The Issue The issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Petition for Formal Proceedings filed with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on February 4, 2009, was timely 1/ and, if so, whether Petitioners have standing to challenge the DEP?s issuance of the Minor Modification to FDEP Operation Permit 171331-002-UO for IW-1 under 171331-003-UC (the Permit Modification).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Conservation Alliance is a Florida not-for-profit corporation in good-standing, with its corporate offices currently located at 5608 Eagle Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. The Conservation Alliance has approximately 200 members. Elaine Romano is a resident of St. Lucie County, Florida. The DEP is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction for permitting UIC facilities and the waste-streams being discharged to such facilities, pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Pursuant to that authority, the DEP issued the Permit Modification that is the subject of this proceeding. FPUA provides utility service to the City of Fort Pierce, Florida. FPUA owns and operates a Class I industrial injection well (IW-1), discharges to which are the subject of the Permit Modification. Allied owns and operates a chlorine bleach manufacturing facility which produces a brine waste-stream that is proposed for disposal to IW-1. Issuance of the Permit Modification On December 19, 2008, the DEP issued a Notice of Permit, Permit Number 171331-002-UO (FPUA operation permit), which authorized the operation of IW-1 at the Gahn wastewater treatment plant. The Gahn wastewater treatment plant and IW-1 are owned and operated by the FPUA. The FPUA operation permit authorized the disposal of concentrate and water treatment by- product from FPUA?s reverse-osmosis water facility at a permitted rate of 2.8 million gallons per day. FPUA also owns and operates water production wells that serve the City of Fort Pierce potable water supply system. IW-1 was constructed within 500 feet of three of the FPUA production wells, which required FPUA to obtain a variance from setback requirements. On July 17, 2008, prior to the issuance of the FPUA operation permit, Allied submitted an application for a major modification of the FPUA operation permit. The application proposed the disposal to IW-1 of up to 21,600 gallons per day of a brine waste-stream that is a by-product of the production of chlorine bleach. The application cover letter provides that “[w]hile we have been notified that this project is only a Minor Permit Modification, we feel by submitting for a Major Permit Modification that the Department will have the ability to review the application and downgrade the application to a Minor Permit Modification, if needed.” On December 30, 2008, the DEP issued the Permit Modification as a minor modification of the FPUA operation permit. The Permit Modification allowed a maximum of 21,600 gallons of brine to be received at the FPUA facility and disposed of in IW-1. Notice of the Permit Modification On or about September 12, 2008, a paralegal for Ruden McClosky, Lucinda Sparkman, requested information from the DEP regarding the procedure for receiving notification of permit applications and DEP action thereon. Her request was subsequently refined to request notice regarding two permits, those being “injection Well Construction, application #171331- 003,” and the other being “Water-Industrial Wastewater, application #FLA017460-004.” DEP File No. 171331-003 is that pertaining to the Permit Modification. At the time of the request, Ruden McClosky represented Odyssey Manufacturing Company (Odyssey), an economic competitor of Allied.3/ On September 24, 2008, Ms. Sparkman asked to be “put on the distribution list for the URIC permit for Fort Pierce.” From September 24, 2008 through December 15, 2008, Ms. Sparkman made periodic requests for information, and received periodic updates from the DEP. On December 19, 2008, the DEP sent Ms. Sparkman an e- mail indicating that the FPUA operation permit had been issued, and later that same day sent Ms. Sparkman an electronic copy of the permit. On December 19, 2008, Ruden McClosky made a public records request to FPUA for, among other items, records pertaining to the disposal of brine to the Gahn Water Plant underground injection well, and any agreements between FPUA and Allied regarding the disposal of brine. The request was made on behalf of Florida Tire Recycling, Inc. (Florida Tire). On December 22, the DEP sent Ms. Sparkman a copy of the notice of intent for the FPUA operation permit. There is no record evidence of further communication or inquiry between Ruden McClosky and the DEP from December 22, 2008 to January 14, 2009. On January 9, 2009, notice of the Permit Modification was published in the Fort Pierce Tribune. The notice was prepared and publication arranged by counsel for Allied. The published notice provides the information required by rule 62-110.106(7)(d), and stated that any challenge to the Permit Modification was required to be received by DEP within 14 days of publication or, for persons that requested actual notice, within 14 days of receipt of such actual notice. On January 14, 2009, Ms. Sparkman called her contact person at the DEP to inquire about the Permit Modification. That call was not returned. On January 21, 2009, Ms. Sparkman again called the DEP to inquire about the Permit Modification. In response to Ms. Sparkman?s inquiry, the DEP sent Ms. Sparkman an electronic copy of the Permit Modification. Ms. Sparkman made further inquiry on January 21, 2009, as to whether the notice of the Permit Modification had been published in a newspaper. On January 22, 2009, the DEP replied that “[e]verything was noticed as required.” On January 22, 2009, the Fort Pierce Tribune prepared an affidavit of publication of the notice. The affidavit of publication was received by counsel for Allied on January 28, 2009, who sent the affidavit to the DEP by certified mail on January 29, 2009. Alleged Defects in the Notice of Permit Modification Petitioners have alleged a number of procedural defects that they contend render the published notice ineffective to establish a deadline of 14 days from the date of the notice to file a challenge to the Permit Modification. Late Proof of Publication Petitioners allege that Allied filed the proof of publication with the DEP more than seven days from the date of publication, and that delay made such publication ineffective to establish a deadline for filing the petition. Although the proof of publication was provided to the DEP on or shortly after January 29, 2009, the evidence demonstrates that Allied provided the proof of publication to the DEP immediately upon receipt from the Fort Pierce Tribune newspaper. The delay in filing was not within the control of Allied, or anyone else associated with the Permit Modification. As established by rule 62-110.106(9), proof of publication is required by the DEP to provide assurance to the DEP that required notice has, in fact, been published, with the sanction being the delay or denial of the permit. The rule does not suggest that a delay in providing proof of publication to the DEP serves to alter or extend the time for filing a petition. There is little case law construing the effect of a delay in providing proof of publication on the petition rights of a person challenging the proposed agency action. However, the undersigned agrees with, and adopts, the following analysis of the issue provided by Administrative Law Judge P. Michael Ruff: . . . the purpose of requiring an applicant to publish notice of agency action is to give substantially affected persons an opportunity to participate in an administrative proceeding. See Section 403.815, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17- 103.150(4), Florida Administrative Code. Consequently, the crucial element in the Department's publication requirement is that the notice be published to trigger the commencement of the time for affected persons to request a hearing. The requirement that proof of publication be provided to the Department does nothing to affect the rights of third parties, but merely is a technical requirement which allows the Department to determine whether a third party has timely exercised its rights to contest a published notice of intended agency action. If an applicant publishes notice of intended agency action, but fails to timely provide the Department with proof of that publication, the deficiency is one which is easily cured. No harm will occur because the permit will not be issued until proof of publication is received by the Department, in any event, because of Rule 17-103.510(4), Florida Administrative Code. Bio-Tech Tracking Systems, Inc. v. Dep?t of Envtl. Reg., Case No. 90-7760, ¶32 (Fla. DOAH Apr. 3, 1991; Fla. DER May 17, 1991). The filing of the notice beyond the seven-day period in rule 62-110.106(5) was, at most, harmless error, did not adversely affect any rights or remedies available to Petitioners, and does not affect the fairness of this proceeding. Notice Prepared by Counsel Petitioners allege that the notice was prepared by Allied?s counsel, rather than the DEP, and that the notice was therefore ineffective to establish a deadline for filing the petition. Publication of the notice of the Permit Modification was not required, since it was a minor modification. Thus, publication was at Allied?s option. Rule 62-110.106(10)(a) provides, in pertinent part, that: Any applicant or person benefiting from the Department?s action may elect to publish notice of the Department?s intended or proposed action . . . in the manner provided by subsection (7) or (8) above. Upon presentation of proof of publication to the Department before final agency action, any person who has elected to publish such notice shall be entitled to the same benefits under this rule as a person who is required to publish notice. The most logical construction of rule 62-110.106 is that the DEP is responsible for preparing required notices pursuant to rule 62-110.106(7)(c), but that non-required notices may be prepared and published at the applicant?s or beneficiary?s option without direct DEP involvement. In this case, the notice was prepared by an authorized agent of the corporate “person” that benefitted from the Permit Modification. The more salient point regarding the preparation of the notice is whether it contained all of the information required by rule. The evidence demonstrates that it did, and that the notice was sufficient to provide a meaningful and complete point of entry to the public of the Permit Modification and the rights attendant thereto. The fact that the notice was prepared by Allied?s counsel was, at most, harmless error, did not adversely affect any rights or remedies available to Petitioners, and does not affect the fairness of this proceeding. Lack of Actual Notice Petitioners allege error in the notice process because actual notice of the Permit Modification was not provided to Petitioners. The basis for the alleged deficiency was that Mr. Stinnette had, in 2003, asked to be placed on the DEP?s UIC mailing list, but did not receive the notice of the Permit Modification. Rule 62-110.106(2) provides that published notice establishes the point of entry for the public to challenge proposed agency action “except for persons entitled to written notice personally or by mail under Section 120.60(3), Florida Statutes, or any other statute.” Section 120.60(3) provides that a notice of proposed agency action shall be mailed “to each person who has made a written request for notice of agency action.” The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Stinnette was acting solely as an agent of Indian Riverkeeper when he requested to be placed on the UIC mailing list. He was not requesting notices in his personal capacity, or as an agent of the Conservation Alliance or Ms. Romano. Thus, Indian Riverkeeper was entitled to notice of the Permit Modification. Indian Riverkeeper is not a party to this proceeding. The undersigned is not willing to attribute a request for actual notice to any person other than the person requesting such notice. The DEP?s failure to provide written notice of the Permit Modification to Indian Riverkeeper did not adversely affect any rights or remedies available to the Conservation Alliance or Ms. Romano, and does not affect the fairness of this proceeding. Lack of Information Pursuant to Rule 62-528.315(7) Finally, Petitioners argue that the published notice was ineffective because it did not include the name, address, and telephone number of a DEP contact person, citing rule 62- 528.315(7)(d). The provision cited by Petitioners involves DEP notices that are required when the DEP has prepared a draft permit, draft consent order, or has scheduled a public meeting as identified in rule 62-528.315(1). The notice requirement in rule 62-528.315(7) does not apply to a notice of proposed agency action, which is governed by rule 62-528.315(10), and which provides that: “[a]fter the conclusion of the public comment period described in Rule 62-528.321, F.A.C., and after the conclusion of a public meeting (if any) described in Rule 62- 528.325, F.A.C., the applicant shall publish public notice of the proposed agency action including the availability of an administrative hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. This public notice shall follow the procedure described in subsection 62-110.106(7), F.A.C. (emphasis added). The published notice of the Permit Modification was consistent with the notice described in rule 62-110.106(7), and therefore complied with rule 62-528.315(10). For the reasons set forth herein, there were no defects in the published notice of proposed agency action that serve to minimize the effect of that published notice on the time for filing a petition challenging the Permit Modification, that adversely affect any rights or remedies available to the Conservation Alliance or Ms. Romano, or that affect the fairness of this proceeding. Representation of Petitioners by Ruden McClosky Petitioners were not represented by Ruden McClosky at the time Ruden McClosky requested actual notice of any DEP agency action regarding FPUA. Petitioners were not represented by Ruden McClosky at the time Ruden McClosky requested actual notice of any DEP agency action regarding Allied. The parties stipulated that an attorney-client relationship was formed between the Petitioners and Ruden McClosky on or after January 1, 2009. No further specificity was stipulated. On February 3, 2009, Ruden McClosky sent an engagement letter to the Conservation Alliance regarding governmental and administrative challenges to the Permit Modification. The engagement was accepted by Mr. Stinnette on behalf of the Conservation Alliance on February 4, 2009. The Petition for Formal Proceedings, which named the Conservation Alliance as a party, was filed with the DEP on February 4, 2009. On February 10, 2009, Ruden McClosky sent an engagement letter to Ms. Romano regarding governmental and administrative challenges to the Permit Modification. There is no evidence that the engagement was accepted by Ms. Romano. Ms. Romano testified that she has never spoken or corresponded with anyone from Ruden McClosky, and had no knowledge that she was being represented by Ruden McClosky. Ms. Romano had no input in drafting any of the petitions filed on her behalf, and had no recollection of having ever read the petitions. The Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings, which named Ms. Romano as a party, was filed with the DEP on February 12, 2009. Both of the Ruden McClosky engagement letters reference an “Other Client” that had an interest in challenging the Permit Modification, which “Other Client” would be responsible for paying all fees and costs, and would be involved in the approval of all work performed by Ruden McClosky. The parties stipulated that the “Other Client” was Odyssey. The date of an engagement letter is not dispositive as to the date on which an attorney-client relationship is established. It is, however, evidence that can be assessed with other evidence to draw a conclusion as to the date that the relationship commenced. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that requests for notice made prior to January 21, 2009, regarding the FPUA operation permit and the Permit Modification that is the subject of this proceeding were made on behalf of Odyssey or Florida Tire, existing clients of Ruden McClosky. The preponderance of the evidence leads the undersigned to find that Ruden McCloskey commenced its representation of the Conservation Alliance with regard to the instant case no earlier than January 21, 2009, the date on which Ruden McClosky received notice that the Permit Modification had been issued. The preponderance of the evidence leads the undersigned to find that Ruden McCloskey commenced its representation of Ms. Romano with regard to the instant case after January 21, 2009, if at all. Filing of the Petitions The 14th day after publication of the notice of the Permit Modification fell on January 23, 2009. On February 4, 2009, the initial Petition for Formal Proceedings was filed challenging the DEP issuance of the Permit Modification. The Petition named the Conservation Alliance as a party. On February 12, 2009, an Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings was filed that, among other things, added Ms. Romano as a party. Allegations of Standing - Conservation Alliance The Conservation Alliance is a non-profit, Florida corporation incorporated in 1985. It has at least 100 members that reside in St. Lucie County. It was formed for the general purpose of protecting the “water, soil, air, native flora and fauna,” and thus the environment of St. Lucie County. In the Petition for Formal Proceedings, as it has been amended, the Conservation Alliance made specific allegations as to how the issuance of the Permit Modification may affect its substantial interests. Those allegations are related, first, to the effect of the Permit Modification on the FPUA public water supply that serves members of the Conservation Alliance and, second, to the effect of the Permit Modification on the ability of the members to recreate and enjoy the waters of St. Lucie County. FPUA Water Service In its Second Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings, the Conservation Alliance alleged that “[m]embers of the Alliance own real property or otherwise reside within the service area of FPUA, and are, in fact, serviced by FPUA.” As a result, the members “will be adversely affected by the injection of the Allied waste stream into IW-1, which is located within 500 feet of three potable water supply sources, from which . . . Romano and the Alliance?s members are provided with potable water,” resulting in “a potential for those contaminants and hazardous materials to get into Petitioners? source of potable water.” Mr. Brady, the Conservation Alliance?s president, does not receive water service from the FPUA. Mr. Brady did not know how many members of the Conservation Alliance received water service from the FPUA. Persons living in unincorporated areas of Fort Pierce do not receive potable water from the FPUA. A mailing address of “Fort Pierce” does not mean that the person lives in the incorporated City of Fort Pierce. Mr. Brady “assumed” many of the members lived in the City of Fort Pierce, but offered no admissible, non-hearsay evidence of any kind to support that assumption. Mr. Stinnette testified that he was “confident that we have members that receive water from [FPUA]” but was not able to quantify the number of said members. As with Mr. Brady, Mr. Stinnette offered no admissible, non-hearsay evidence of any kind to support his belief. Recreational and Environmental Interests In its Second Amended Petition for Formal Proceedings, the Conservation Alliance alleged that “. . . Romano and the Alliance?s members utilize and protect the waters of St. Lucie County. Petitioners? recreational and environmental interests will be adversely affected if the Allied waste stream leaves the injection well area and flows into the rivers, streams, and or ocean.” Mr. Brady understood that one member of the Conservation Alliance, George Jones, fished in the C-24 canal, although Mr. Brady had not personally fished there for 25 years. Mr. Brady otherwise provided no evidence of the extent to which members used or enjoyed the waters in or around St. Lucie County. Mr. Stinnette has recreated in various water bodies that are tributaries of the Indian River Lagoon system. He indicated that he had engaged in recreational activities in and on the waters of St. Lucie County with “dozens” of people over the past 16 years, some of whom were members of the Conservation Alliance. There was no evidence offered as to how many of those persons were members of the Conservation Alliance, as opposed to members of other organizations or of no organization at all, or whether they were current members during the period relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Stinnette testified that the previously mentioned Mr. Jones said that he kayaked in the waters of St. Lucie County but, as to the recreational activities of other members, testified that “I don't know, I don't keep up with their day-to-day activities to that extent.” Although Mr. Jones testified at the hearing, he provided no information as to the nature or extent of his recreational uses of the waters of St. Lucie County. The only evidence of Mr. Jones? use of the waters of St. Lucie County is hearsay. Thus, the only finding that can be made as to the recreational use of the waters of St. Lucie County by current members of the Conservation Alliance is limited to the recreational use by a single member, Mr. Stinnette. Petitioner, Elaine Romano Ms. Romano is a member of the Conservation Alliance. The allegations regarding Ms. Romano?s substantial interests in this proceeding were the same as those of the Conservation Alliance as set forth above. FPUA Water Service Ms. Romano has her primary residence at 3436 Roselawn Boulevard, Fort Pierce, Florida. Her residence is not served by FPUA. Ms. Romano is the executor of the estate of her mother, Marion Scherer. The estate owns a residence at 1903 Royal Palm Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida that is currently vacant. That residence is served by FPUA. The estate is not a party to this proceeding. Recreational and Environmental Interests Ms. Romano attends certain meetings and functions of the Conservation Alliance, but offered no testimony of her use or enjoyment of any natural resources that could be affected by the Permit Modification. In that regard, her interest in this case was precipitated by a desire to support her mother?s interest in ecology.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Formal Proceeding as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Respondent's "core business is building automation systems" that "regulate the . . . energy consuming systems in a building," and it holds itself out as an "energy performance contractor." Respondent has a certification of authority to engage in contracting in Florida in the categories of electrical contracting, mechanical contracting, and general contracting. Respondent does not now have, nor has it ever had, a certification to engage in the practice of engineering in Florida through employees employed by it. Lawrence B. Stoff is now, and has been for the past nine years, an employee of Respondent's, working as a "project manager in the performance contracting field." His "focus" is "evaluating buildings for energy savings opportunities." Mr. Stoff is a Florida-licensed professional engineer, holding Florida P.E. number 46998. Several years ago, Respondent responded to a Request for Proposals (RFP 98-379V) issued by the School Board of Broward County (School Board) seeking proposals for "Energy Management Performance Contracting Services." RFP 98-379V contained the following "introduction" describing the objective of the RFP and the services sought: OBJECTIVE The School Board of Broward County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as "SBBC") is requesting proposals from interested and qualified performance contractors to implement Energy Conservation Opportunities (ECOs) in SBBC facilities. SBBC plans to select the three most qualified contractors to enter into a Guaranteed Energy Savings Contract pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 235.215, Educational Facilities, Energy Efficiency Contracting. The term of the contract shall be a maximum of ten years from date of contract approval by the School Board. Guaranteed energy savings contract may extend beyond the fiscal year in which it became effective; however, the term of the contract shall expire at the end of each fiscal year and will be automatically renewed annually up to 10 years subject to SBBC making sufficient annual appropriations based upon continued realized energy savings. The contract shall stipulate that the agreement does not constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of SBBC or a pledge of faith and credit of the District. The successful contractors shall provide a written savings guarantee in accordance with Chapter 489.145, Contracting, Energy Efficiency Contracting. The total program costs, including financed equipment cost, maintenance costs, SBBC project maintenance costs, SBBC Project Management costs, and all other costs, shall be 100 percent (100%) covered by energy savings. SBBC will require the successful proposers to fund a SBBC hired "Project Manager." The successful proposers cannot begin any work including, but not limited to, the pilot project until SBBC receives the funds and hires the "Project Manager." The current annual salary for this position is $66,610 which includes benefits. One third of the annual cost for the "Project Manager" will be provided by each selected contractor. The written guarantee must state that the energy savings will meet or exceed the costs of the ECO's, including cost of the "Project Manager." (i.e. The total costs must be funded out of savings accrued from energy conservation.) SBBC shall make fixed payments to the performance contractor or its assignee for the term of the guaranteed energy savings contract. Such payments shall not exceed the total savings realized under this program for the term of this Agreement. The objective of SBBC in issuing this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to enhance the school district's ongoing energy conservation and management program and to upgrade SBBC facilities through performance contracting. The energy conservation measures may be realized through facility alteration that reduces energy consumption or operating costs including but not limited to all energy conservation measures listed in Chapter 235.215. SCOPE The three selected proposers shall provide SBBC with a comprehensive energy services program including but not limited to: (a) complete energy audits and technical engineering analyses, (b) design and installation of the most cost-effective energy efficient equipment and systems, including enhancements to its existing School Board-wide Andover Controls Corp. based energy management system, (c) training staff on installed ECOs, (d) monitoring of energy costs, (e) power quality services, (f) financing for the project, and (g) a written energy guarantee that total program costs shall be 100 percent (100%) covered by program energy savings. The proposed agreement shall not constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of SBBC, nor is it a pledge of the faith and credit of SBBC. Respondent was subsequently selected, in accordance with the procedures set forth in RFP 98-379V, as one of the "qualified performance contractors to implement Energy Conservation Opportunities (ECOs) in SBBC facilities." On or about July 20, 2001, Respondent and the School Board entered into an Energy Audit Agreement, pursuant to which Respondent was to perform an energy audit and prepare a detailed report regarding Miramar High School to determine the feasibility of entering into an energy performance-based contract. The Energy Audit Agreement contained the following introductory clauses: Whereas, SBBC has issued a Request for Proposals, RFP 98-379V (RFP) and issued an Addendum thereto collectively referred to as "RFP" and made a part hereof by reference, to identify qualified energy performance contractors for energy performance-based contracts; and Whereas, the Company submitted a response to the RFP [which is made a part hereof by reference and is referred to as "Proposal"] and participated in a competitive evaluation procedure designed to identify qualified energy performance contractors; and Whereas, SBBC has selected the Company as a qualified energy performance contractor; and Whereas, SBBC is responsible for the operation, management and maintenance of facilities identified in the scope of this project, also listed in Attachment "A"; and Whereas, a comprehensive Investment Grade Energy Audit (hereafter referred to as the "Energy Audit") and a detailed Engineering and Economic Report (hereafter referred to as "Report") must be performed at the Facilities in order to determine the feasibility of entering into an energy performance-based contract to provide for the installation and implementation of Energy Conservation Measures (hereafter referred to as "ECMs") at the Facilities; and Whereas, Energy Performance Contracting (hereafter referred to as "EPC") is a generic term used to refer to an energy performance-based contract; and Whereas, Energy Services Agreement (hereafter referred to as "ESA") means the contract document governing an energy performance-based contract under Section 235.215, Florida Statutes; and Whereas, if the ECMs recommended by the Company are determined to be feasible by SBBC, and if the amount of energy savings can be reasonably ascertained and guaranteed in an amount sufficient to cover all costs associated with an energy performance contracting project at the Facilities as further defined in Article 1, Section F, the Parties intend to negotiate an ESA under which the Company would design, procure, install, implement, maintain and monitor such energy conservation measures at the Facilities. Article 1 of the Energy Audit Agreement described the "Scope of Investment Grade Energy Audit and Report." Its prefatory paragraph read as follows: For each of the Facilities listed in Attachment A, the Company will perform an Energy Audit and prepare a detailed Report which specifically identifies the improvements in energy consumption recommended for installation or implementation at each Facility. The Report shall contain detailed projections of Energy and Utility Savings to be obtained at the Facilities as a result of the installation of the recommended ECMs. The savings calculations must utilize assumptions, projections and baselines which best represent the true value of future Energy and Utility Savings for the Facilities, i.e.: utilize accurate marginal cost for each unit of savings at the time the audit is performed; documented material and adjustments to the baseline to reflect current conditions at the Facilities compared to the historic base period resulting from scheduled new construction and remodeling projects to be implemented by SBBC and listed in the Adopted District Facilities Work Program for Fiscal Years 1999-2000 to 2004-2005; calculations which account for the interactive effects of the recommended ECMs. The Report shall describe the Company's plan for installation or implementation of the ECMs in the Facilities, including all anticipated Associated Costs with such installation and implementation. The primary purpose of the Report is to provide engineering and economic basis for negotiating an ESA between SBBC and the Company; however, SBBC shall be under no obligation to negotiate such a contract. Section G of Article 1 of the Energy Audit Agreement addressed the "Report Content and Acceptance Procedure," and provided, in pertinent part, that, "[i]n accordance with Florida Statute, the report shall be signed by a Florida Registered Professional Engineer." Article 2 of the Energy Audit Agreement read as follows: Energy Services Agreement The Parties intend to negotiate an ESA under which the Company would design, install and implement energy conservation measures agreed to by the Parties and provide certain maintenance and monitoring services. The Company shall be obligated to enter into an ESA on the basis of the Report, provided SBBC proceeds with the development of the ESA in a timeframe which allows the ESA to be finalized within the timeframe specified in Article 1, Section G(3). However, nothing in this Agreement should be construed as an obligation on the part of the SBBC to execute an ESA. The terms and provisions of such an ESA shall be set forth in a separate agreement. Pursuant to its normal practice, Respondent contracted with an engineering firm, Engineering Matrix, Inc., to prepare the audit report. The audit report Engineering Matrix prepared "was not accepted favorably by the [School Board, which] requested that it be reworked by [Respondent's] staff with whom [the School Board] was familiar." Respondent complied with the School Board's request. It had Mr. Stoff "rework" the report. Respondent provided the School Board with an audit report, dated August 27, 2002, that incorporated the revisions Mr. Stoff had made (Revised Technical Audit Report). The Revised Technical Audit Report was essentially "a proposal of energy conservation measures [at Miramar High School] that would result in energy savings if implemented." Its "general scope and content [were] fairly typical" of the "reports that [were] issued by [Respondent] under Section 235.215," Florida Statutes. The Revised Technical Audit Report contained the following Energy Consultant Certification signed by Mr. Stoff: As the Energy Consultant and a Florida registered engineer responsible for preparing this report, I hereby certify that: This Study and Report has been performed in accordance with the most current accepted energy practices and procedures. The members of the Audit Team are qualified to perform the analysis, investigations, and duties assigned to them for the purpose of fulfilling the intent of the report. This Study has thoroughly examined this building for the purpose of identifying the opportunities which exist for reducing energy consumption. The data, recommendations and analysis contained in this Report have been performed using standard engineering practices and to the best of my knowledge are correct. Mr. Stoff signed the Revised Technical Audit Report as a professional engineer, using his Florida P.E. number. The Revised Technical Audit Report served as the basis for negotiations between Respondent and the School Board that ultimately lead to an Energy Services Agreement between them, as contemplated by the Energy Audit Agreement. Respondent was paid somewhere between $650,000 to $800,000 in connection with the work it performed at Miramar High School pursuant to its agreement with School Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 2006.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, by failing to advise a prospective purchaser that the residence he was selling contained a solar water heater which was on lease and that therefore the seller could not sell it with the house, engaged in acts and/or conduct amounting to a concealment, misrepresentation, fraud and dishonest dealing in a business transaction violative of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings: Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida and has been issued license number 0395102. Respondent, during times material herein, was employed as a real estate salesperson with Caldwell Banker/Clock Company, 7825 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood, Florida. On or about July 29, 1983, Respondent solicited and obtained a listing agreement from her brother, Joseph Donnelly, giving exclusive right of sale to the Clock Company Realtors of real estate owned by her brother at 3300 SW 40 Avenue, Hollywood, Florida. On January 28, 1984, the sellers, Joseph and Betty Ann Donnelly, executed a deposit receipt and contract for sale and purchase of the subject residence at 3300 SW 40 Avenue, Hollywood, Florida to Harlen E. Davison, as purchaser. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Mr. Davison was a close friend of the Donnellys and was aware that the solar heater was leased and could not be sold. (Testimony of Anthony Nicola, Petitioner's investigator; Joseph and Betty Ann Donnelly) Specifically, Mr. Davison was aware that the solar heater was under a three-year term lease which was paid and that there was one year remaining on the lease term. (Testimony of J. Donnelly, Tr. page 25, lines 8 through 12) This was related to purchaser Davison prior to the time that he closed the transaction to purchase the subject residence. Finally, an examination of the profile sheet and market analysis for the subject property reveals that the solar heater was not listed as one of the features for the subject property. (Respondent's Exhibit 1N11)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the administrative complaint filed herein be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 20th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Sue Hartmann, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson St. Orlando, Fla. 32802 John Bernazzoli, Esquire 4747 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, Fla. 33024 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Fla. 32802 Salvatore Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Fla. 32301
Findings Of Fact The State Energy Office of the Department of Administration is seeking to promulgate a Model Energy Efficiency Building Code. The proposed Code could have no enforcement provisions, and would not, on its own, apply to anyone. It is intended to set up proposed minimum standards to achieve a degree of energy efficiency in the construction of new hones. It is being offered to county and municipal governments far their consideration and possible adoption. Under the provisions of the Florida Lighting Efficiency Code, Section 553.89, Florida Statutes (1977), county and municipal governmental units which serve as building code enforcement agencies will be required to implement and enforce energy efficiency standards which are no less stringent than standards set by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Standard 90-75. In developing its Model Code, the Energy Office is seeking to offer local governments a Code which would in some respects be more stringent than required by statute, and which would, in the Energy Office's opinion, be more relevant to climactic conditions in Florida. In developing the Model Energy Code, the Energy Office has not undertaken any of the steps required for rulemaking. The Energy Office has not prepared an economic impact statement, has not noticed the Code as proposed rules must be noticed, and has not published it as rules must be published. The Energy Office contends that the Model Code is not a rule, and that it is therefore not necessary to adopt the Code through rulemaking procedures. Generally the Code is more stringent than the requirements set out in American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Standard 90- 75, but in other respects it contains identical provisions. The Code which was offered into evidence is actually a first draft and is not complete. At several junctures there are blanks which remain to be completed. The first draft of the Code was prepared by consulting engineering and planning firms which were retained by the Energy Office. The Petitioner, Florida Home Builders Association (FHBA), is a trade organization made up of builders, contractors, and suppliers in the construction industry. It has nine thousand members who come from every county in Florida. The FHBA has been authorized by its Directors to maintain this action. If the Model Energy Code is adopted by any counties or municipalities in its present form, it would have an impact upon members of the FHBA. Since the Code's provisions are in some respects more stringent than those required by the statutes, the cost of construction would undoubtedly increase. The Model Energy Code will not have any impact upon FHBA members, however, unless it is adopted by local enforcement agencies. The FHBA is itself planning to construct a new building beginning in February. If the Code were adopted by the local government in the place where the FHBA constructs its new building, then the FHBA would be impacted by the Code. The Building Association of South Florida is an association of home builders and apartment builders. It has been authorized by its membership to bring this action on behalf of the members. The Association has more than eight hundred members in Broward, Dade, and Monroe counties. If local government enforcement agencies in any of these counties adopted the Model Energy Code in its present form then the Model Energy Code would impact the members by increasing the cost of construction. The Model Energy Efficiency Code will have no effect upon anyone unless it is adopted by local governments. The State Energy Office intends to encourage local governments to adopt the Code through its consulting engineers and planners. Whether any local governments will adopt the Code, and whether they will adopt it in the present form or with modification is, however, a matter of conjecture.
Findings Of Fact On January 23, 1985, following the filing of the and its on-site inspection, DER issued its notice of intent to grant the air construction permit, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapters 17-2 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The notice stated that the proposed equipment, with a cyclone primary dust collector followed by a Dustex Baghouse Model DW-14-28W dust collector, was adequate to insure compliance with DER particulate emission standards. The ambient air standards for sulfur dioxide emissions by the plant were to be controlled by the use of low sulfur fuel oil (maximum 0.5 percent sulfur). Subsequent to the issuance of the notice of intent, DER received a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the issuance of the permit. The petition alleged, inter alia, that the plant would emit particulates and gases in contravention of Chapter 17-2, F.A.C., and that stormwater run-off from the plant would be contaminated with oil, scum and debris. The petition further asserted that this run-off would cause water pollution in contravention of Chapters 17-3 and 17-25, F.A.C., and would introduce pollution into Dry Branch and Bayou George, a Class I Water. The permit application covers only the proposed batch plant site and the immediately adjacent property consisting of 2.15 acres. The location of the building would be at the northern end of the parcel, approximately 0.10 miles from both Star Avenue and U.S. Highway 231. There is no residential use of property immediately adjacent to the project site. However, Petitioners all reside in the immediate area, and will be affected to some extent by this facility. Dust from construction activity has already been experienced. In this regard, it must be recognized that the area has no zoning restrictions and is therefore subject to industrial uses such as that proposed here. The Applicant owns several acres of property surrounding the location of the proposed batch plant. The permit application at issue covers only the request to construct the facility on a 2.15 acre portion of the larger parcel. Anticipated environmental problems caused by activity not on the immediate parcel are not related to this permit application and thus are not germane to a determination whether the permit should be issued or denied. Further, the construction permit will only allow the applicant to build the proposed air pollution source. Before such a source can actually be operated, a separate operation permit application must be made, and testing for compliance with standards by the facility must be satisfactorily completed. Petitioners demonstrated that the individuals who own Triangle Construction Company, Inc. were previously employed by Gulf Asphalt Company, which was occasionally out of compliance with state air emission standards. Petitioners asserted that these individuals would likely fail to operate the proposed facility in compliance with DER standards. Although these individuals did have managerial responsibility at Gulf Asphalt, final decisions concerning financial expenditures for repairs and maintenance were made by the owner of the plant, rather than the Applicant's owners. It was also established that the Gulf Asphalt Plant continued to have emission problems after such individuals left as employees. Petitioners contend the Applicant's unrelated dredging activities in an adjacent borrow pit area caused turbidity in Dry Branch Creek, and characterized the Applicant as a habitual violator who could not be expected to comply with state pollution control regulations in the operation of the proposed facility. Testimony revealed that the Applicant constructed a culvert in Dry Branch, which flows through a borrow pit area and did some other incidental dredging in areas within the landward extent of waters of the state. However, when the Applicant became aware that activities in the proposed borrow pit area were potentially in violation of DER rules, it ceased activities and applied for the appropriate permits. An asphalt concrete batch plant is a relatively simple operation in which sand and aggregate are dried, then mixed with hot liquid asphalt and loaded directly into trucks. It is the drying process which emits the particulates which the cyclone and the baghouse are designed to control. Baghouse operations are similar to those of a vacuum cleaner. Particulate-laden air from the drying process is vented into the baghouse, where it is filtered through a number of cloth bags. The bags trap the particulates, and pass the filtered air through the bag cloth and out of the building. When enough air has been filtered to cause a build-up of trapped particulates, a portion of the baghouse is taken off cycle and reverse air is blown through the bags. The reverse air causes the trapped particulates to fall into a hopper where they are removed for disposal. The baghouse was designed to function efficiently in conjunction with a plant producing up to 120 tons per hour of asphalt concrete. Applicants's plant will produce only 80-85 tons of asphalt concrete per hour due to the limited size of the dryer. The estimated air to cloth ratio in the amended permit application is 6:1, which will result in emissions substantially lower than DER standards. Air to cloth ratio is not a specific standard or requirement, but is a figure which is used by engineers to determine projected emissions which may reasonably be anticipated from facilities which use an air pollution control mechanism. A projected air to cloth ratio of 6:1 for this baghouse may be reasonably expected to yield emissions of approximately 0.014 micrograms per dry cubic foot, which is approximately one-third of the DER standard of 0.04 mg. per dry cubic foot. The equipment to be installed is used and in need of minor repairs. The testimony established that necessary repairs will be accomplished prior to plant activation, and that operations will not be adversely affected when such repairs are complete.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a final order granting Triangle Construction Company an air construction permit. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynn C. Higby, Esquire BRYANT, HIGBY & WILLIAMS, P.A. Post Office Box 124 Panama City, Florida 32402 E. Gary Early, Esquire and Clare E. Gray, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Smoak, Esquire SALE, BROWN & SMOAK Post Office Box 1579 Panama City, Florida 32402 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating construction industry licensees. Such authority includes, but is not limited to, the discipline of air conditioning contractors in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent, Jose R. Gonzalez, was a certified air conditioning contractor, license number CA C035486. According to licensing records, Respondent does business as Rainbow Mechanical, Inc. Neither Nelson Rodriguez nor N.V. Air and Appliance Corporation is licensed in Florida as a state-certified or state- registered contractor. Neither has been approved by Miami-Dade County to perform contracting services. Neither Hector Salvador nor Electro Mundo Corporation is licensed in Florida as a state-certified or state-registered contractor. Neither has been approved by Miami-Dade County to perform contracting services. In September of 1995, an electrical surge caused extensive damage to a home located at 2342 Southwest 128th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. As a result of the surge, the air conditioning units and all electrical appliances were damaged. The condenser for the central air conditioning system had to be replaced. Michael Rodriguez, the son of the property's owner who resided at the home, sought assistance from the insurance carrier, Allstate. He notified Allstate of the damages and expected an adjuster would come to assess the repairs. Instead, one early morning in late September or early October 1995, Michael Rodriguez was awakened by Nelson Rodriguez who was removing the air conditioning condenser. When Michael Rodriguez questioned the activity (he had not heard back from Allstate), Nelson Rodriguez referred him to Hector Salvador. Mr. Salvador arrived at the property a short while later and advised Michael Rodriguez that he (doing business as Electro Mundo Corporation) had been retained by Allstate to do the work. Thereafter, Salvador and Nelson Rodriguez were given access to the property on numerous occasions to correct the electrical problems. Michael Rodriguez became suspicious of their work when nothing seemed to work better after repairs. He became so concerned as to the quality of the work that he began to make inquiries to building officials. Eventually, Michael Rodriguez discovered a permit had not been pulled for the work. Later he determined that Nelson Rodriguez and Salvador were not licensed. Meanwhile, Salvador contacted Respondent and asked him to pull a permit for the job. Respondent considered himself a subcontractor to Electro Mundo. At the time the Respondent applied for the permit for the air conditioning work at the homeowner's residence, Respondent knew that the work he described in the permit application (replacement of the condenser) had already been performed by an unlicensed contractor, without a permit. On or about August 21, 1996, Respondent completed a permit application for the subject home. Such application identified Rainbow Mechanical as the contractor and described the work as "replaced condenser." The permit did not address the other numerous electrical repairs needed. Respondent did not replace the condenser at the subject home. That work had been performed by Electro Mundo or Nelson Rodriguez. Respondent's involvement at the home consisted of pulling the permit, calling for an inspection, correction of a cable problem identified by the inspector, and calling for a re- inspection which passed. Respondent never talked personally to the property owner or the son. Respondent never had a written contract with anyone to perform the work. Respondent maintains that Electro Mundo reimbursed him for the permit fees but did not pay him for any service for the job. Electro Mundo was not approved or authorized by Allstate to make the electrical repairs to the subject home. Electro Mundo is not on Allstate's quality vendor list. The property owner never contracted with Electro Mundo to perform electrical services at the property but permitted access to the property based upon the direction of an individual named Maria Torres who represented Allstate had dispatched Salvador to the job. Although factually not similar to the violation alleged in this matter, Respondent was previously disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500, suspending Respondent's license for a period of sixty days, imposing a probationary period thereafter, and awarding costs of prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 22nd day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Josefina Perez-Cofino, Esquire 7860 Northwest 71 Street, Suite 302 Miami, Florida 33166
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Action Instant Concrete, LLC (AIC), should be allowed to use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit promulgated by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-210.300(4)(c)2.1
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Paul and Barbara Corbiey, live at 7380 Southwest 86th Lane, Ocala, Florida, in an area called Green Turf Acres. Petitioners' property shares a boundary with property owned by AIC at State Road 200. In 2003 AIC began construction of a relatively small cement silo and area for storage of rock aggregate and sand to mix with the cement, similar to facilities at a related operation some distance away. The other operation is within the jurisdiction of DEP's Central District, which did not require a permit for the operation. AIC's operation in Ocala is in DEP's Southwest District, which is headquartered in Tampa. Periodically (and irregularly but apparently usually early in the morning) AIC receives deliveries of cement to the silo at its facility next to the Corbieys. The silo is essentially a rectangular bin with a baghouse, essentially another rectangular structure attached to the silo and containing a combination of filters. Deliveries are made using an enclosed truck with a blower and flexible hose that can be positioned and attached to the fill spot on the silo. The transfer of cement from truck to silo is accomplished pneumatically, with the air exhausted through the baghouse, which is designed to capture and retain cement particles within the silo as the air passes through to the outside of the silo. If there are particulate emissions during the process, they typically would come from the baghouse. AIC also has aggregate and sand delivered to storage areas on either side of the silo. Each of the storage areas has walls made of 4-5 courses of cement block on three sides. The walls are there mainly to contain the aggregate and sand but also serve as a partial windbreak. During AIC's operations, trucks come to pick up cement, aggregate, and sand. To load cement onto the trucks, cement is gravity-fed from a hopper on the silo, through a flexible tube, and into the truck; aggregate and sand also are loaded into trucks using a front-end loader. Unconfined emissions can and, at least sometimes, do occur during the loading processes. After loading, the trucks are driven offsite, typically to a construction site, where the cement, aggregate, and sand are batched to form concrete. When AIC began operations, its yard was covered with grass and weeds, which helped suppress fugitive dust when trucks drove in and out. Later, the grass and weeds died, and AIC installed three sprinkler heads to keep the area watered to help suppress fugitive dust. When AIC began construction and operation, Petitioners complained to numerous authorities that AIC's construction and operation were illegal, inappropriate, and should not be allowed for various reasons, including alleged particulate emissions and fugitive dust that was harmful to the health and property of Petitioners and their neighbors.13 One complaint was lodged with DEP's Central District, which referred it to DEP's Southwest District. DEP's Southwest District investigated, determined that AIC should have obtained a permit, initiated compliance action, and required AIC to make use of the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit promulgated by DEP in Rule 62- 210.300(4)(c)2. DEP also fined AIC in the amount of $4,150, plus $100 to reimburse DEP for its costs, for constructing and operating without a permit.14 These amounts were paid. It does not appear from the evidence in the record that DEP ordered AIC to cease operations until DEP allowed AIC to use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit. It does not appear that AIC ceased operations. As DEP instructed, AIC had a VE test performed in accordance with EPA Method 9 for submission with a Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit Notification Form, fee, and proof of public notice. AIC retained Koogler & Associates for this purpose, and the test was performed on April 26, 2005. On April 29, 2005, AIC published notice in the Ocala Star-Banner that it intended to use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit. On May 5, 2005, Koogler & Associates prepared a VE Observations Report for AIC. On May 16, 2005, Petitioners filed a Petition opposing AIC's use of the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit and seeking its revocation. On May 19, 2005, AIC submitted a Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit Notification Form, fee, proof of public notice, and VE observation report to DEP. At the hearing, John B. Koogler, Ph.D., P.E., an expert in environmental science and air quality, and the principal of Koogler & Associates, testified as to the cement and concrete industry in general, EPA Method 9, required certifications for conducting a VE test under EPA Method 9, VE testing under EPA Method 9, and the VE Observations Report prepared for AIC by Koogler & Associates. In the case of AIC's operation, VE testing measures stack emissions during standard loading of cement under pressure. Typically, if there are emissions during the process, they will be seen at the baghouse on the silo--i.e., the dust collector at the exhaust point. This is where VE is measured during testing. AIC's stack emissions were tested at a loading rate of approximately 50 tons per hour; at that rate, 25 tons of cement were loaded into the silo in half an hour. According to AIC's VE Observations Report, there were no stack emissions during testing. Dr. Koogler did not perform the test himself and did not sign the Observations Report, but the test was performed and the report was prepared under his general supervision, and experts in his field routinely rely on VE testing performed by certified technicians under general supervision and on observations reports prepared by others under general supervision. According to Dr. Koogler, the test for AIC appeared to have been performed properly and met the requirements of EPA Method 9 and DEP's statutes and rules for use of the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit. Petitioners questioned the veracity of the VE Observations Report, primarily by speculating that the certified technician who performed the test may have fabricated the observations, either with or without his employer's knowledge. This speculation is rejected as unfounded. Petitioners also repeatedly questioned the consistent and reasonable testimony of all the experts that valid, authorized VE observations could not be performed using Petitioners' videotapes. Besides, the videotape in evidence did not show loading of the silo. As a result, Petitioners presented no evidence that VE in excess of five percent opacity occurred during cement loading of the silo. Petitioners also alleged that violations occurred during the loading of trucks at AIC's operation. Witnesses testified to seeing various amounts of dust from various distances occurring at various times, but their testimony was not specific. Parts of the videotape in evidence show some unconfined emissions occurring during the loading of at least some of the trucks. However, as indicated above, VE testing is not done for unconfined emissions; in addition, standardized opacity measurements could not have been made from a videotape. Finally, the videotape showed that AIC uses a chute, or partial enclosure, to mitigate emissions at the drop point to the truck, and the evidence was that AIC maintains its parking areas and yards and applies water when necessary to control emissions. Cf. Conclusions 22-23, infra. Dr. Koogler also opined that AIC and its operation may use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit under a proper interpretation of the statutes and rules, in particular Rule 62-296.414, which states that it not only applies to "emissions units producing concrete and concrete products by batching or mixing cement and other materials" but also applies to "facilities processing cement and other materials for the purposes of producing concrete." This opinion was consistent with DEP's interpretation of the statutes and rules. Petitioners also contended that AIC was ineligible for the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit because its facility already was in existence and was operating without a permit. However, expert witnesses for DEP and for AIC testified consistently and reasonably that DEP can require a facility operating without a permit to use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit in order to come into compliance. It is not necessary for the facility to dismantle its facility and rebuild after obtaining authorization to use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit under Rule 62-210.300(4)(a)2. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable for the facility to submit VE test results along with the facility's initial Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit Notification Form, fee, and proof of public notice. In the exercise of its discretion to enforce compliance, DEP allowed AIC to continue to operate before and during the pendency of this proceeding. Petitioners questioned the wisdom and propriety of this choice, but DEP's exercise of discretion in enforcing compliance is not at issue in this proceeding. See Conclusion 24, infra.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order approving AIC's use of the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit under Rule 62-210.300(4)(a)2. Jurisdiction is retained to consider a motion for costs and attorney fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, if filed within 30 days after issuance of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 31st day of March, 2006.
