approval. Once the system and manual received UL approval, the components of the system could not be changed except in accordance with the UL listing and the approved manufacturer's specifications. The Kidde HDR 25DC system uses a dry chemical as a fire suppressant. The NFPA Standard 17 contains requirements for the installation, maintenance, operation, and care of dry chemical fire suppression systems. The Kidde HDR 25DC system is approved by the UL to protect commercial cooking installations, specifically hoods, ducts, and cooking appliances. Cooking appliances are classified into two categories in the manufacturer's specifications, surface appliances and broilers; deep fryers are considered surface appliances. Commercial cooking installations are used in food preparation areas of restaurants. The oil-heating unit and deep fryer used by Banner Beef are considered industrial appliances because they were designed to process a high volume of food to be sold for resale rather than to be consumed on the premises. The Kidde HDR 25DC system was composed of several components, including a cylinder containing dry chemical fire suppressant under 360 pounds of pressure; a valve assembly attached to the cylinder; a manual release mechanism; an elbow mounting bracket that connected the cylinder to discharge piping; a nozzle attached to the discharge piping through which the dry chemical fire suppressant would be discharged on the hazard protected by the system; a fusible link designed to melt at a specified temperature; a control head, with a control head cover, that was attached to the cylinder valve assembly; cables running from the fusible link to the control head; electrical metal tubing protecting the cables; and corner pulleys that allowed the cables to change direction at a 90-degree angle. The Kidde HDR 25DC system was designed so that, when the fusible link melted, the cables would release, causing the system to actuate and discharge the dry chemical fire suppressant. Banner Beef's 200-gallon oil-heating unit protected by the Kidde HDR 25DC system was located in an alcove opening off of a larger room that housed the deep fryer. The cylinder containing the dry chemical fire suppressant was mounted on the outside wall of oil-heating unit, at the far end of the alcove, only a few inches away from oil that was maintained at 460 degrees Fahrenheit when the oil-heating unit was in operation. The oil-heating unit was turned off at the end of each workday, and the cylinder was regularly exposed to a cycle of high temperatures when the unit was in operation and cooler temperatures when it was not. Because it was attached to the hazard it was intended to protect, the cylinder would be exposed to any fire that originated in the oil-heating unit, and, in fact, the exterior of the cylinder at Banner Beef was damaged by the fire and covered in grease when it was inspected after the fire. NFPA Standard 17-8, Section 3-8.3, 1994 edition,3 specifies that "[t]he dry chemical container and expellant gas shall be located near the hazard or hazards protected, but not where they will be exposed to a fire or explosion in those areas." NFPA Standard 17-8, Section 3-8.3.1, provides that "[t]he dry chemical container and expellant gas assemblies shall be located so as not to be subjected to severe weather conditions or to mechanical, chemical, or other damage." The location of the cylinder at Banner Beef was not consistent with these NFPA requirements. A manual release handle, or manual pull station, is used to manually actuate the Kidde HDR 25DC system. At Banner Beef, the manual release handle was located on the far end of the oil-heating unit, at the top of the dry chemical cylinder and next to the controls used to operate the oil-heating unit. The means of exiting the alcove containing the oil-heating unit was through the room containing the deep fryer, although Banner Beef advised Mr. Cabrera that someone was always standing at the controls of the oil-heating unit whenever the unit was in operation. NFPA Standard 17-8 provides in pertinent part: 3-7 Operation and Control of Systems 3-7.1 Methods of Actuation. Systems shall be provided with both automatic and manual means of operation. 3-7.1.1 Operation of any manual actuator shall be all that is required to bring about the full operation of the system. At least one manual actuator shall be provided for each system. * * * 3-7.1.3 At least one manual actuator shall be located no more than 5 ft (1.5 m) above the floor and shall be convenient and easily accessible at all times, including the time of fire. Although only one manual actuator was required, the location of the manual release handle was not consistent with NFPA Standard 17-8, Section 3-7.1.3. The date of manufacture was stamped into the metal of the cylinder containing the dry chemical fire suppressant. The system's serial number and a United States Department of Transportation exemption code, DOT-7042, were also stamped into the metal of the cylinder. The Kidde Guidelines for Hydrostatic Retest & Qualification of Kidde Models HDR, IND, WHDR, and DRS- 700 System Cylinders provides that "[d]ry chemical and wet chemical agents, when super-pressurized with nitrogen, are classified as hazardous materials and must be shipped in DOT approved cylinders (containers). The United States Department of Transportation has jurisdiction during cylinder manufacturer, testing, marking, retest and shipment." According to the information contained in the Guidelines, Kidde cylinders manufactured under the DOT E-7042 exemption must be hydrostatically tested, using "the water jacket volumetric expansion method or the direct expansion method," at least every 12 years by a retester authorized by the United States Department of Transportation. According to the Guidelines, after the hydrostatic retest, the federal Department of Transportation requires that the cylinder must be stamped, "'plainly and permanently,'" with a marking that includes the date of the retest and the designation "3AL"; such a stamp is usually imprinted into the metal of the cylinder. The Guidelines include a warning, identified as such and set off from the rest of the text, that provides: "Use of pressure sensitive hydrostatic test labels, in lieu of stamping the cylinder, DOES NOT comply with the DOT requirements." (Emphasis in original.) Because the cylinder installed with the Kidde HDR 25DC system at Banner Beef was manufactured in 1981, the cylinder should have been hydrostatically tested in 1993. The cylinder did not, however, bear a permanent stamp with the "3AL" designation and the date of a hydrostatic test. Mr. Cabrera nonetheless reported on the Range Hood System Report dated April 12, 1999, that the system had been hydrostatically tested in April 1998, and he reported on the Range Hood System Report dated September 27, 1999, that the system had been hydrostatically tested and recharged in 1998. Mr. Cabrera obtained this information from labels carrying the name of South Florida Fire that were affixed to the outside of the cylinder; a few remnants of the labels remained on the outside of the cylinder after the fire. Pursuant to the federal DOT requirements and the manufacturer's specifications, Mr. Cabrera could not rely on these labels as proof that the cylinder had been subjected to hydrostatic testing. An examination of the cylinder after the fire revealed that the outlet valve on the cylinder and the elbow mounting bracket attached to the valve were completely blocked by a caked, rock-hard white substance, and the area around the cylinder's relief valve was also coated with white powder. In addition, there were chunks of hardened white powder loose in the discharge piping that connected the cylinder to the nozzle inside the oil-heating unit, although the discharge piping was not blocked. The white powder was identified as dry chemical fire suppressant, which had discharged from the cylinder but had not been discharged through the nozzle into the oil-heating unit because of the complete blockage of the valve outlet and elbow mounting bracket. Finally, there was a residue of what appeared to be grease in the discharge piping connected to the elbow mounting bracket. The manufacturer's specifications require that, at the semi-annual inspection of the Kidde HDR 25DC system, the person providing the maintenance should "[c]heck the discharge piping for obstructions. Remove cylinder and valve. Blow out piping with clean dry air or nitrogen." Mr. Cabrera blew out the piping with nitrogen to clear obstructions each time he performed a semi-annual inspection of the Banner Beef system. The discharge piping was clear when he completed the semi-annual inspection and maintenance on March 15, 2000. In the Banner Beef system, approximately six inches of discharge piping ran from the elbow mounting bracket through the exterior wall of the oil-heating unit, where it emerged just above the level of the oil when the oil-heating unit was full. The discharge nozzle for the system was attached to a portion of the pipe that extended a few inches into the oil-heating unit, where it would be exposed to grease splatter. The male coupling on the discharge nozzle should have threaded into a female coupling in the pipe. However, the inside of the pipe was not threaded to receive the nozzle, and it appeared that the person installing the system had "screwed" the nozzle into a smooth pipe. Because the seal was not tight, grease had accumulated on the threads of the nozzle, and the nozzle might have blown off if the system had actually discharged. There are four nozzle configurations available for the Kidde HDR 25DC system, two of which are relevant to this proceeding: The SP-2 nozzle is designed to protect the plenum4 and exhaust duct of a commercial cooking installation; the SW-2 nozzle is designed to protect surface cooking appliances. One SP-2 nozzle was used with the Kidde HDR 25DC system at Banner Beef, which was inconsistent with NFPA Standard 17-6, Section 2- 3.1, which requires that "[d]ischarge nozzles shall be listed for their intended use," and with the manufacturer's specifications for the system. First, there is no recognized nozzle configuration for the system using only one SP-2 nozzle. Second, the SP-2 nozzle was not appropriate for the Banner Beef system: Deep fryers are classified in the manufacturer's specifications as surface appliances, and the proper nozzle was the SW-2 nozzle. The discharge pattern of the SP-2 nozzle is horizontal, and, had the dry chemical fire suppressant actually been discharged through the nozzle into the oil-heating unit, the dry chemical would have blown across the surface of the hot grease; the SW-2 nozzle is designed to be installed above the appliance, so that its discharge pattern is vertical, with the spray distributed over the surface of the oil. Protective grease covers are required by the manufacturer's specifications and by NFPA Standard 17-6, Section 2-3.1.4, which provides: "Discharge nozzles shall be provided with blowoff caps or other suitable devices or material to prevent the entrance of moisture or other environmental materials into the piping. The protective device shall blow off, open, or blow out upon agent discharge." When Mr. Cabrera inspected the Banner Beef system in March 2000, a grease cover protected the discharge nozzle, but, after the fire, no grease cover for the nozzle could be located. In addition, an examination of the nozzle and discharge piping after the fire revealed grease build-up on the inside of the nozzle and in the discharge piping. Protective nozzle covers are easily lost; Mr. Cabrera had advised Banner Beef to call him if they needed a replacement cover, but he was never asked for a replacement cover. To the best of Mr. Cabrera's recollection, there was always a grease cover on the nozzle whenever he conducted his inspections of the system. A fusible link is designed to melt at a specific temperature, releasing cables that run from the fusible link to a control head attached to the dry chemical cylinder; this is the means by which the system is actuated. The fusible link of the Kidde HDR 25DC system at Banner Beef was located in the duct venting the oil-heating unit to the roof. The invoice for the September 27, 1999, semi-annual inspection at Banner Beef reflects that Mr. Cabrera replaced the 500-degree fusible link in the Kidde HDR 25DC system. He used the 500-degree link because the oil-heating unit heated the oil to 460 degrees Fahrenheit. The manufacturer's specifications provide that "[t]he fusible link assembly . . . is used to detect excessive temperatures in the area above cooking appliances and in the duct. The actuation temperature is 360ºF (182ºC). For higher temperatures use a 500ºF quartzoid bulb, or fusible link." The manufacturer's specifications also provide: The exposure temperature is the maximum temperature to which a fusible link may be exposed for any period of time, no matter how short. After reaching the exposure temperature, the link will eventually release even though it may never reach the rating temperature. WARNING: To avoid accidental system discharge, a temperature survey must be made of all locations where the fusible link will be installed. Links must have an exposure temperature rating above the maximum peak survey temperature. The maximum exposure temperature for any fusible link is 300ºF. If the peak survey temperature is above 300º F, use a quartzoid bulb link. (Emphasis in original.) Only two fusible links were available for the Kidde HDR 25DC system, a fusible link with a rating temperature of 350 degrees Fahrenheit and a maximum exposure temperature of 300 degrees Fahrenheit and a quartzoid bulb, also referred to as a fusible link, with a rating temperature of 500 degrees Fahrenheit and a maximum exposure temperature of 475 degrees Fahrenheit. The exposure temperature at the location of the fusible link is not known, but the convected heat in the duct over the oil-heating unit, where the fusible link was installed, would not have reached the 460-degree temperature of the oil. However, the fusible link was installed only six inches above the maximum level of the oil in the oil-heating unit, and, had the 350-degree fusible link been used, it would have continually actuated the system. Pursuant to the manufacturer's specifications, the fusible link on the system should have been mounted using Kidde fusible-link brackets. The fusible link installed on the Banner Beef system was housed in a welded metal bracket fabricated by whoever installed the system. The fusible link is connected to the system's control head by a system of cables. The manufacturer's specifications require that the fusible link be attached to the cables using Kidde cable crimps crimped with a Kidde crimping tool. Mr. Cabrera did not use either a Kidde cable crimp or a Kidde crimping tool when he installed the new fusible link on the Banner Beef system during the September 27, 1999, inspection. The manufacturer's specifications require that the cables connecting the control head to the fusible link be "housed and protected by 1/2-inch electrical metal tubing." The portion of the cable running on the outside of the oil-heating unit, from the control head mounted near the cylinder into the exterior wall of the oil-heating unit was housed in electrical metal tubing; that portion of the cable running inside the oil- heating unit, from the fusible link to the exterior wall of the oil-heating unit, was not housed in electrical metal tubing but was left bare. According to the manufacturer's specification, all cable in the Kidde HDR 25DC system must run either horizontally or vertically. Consequently, corner pulleys are used to make 90-degree changes in direction. Three corner pulleys were used in the Banner Beef system; one was manufactured by Kidde, but two were manufactured by Pyro-Chem. In addition, the first corner pulley was clogged with grease, indicating that the system was not properly maintained. The cables leading from the fusible link are attached to a control head, and the system actuates when the fusible link melts and the cables are released. A cover plate protects the control head, and is attached to the control head with five screws. Kidde Field Memo #84-8, provides as follows: When installing the cover plate on any preengineered system control head, remember to install all five cover screws. The fifth screw that attaches to the hex post just above the local manual release handle is important for the stability of the cover plate when operating the handle. Leaving out the fifth screw could cause movement of the cover plate and render the local manual release handle inoperative. . . . Three of the five screw holes on the control head cover plate recovered from Banner Beef were covered with grease; only two of the five screw holes were clean. This indicates that the cover plate was attached to the control head by only two screws at the time of the fire. Mr. Cabrera did not note any discrepancies or deficiencies in the Kidde HDR 25DC system installed at Banner Beef in the inspection reports that he completed after his April 12, 1999, and September 27, 1999, inspections, which were the only reports provided to the State Fire Marshall and introduced into evidence at the final hearing. In these two reports, Mr. Cabrera checked the "Yes" boxes for the following items, among others: All appliances properly covered w/ correct nozzles System installed in accordance w/ MFG UL listing Inspect cylinder and mount Clean nozzles Check fuse links and clean Piping and conduit securely bracketed System operational & seals in place Clean cylinder and mount Mr. Cabrera signed the two reports, thereby certifying that "[o]n this date, the above system was tested and inspected in accordance with procedures of the presently adopted editions of NFPA Standard 17, 17A, 96 and the manufacturer's manual and was operated according to these procedures with results indicated above." The licensure files maintained by the State Fire Marshall for A Fire Prevention Company indicated that the company's insurance policy with Frontier Insurance Company expired on March 25, 2000. Mr. Cabrera testified, however, that the company did have insurance at the time of the fire, and this testimony is unrefuted. Summary The State Fire Marshall's expert witnesses disagreed as to whether the system could have controlled the fire had it functioned properly. They each conceded, however, that all components of the system functioned perfectly and actuated the system. They attributed the sole cause of the system's failure to the blockage in the valve outlet and elbow mounting bracket that prevented the dry chemical fire suppressant from discharging out of the cylinder. The State Fire Marshall's experts and Mr. Cabrera agreed that the cause of the blockage was dry chemical in the cylinder valve assembly and elbow mounting bracket that had hardened into a rock-hard substance. All of the State Fire Marshall's experts and Mr. Cabrera agreed that the chemical hardened as a result of its coming into contact with a significant amount of moisture and/or grease. No one, however, provided a satisfactory explanation of the time within which the chemical would have hardened after it came into contact with the moisture and/or grease. In Mr. Cabrera's opinion, the blockage was caused when grease and/or moisture entered the system at the time of the fire and caused the dry chemical to immediately harden. On the other hand, the State Fire Marshall's expert witnesses opined that the moisture and/or grease causing the blockage of the cylinder valve outlet and elbow mounting bracket did not necessarily accumulate in the system over an extended period of time but, rather, could have been introduced into the system all at once. They also agreed that the dry chemical would harden gradually over time and that the blockage was probably present at the time Mr. Cabrera performed the March 2000 inspection. However, none of the State Fire Marshall's experts provided a persuasive basis to support a finding that the blockage had been present in the system at the time Mr. Cabrera inspected the system in March 2000, and the evidence is, therefore, insufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Mr. Cabrera should have discovered the blockage when he performed the inspection and maintenance in March 2000. The evidence presented by the State Fire Marshall is likewise not sufficient to establish that Mr. Cabrera deviated from the requirements of the manufacturer's specifications by installing a 500-degree fusible link in the system in September 1999. The evidence presented by the State Fire Marshall is, however, sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the Kidde HDR 25DC preengineered fire protection system installed at Banner Beef was not designed to protect an industrial oil-heating unit containing approximately 200 gallons of hot oil, that the system was not installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, that the system contained parts that were not manufactured by Kidde, that the system was not properly maintained with respect to the build-up of grease in and around the discharge nozzle and in the corner pulleys, and that Mr. Cabrera did not use the appropriate crimp and crimping tool when he replaced the fusible link in September 1997. The evidence presented by the State Fire Marshall is also sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that Mr. Cabrera did not provide the State Fire Marshall with proof of insurance subsequent to March 25, 2000, although the evidence is insufficient to establish that he did not, in fact, have insurance coverage subsequent to that time. Finally, the evidence presented by the State Fire Marshall is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the reports Mr. Cabrera prepared following his semi-annual inspections in April and September 1999 did not accurately reflect the condition of the system and did not include a statement of the system's deficiencies. In addition, Mr. Cabrera's failure to provide the State Fire Marshall with copies of the inspection reports for the semi-annual inspections he performed on the Kidde HDR 25DC system at Banner Beef for the three years prior to the fire supports the inference that he failed to retain copies of the inspection reports in his records. However, Mr. Cabrera's testimony that he always prepared the necessary reports is uncontroverted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Fire Marshall enter a final order: Finding Hector Cabrera and A Fire Prevention Company guilty of having violated Sections 633.061(9), 633.065(1)(c), 633.065(2), 633.071(1), and 633.162(4)(c) and (e), Florida Statutes (2000), as well as Rules 4A-21.302 and 4A-21.304(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code; and Suspending the licenses and permits of Hector Cabrera and A Fire Prevention Company for a period of two years, pursuant to Section 633.162(1) and (4), Florida Statutes (2000). DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 25th day of June, 2002.
