The Issue The principal issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether certification should be issued to the City of Lakeland, Department of Electric Utilities (Lakeland or Lakeland Electric) to construct and operate the steam electric equipment needed to create a nominal 350-megawatt combined-cycle generating unit located at Lakeland’s McIntosh Power Plant site in Lakeland, Florida in accordance with the provisions of Section 403.502, et seq., Florida Statutes. The related issues concern whether the site for the McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project is consistent and in compliance with the applicable land use plans and zoning ordinances of the City of Lakeland, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Project Operations and Impacts Project Overview The City of Lakeland, Department of Electric Utilities is a municipal utility that supplies electric service to approximately 106,000 customers, which represents approximately 200,000 residents in its service area within Polk County. Lakeland’s electric utility commenced operation in 1891, making Lakeland one of only three Florida cities with electricity at that time. Lakeland currently operates power plants at two locations in the City of Lakeland with a combined generating capacity of 785 megawatts (MW). The McIntosh Power Plant site is the larger power plant site and contains six electrical generating units. McIntosh Unit 3 is a 365-megawatt, coal-fired electrical generating unit, which was originally certified under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act in 1978. In 1998, Lakeland obtained approvals to construct a new 250-megawatt, simple-cycle combustion turbine (CT) at the McIntosh site. These approvals consisted of a modification of the site certification for McIntosh Unit 3 and a separate Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit, both issued by FDEP. That modification of the site certification for the new Unit 5 CT was required because the new CT was to be located within the site certified for McIntosh Unit 3. Pursuant to FDEP rules, the approval for that new unit was required to be obtained under the PPSA’s modification rules. The new McIntosh Unit 5 CT is completing construction and will be placed into service in the near future. The original permits for the Unit 5 CT anticipated that the CT would later be converted to a combined cycle configuration. The City of Lakeland considered a number of generating options before selecting the Unit 5 project to meet the City’s required 15 percent reserve margin. Siemens Westinghouse submitted a proposal to the City that Lakeland be the host site for the first 501G simple-cycle combustion turbine. The City concluded that this proposal was the best alternative available to meet the City’s needs for additional electricity. The conversion of Unit 5 to combined cycle operation will expand Lakeland’s natural gas-fired generating capacity to 76 percent of Lakeland’s total electrical generating capacity. No energy conservation measures exist that would affect the need for the plant. The 250-megawatt CT in Unit 5 is one of the most efficient generating units currently operating. In the CT, compressed air is introduced into a combustion zone and fuel, typically natural gas, is combusted within the forward portion of the CT. The resulting hot gases expand in the turbine and turn an electrical generator. For Unit 5, this electrical generator produces approximately 250 MW of electricity. The hot exhaust gases then are exhausted out the existing stack. Under the proposed Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project, the combined cycle configuration for Unit 5 involves the construction of a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), which captures the exhaust gas from the CT and produces steam by extracting the heat from the flue gases. In the HRSG, the hot gases are used to convert water into steam in a closed system of piping. The steam is then used to turn a new steam turbine, which then turns an electrical generator. Other equipment required for the steam cycle project includes: a new, taller exhaust stack; a new cooling tower; and other plant equipment. The addition of the new HRSG steam turbine and electrical generator to McIntosh Unit 5 will produce an incremental 100 MW of electricity produced through the use of steam. The PPSA requires an increase of steam-generating capacity at the McIntosh site to undergo the full permitting proceedings of the PPSA. Therefore, Lakeland was required to submit its application for site certification to add the steam cycle to Unit 5. The McIntosh Unit 5 will be located on a 3-acre tract of land within the larger 530-acre McIntosh Power Plant site. The site is located in the eastern portion of the City of Lakeland, along the northern shore of Lake Parker. The McIntosh plant site is generally surrounded by undeveloped lands, including reclaimed and vacant phosphate lands used, in part, as a recreational and fishing area managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC). There are no residential or commercial properties adjacent to the project site. The nearest residence to the project site is over one mile away. The site for the McIntosh Unit 5 contains no significant environmental features. No wetlands are found within the site. The Unit 5 site is an open field, containing grasses and low-quality, weedy vegetation. Further, no archaeological, or historical resources were found on the site. No sensitive local, regional, state or federal parks, wilderness areas, forests, or areas of critical concern are located within 5 miles of the site. No threatened, endangered, or protected plant or animal species are known to be present at or near the project site. The combined cycle unit will be fired primarily with natural gas, with fuel oil as a backup fuel. Natural gas is supplied by a 10-mile long pipeline owned by the City of Lakeland, which connects to the Florida Gas Transmission gas pipeline system. No alterations to those pipelines are required for the project. Fuel oil for the unit will be delivered by truck and stored in an existing on-site fuel storage tank. The capture and utilization of waste heat from the CT exhaust in the new heat recovery steam generator will significantly increase the efficiency of the electrical generation process for Unit 5. Use of the waste heat will not require any increase in fuel use and will not result in any increase in air emissions from the power plant. When considered on the basis of electrical output, the amount of emissions per megawatt hour of electricity will actually decrease by approximately 30 percent. All of the air emissions from Unit 5 are associated with the operation of the combustion turbine; and the addition of the heat recovery steam generator does not result in any increase in those emissions. Water Use, Wastewaters and Other Impacts The addition of the HRSG requires the use of a cooling tower to remove the heat from the circulating steam. Once the steam exits the steam turbine, it passes through a condenser in which the heat from the steam is transferred to circulating cooling water. The steam is condensed back to water and then recycled into the HRSG in a closed loop system. The heated cooling water is then routed to the cooling tower where forced air evaporation removes the heat. Periodically, a portion of the cooling water in the cooling tower system is removed to prevent the buildup of solids and other constituents which could impair the performance of the cooling tower. Replacement of this "blowdown water" and of the water lost through evaporation will be achieved through the use of treated domestic waste water (reuse water) supplied from the City of Lakeland’s wastewater treatment plants, including a plant adjacent to the McIntosh plant site. The cooling tower will require approximately 3.24 million gallons per day (mgd) to replace water lost in the cooling process. FDEP adopted Rule 62-610, Florida Administrative Code, to encourage the beneficial use of reuse water from domestic wastewater systems as a means of water conservation. The rule sets out certain treatment and design criteria that must be met when reuse water is used, including water used in cooling towers. The Lakeland Unit 5 cooling tower meets these rule requirements because the cooling tower is located more than 300 feet from the nearest property boundary, and the reuse water receives secondary treatment by the City of Lakeland. In the event reuse water is not available because of supply or quality problems, groundwater from on-site wells will be used as a backup source of cooling water makeup until reuse water is available again. The needed quantity of groundwater, up to 3.24 mgd, has been approved by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) under the existing consumptive use permit issued by SWFWMD for the McIntosh plant site. That quantity of water has been shown to not have adverse effects on area users of groundwater. In addition to cooling water, the plant requires high quality service water to replace water lost in the operation of the HRSG and for other plant processes, including control of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions during oil firing. This water is obtained from groundwater wells and is treated in on-site water treatment facilities. Conversion of Unit 5 to combined cycle operation will reduce the use of groundwater by approximately 250,000 gallons per day during normal operations due to increased recycling of water within the unit. Wastewater from the plant is generated from the cooling tower, as a result of the periodic blowdown of the water in the cooling tower. This blowdown water is routed to an on-site collection sump and then routed to the City of Lakeland wastewater treatment system. Industrial-related wastewaters from plant operations, including wastewaters from plant water treatment, are also collected and routed to the City of Lakeland Wastewater Treatment system. There is no direct discharge of wastewater from McIntosh Unit 5 to adjacent surface waters. The project will not have any effect on area surface waters. There will be no increase in the need for potable water or domestic wastewater treatment. The addition of the new HRSG and related equipment for the steam-cycle project will not require an increase in permanent employment at the project site. The on-site stormwater management system is already sized to accommodate the addition of the steam-cycle equipment Minor amounts of solid and hazardous wastes will be generated by the project, mainly during construction. Any hazardous wastes will consist mainly of small amounts of spent solvent. Systems are already in place to dispose of these wastes in an approved manner. Electricity generated at the site is distributed from an on-site switchyard into the City of Lakeland transmission system. This system is interconnected to other Florida utilities. The addition of the Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project will not require any changes to the existing electrical transmission system. The McIntosh Unit 5 will be compatible with the other surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the project site. The project represents a logical expansion of the existing power plant site. It is well buffered from residential land uses. Noise from Plant construction and operation will not adversely impact nearby residents. Existing noise levels in the residential areas near the plant are low, even with the existing generating units at the McIntosh site in operation. Noise levels during construction and operation will comply with the applicable local noise ordinance, as well as the existing noise limitations in the McIntosh site certification conditions. Construction will generally occur during daylight hours, and construction equipment has to comply with noise limits set by the manufacturers. Addition of the new HRSG and other equipment will act to buffer noise from the existing CT. Operation of the plant will not be noticeable at the nearest residence, which is almost one mile away. Air Quality Analyses Required Polk County has not been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or FDEP as a nonattainment area for any federal or Florida ambient air quality standards. Federal and state Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program requirements applied to the simple cycle portion of McIntosh Unit 5. Because it was a major source of air pollution Because there were no significant net emission increases of any regulated air pollutants due to the conversion of McIntosh Unit 5 to combined-cycle operation, the PSD requirements did not apply to the addition of the steam cycle to Unit 5. Under the PPSA, air quality impacts associated with the new, taller stack and the new cooling tower associated with the combined-cycle operation of Unit 5 were required to be evaluated. However, no changes to the PSD permit itself were necessary to address the addition of the steam cycle to Unit 5, although some updated information reflecting the increased stack height and the addition of the cooling tower was provided to FDEP. Emission Impacts Under FDEP’s rules, air emissions from McIntosh Unit 5 must not cause or contribute to a violation of federal and state ambient air quality standards or PSD increments. Polk County is classified as a Class II area for PSD purposes. The nearest Class I area to the McIntosh Power Plant is the Chassahowitska National Wilderness Area, located approximately 90 kilometers (60 miles) from the Plant. The ambient air quality analysis demonstrated that McIntosh Unit 5's emissions, including operations in combined- cycle mode with the taller stack and cooling tower, will not have a significant impact on air quality near the McIntosh Plant or in the Chassahowitska Class I area. The maximum predicted impacts from Unit 5 in combined-cycle mode are below the EPA and FDEP significant impact levels. Unit 5's emissions will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any state or federal ambient air quality standards. The 250-foot stack height for McIntosh Unit 5 in combined-cycle mode represents "good engineering practice" (GEP), calculated in accordance with FDEP and EPA rules. McIntosh Unit 5's air emissions are not expected to cause any adverse impacts on vegetation, soils, or visibility in the McIntosh Power Plant site vicinity or in the Chassahowitska National Wilderness Area, the nearest PSD Class I area. Air emission impacts of McIntosh Unit 5 on water bodies in the vicinity of the McIntosh Power Plant will be insignificant. No adverse air emission impacts are expected to result off-site during the construction of the steam cycle portion of Unit 5, and appropriate control methods will be used to minimize emissions during construction activities. The cooling tower plume could cause temporary and localized ground-level fog on occasion. The majority of these relatively rare instances will be of short duration and occur when fog is already naturally occurring. BACT and Emission Rates A Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis, required under the PSD program, is intended to ensure that the air emissions control systems selected for a new project reflect the latest in control technologies used in a particular industry based on a cost-benefit approach, taking into account technical, economic, energy, and environmental considerations. A BACT determination was made for emissions from Unit 5, including operation of the unit in combined-cycle mode, as part of the PSD permit previously issued for the simple-cycle operation on the Unit 5 CT. High efficiency drift eliminators are being installed on the McIntosh Unit 5 cooling tower to minimize particulate matter emissions from solids contained in the water released from the cooling tower. While the NOx emission limits in the PSD permit will not change due to the addition of the steam cycle portion of Unit 5, the projected emission rate in terms of pound-per-megawatt- hour (lb/mwhr) are actually lower when in combined-cycle mode because of the increase in electricity generated with no additional emissions being created. Compliance McIntosh Unit 5 in the combined-cycle mode will comply with all applicable federal and state air quality standards, including the conditions contained in the PSD Permit for Unit 5 and in FDEP is proposed conditions of certification. Consistency with Local Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinances The Lakeland McIntosh Unit 5 project site, as well as the entire McIntosh Plant Site, is located in a future land use map designation of "Industrial" on the City of Lakeland’s Future Land Use Map. That map is part of the locally-adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lakeland. Electrical power plants are a permitted use in that Industrial land use category. McIntosh Unit 5 meets the locational criteria in the future land use element, in that it is well buffered and served by adequate, available public facilities. The McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle project site is zoned I-3, or Heavy Industrial under the City of Lakeland’s zoning regulations. That zoning district allows electrical power plants, subject to further review under the City’s zoning requirements. This additional zoning review consists of a conditional use permit, which is intended to provide an additional layer of review for these types of facilities. On September 7, 1999, the City of Lakeland City Council issued a conditional use permit for the entire McIntosh plant site, which includes the site for McIntosh Unit 5. McIntosh Unit 5, when converted to combined-cycle operation, will be consistent and in compliance with the City of Lakeland’s land use plans and zoning designations for the project. Further, the project will be consistent with the conditional use permit issued for the project site. McIntosh Unit 5 will also be consistent with the other provisions of the City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan. The project meets the local Plan’s concurrency requirements, promotes the use of treated wastewater for cooling of power plants, and meets the provisions for protection of local air quality. Agency Positions and Stipulations The FDEP, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Transportation and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission each prepared written reports on the project, and all recommended approval of the City of Lakeland McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project. (Amended FDEP Exhibit 3). FDEP has proposed Conditions of Certification for the project, which Lakeland agrees to accept and comply with in plant construction and operation. The Department of Community Affairs determined that the project, if certified, would be consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Central Florida Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) did not submit a report to FDEP as part of its review of the project. However, CFRPC entered into a prehearing stipulation with the City of Lakeland in which it stated that the project would be consistent with the CFRPC’s Strategic Regional Policy Plan. DCA entered a similar stipulation indicating its agreement that the project was consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. The Department of Transportation entered into a prehearing stipulations indicating it did not object to certification of the project. No state, regional, or local agency has recommended denial of certification of the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The City of Lakeland, Department of Electric Utilities be granted certification, pursuant to Chapter 403, Part II, Florida Statutes, for the location and operation of the McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project, representing an expansion of the electrical generating capacity of the existing McIntosh Unit 5, as proposed in the Site Certification Application and the evidence presented at hearing, and subject to the Conditions of Certification contained in Amended FDEP Exhibit 3, and subject to the Conditions of Certification attached hereto; The Siting Board find that the site of the McIntosh Unit 5 Steam Cycle Project, as described in the Site Certification Application and the evidence presented at the hearing, is consistent and in compliance with the existing land use plans and zoning ordinances of the City of Lakeland as they apply to the site, pursuant to Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Carpanini, Esquire Polk County Attorney’s Office Drawer AT01 Post Office Box 9005 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Douglas S. Roberts, Esquire Hopping Green Sams & Smith Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Scott A. Goorland, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Sheauching Yu, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 James V. Antista, Esquire Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Robert V. Elias, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission Gerald Gunter Building 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Frank Anderson, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Thomas B. Tart, Esquire Orlando Utilities Commission 500 South Orange Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Andrew R. Reilly, Esquire East Lake Parker Residents Post Office Box 2039 Haines City, Florida 33845-2039 Norman White, Esquire Central Florida Regional Planning Council 555 East Church Street Bartow, Florida 33830 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On December 19, 1991, respondent, Department of Corrections (DOC), issued an invitation to bid (ITB) to various firms inviting them to submit price proposals for the installation of a new high temperature water boiler at Florida State Prison near Raiford, Florida. The ITB is more specifically identified as Project No. PG-05-RR or Bid No. 91-FSP-5440. The potential bidders were advised that their bids must be filed no later than 11:00 a.m. on January 10, 1992, and that the responses would be opened the same date. The number of vendors filing responses to Bid No. 91-FSP-5440 is not of record. However, timely responses were filed by petitioner, Great Atlantic Boiler Services, Inc. (Great Atlantic or petitioner), a firm located at 1721 Egner Street, Jacksonville, Florida, and Keller and Associates, Inc. (Keller), a firm located at 2810 Security Lane, Lakeland, Florida. The record indicates that Keller's total bid of $191,960 was $7,440 less than the bid submitted by petitioner ($199,400), and accordingly DOC announced its intention of awarding the contract to Keller, the lowest responsive bidder. Claiming that Keller was not qualified to perform the work required under the contract, petitioner filed its written protest on January 13, 1992. In 1959, the Florida State Prison purchased and installed two high temperature water boilers. However, boiler number one has been out of service for the last seventeen years and the second unit, although in operating condition, is in need of repairs. For this reason, DOC intends to replace the inoperable unit and to have needed repair work performed on the second unit. Pursuant to Rule 4A-51.010, Florida Administrative Code, various technical codes have been adopted by the Department of Insurance and govern the design, fabrication, installation and repair of new and existing boilers and pressure vessels. As to new boilers and associated pressure piping, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) has promulgated the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the ASME Power Piping Code. As to repair work on existing units, The National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors (NBBPVI) has promulgated the Inspection Code - 1987 edition, as amended. In addition, both technical bodies issue certificates of authorization in the form of stamps which authorize the holder to perform designated types of functions. More specifically, the ASME issues an ~"S" stamp and a "PP" stamp which pertain to certifications required for the boiler and external piping portions of the boiler system. The NBBPVI issues an "R" stamp which authorizes the holder to make repairs to existing units. The parties agree that petitioner holds the S and PP stamps while Keller holds only an R stamp. Pursuant to the above two ASME codes, boilers are separated into three components. First, there is the boiler unit (steam drum) and the flange or stub welded to the drum, which generally sit on a concrete pad. Second, there is the external piping which runs from the flange (a part of the boiler unit) to the first valve closest to the boiler proper. It should be noted here that it is possible to attach the boiler directly to the first valve, which would eliminate the need for any boiler external piping. Finally, there is nonboiler external piping which runs from the valve and beyond and generally constitutes the piping for the distribution system. Jurisdiction under the two ASME codes is either of an administrative or technical nature. Administrative jurisdiction includes, among other things, stamping while technical jurisdiction covers design considerations, material specifications, dimensional requirements and the like. However, stamps are specific elements only of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Since the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code has administrative jurisdiction over the boiler unit and external piping, S and PP certifications are required for those two components. Such certifications indicate that the boiler and boiler external piping were constructed and manufactured in compliance with the code. The nonboiler external piping is subject to the administrative and technical jurisdiction of the ASME Power Piping Code and thus no stamping is required for that component. In lieu of obtaining stamps, a contractor may purchase prefabricated parts of the boiler system that already have the necessary S and PP stamps affixed thereto by the manufacturer. Indeed, section 104.1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code provides that the manufacturer shall have the duty of compiling proper code certification covering all parts of a field-assembled boiler and to prepare appropriate report forms of such certification. Further, section 109.1 of the same code provides that the boiler external piping may be fabricated by a manufacturer provided the manufacturer has been issued the S and PP stamps. If the parts are purchased in that manner, any contractor, including Keller, may install the new, already-stamped and certified, prefabricated parts without possessing the S and PP stamps. Section B-2 of the specifications provides that the low bidder must be "authorized to perform the work required by these documents in accordance with the applicable provisions of Florida Statutes governing contractors, as a contractor; and possess an "R" stamp from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) to work on high temperature hot water piping systems." In drafting the above provision, it was DOC's intention that a prefabricated unit and associated boiler external piping with all necessary stamps could be purchased by the successful bidder and thus the contractor would not need the S and PP stamps. In this case, Keller intends to install a boiler proper and external piping, if necessary, with the appropriate stamps from the manufacturer. Therefore, Keller was a responsive bidder under the ITB. Finally, the R stamp was placed in the specifications only because DOC wanted to hire a contractor who could do repairs on the second boiler unit, if necessary, while the contractor was already on the site. As a holder of an R stamp, Keller is qualified to do the repair work. Although petitioner correctly interpreted the specifications to mean that all ASME codes must be satisfied, it erroneously concluded that the successful bidder must possess S and PP stamps in order to perform work under the contract. As noted earlier, the use of certified (stamped) parts negates the requirement that the successful contractor possess these stamps. Petitioner also contended that the specifications were in error because the ITB required the R stamp as a part of the vendor's qualifications. Again, as noted above, the R stamp was not included in the ITB to qualify the successful vendor but was intended only as a requirement in the event repair work on the second unit would be performed by the same vendor. Thus, even if the R stamp was not included in the ITB, Keller would still be qualified to work on the project. In any event, petitioner did not timely challenge or question any of the specifications as required by Subsection 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and thus it waived its right to challenge them. Although not raised in the pleadings, petitioner also asserted at hearing that the manufacturer or supplier of the boiler external piping is in actuality a subcontractor, and (a) Keller erred by not identifying the manufacturer as a subcontractor in its bid response, and (b) Keller is now precluded from changing its response to reflect the manufacturer as its subcontractor. However, aside from the fact that it is possible to install the system without external piping, the more persuasive and logical evidence supports a finding that a manufacturer is not a subcontractor within the meaning of the specifications, and a bidder has no obligation to identify it as such.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by respondent awarding the contract on Project No. PG-05-RR to Keller and Associates, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1992. APPENDIX Respondent: 1-2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 5-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. 12-13. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 14-17. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 18-28. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 29-31. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 32. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 33-35. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 36-38. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 39-40. Rejected as being unnecessary. 41. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 42-55. Rejected as being unnecessary. 56-68. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. 69. Rejected as being unnecessary. 70. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 71. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. 72. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 73. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 74. Rejected as being unnecessary. 75. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 76. Rejected as being unnecessary. 77. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 78. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. 79-80. Rejected as being unnecessary. 81-85. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. 86. Rejected as being unnecessary. 87. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, redundant, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William Stewart, Manager Great Atlantic Boiler Services, Inc. 1721 Egner Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Steven S. Ferst, Esquire 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Harry K. Singletary, Jr., Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
The Issue The issue presented is the amount of money Petitioner owes Respondent as a result of unmetered electrical consumption.
Findings Of Fact On September 21, 1989, Debra K. Zaleuke, a current diversion investigator for Respondent, received an anonymous telephone call advising that Petitioner had been bragging about his illegal underground tap located somewhere on Petitioner's 10-acre property. She went to that property located at 2943 "B" Road, Loxahatchee, Florida. When she arrived at the trailer located at that address, she could hear that the air conditioning unit was operating. She shut off the main breaker, but the air conditioning system continued to run. She returned to the property on September 22, 1989. Petitioner was there on that occasion. When he saw her, he ran inside his trailer and shut off the air conditioning. She asked him to turn the air conditioning system back on, and he advised her that it had just "burned up." Zaleuke pulled the electric meter and used a Wiggins tester, which showed amperage still being pulled through the meter can. She summoned a crew with a Dimatel underground fault locator, and they started digging. Petitioner told them that they "would not be able to find it." They continued digging and eventually found the underground location of the illegal tap. The tap went directly to an above ground breaker system so the tap could be turned off and on at will. Petitioner's electrical service was discontinued that day. The illegal underground tap was taken to Florida Power & Light Company's evidence room. The meter which was removed from Petitioner's property was subsequently tested and found to be operating properly. Petitioner has been the customer of record since 1981. In August, 1987, the house located on the property burned, along with Petitioner's electric meter. In August of 1987, Florida Power & Light Company set a new meter at Petitioner's property. Even after Petitioner's home burned down, Petitioner continued to consume electricity at that address. He testified that he used electrical tools and ran water pumps for irrigation purposes even while tearing down the burned structure that had once been his residence. The property also has on it a structure where Petitioner houses his helicopter. Eventually, a trailer was moved onto the property, in which trailer Petitioner resided at the time that Florida Power & Light discontinued electrical service to him. Since a new meter was installed in August of 1987, and since Petitioner's electric bill during the month of September, 1987, dropped to "0" even though Petitioner was using, by his own admission, electrical equipment at the time, Zaleuke chose the month of September, 1987, as the starting date for recomputing the backbilling to be rendered to Petitioner for his unauthorized and unmetered electrical consumption. Using the seasonal average method approved by the Florida Public Service Commission, she estimated the energy consumed through the illegal underground tap. She also computed the amount of expense Florida Power & Light Company had incurred in locating and terminating the illegal condition. Florida Power & Light Company rendered to Petitioner its backbilling in the amount of $3,856.28 representing the unauthorized, unmetered consumption of electricity from September, 1987, to September, 1989, together with its investigative costs. Petitioner has continued to refuse to pay the bill rendered to him, and his electrical service at that address remains disconnected. Zaleuke's calculations for both unmetered electrical consumption and investigative costs are reasonable, and the billing rendered to Petitioner is reasonable. Florida Power & Light Company has notified Petitioner of the conditions required for the restoration of service to his property. Those conditions are as follows: (1), Petitioner will provide a meter can on a pole anywhere on his property outside of a three-foot diameter from the existing yard pole; (2), Florida Power & Light Company will provide an overhead service drop to the meter can at no charge; and (3), Petitioner will pay whatever the Public Service Commission deems Petitioner's final bill to be. These conditions are reasonable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner owes Florida Power & Light Company the backbilled amount of $3,856.28. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 6-10, and 12-15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 5 and 11 have been rejected as being unnecessary. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 16-19 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting statements of Petitioner's position which position is not supported by the weight of any credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Tribble, Director of Records and Recording Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 David Swafford, Executive Director Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street, Room 116 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-085 Rob Vandiver, General Counsel Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street, Room 212 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 K. Crandal McDougall, Esquire Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 029100 Miami, Florida 33102-9100 Martha Carter Brown, Esquire Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Larry Timm P.O. Box 494 Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 Larry Timm 2943 "B" Road Loxahatchee, Florida 33470
The Issue Did the Respondent violate the provisions of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed professional engineer. The Respondent holds license number PE 10214. The Respondent signed and sealed on or about November 15, 2001, a set of plans for the water fire sprinkler system for the new student gymnasium at Gulf Coast Community College consisting of three pages, and a set of calculations consisting of 14 pages for said sprinkler system. All discussions herein of sprinkler systems and the statutes related to such systems is limited to water-based systems. The calculations are intended to show that the performance of the sprinklers is sufficient in the area defined by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards as the hydraulically most demanding. The hydraulically most demanding area is the 1500 square feet fartherest away and highest from the "fire riser" or the source of water to feed to the system. The area defined as the hydraulically most demanding was identified on the plans as being in the southwest corner of the building, taking the top of the plan as pointing due north, or that portion of the building on the bottom, left corner of the building consisting of the women's showers and women's toilets. The calculations were generated by a computer based upon data provided on the size, height, length, and diameter of the pipes servicing the system and the number of sprinkler heads required in the hydraulically most demanding area. These calculations assume all the sprinkler heads in the hydraulically most demanding area will be activated, but no other sprinkler heads in the system will be activated. The calculations, Joint Exhibit 1, contained an error regarding the nodes and their length. See page 3 of Joint Exhibit 1, Nodes 20 and 25 at the bottom of the page. The best demonstrative evidence of the nature of the error is contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 in the diagram marked Piping Isometric. In sum, there should have been another node in the calculation of 61 feet. Testimony was received regarding the plans, their modification and actual construction of the system. The best presentation of the ultimate construction is represented in Respondent's Exhibit 1, which clearly shows two service pipes into the women's shower area. According to the uncontroverted testimony of the contractor, the intent was always to have two pipes servicing this area, one suspended under the other on the same set of supports, each pipe servicing the same number of heads in the area of the women's shower room. This was not adequately shown in the original drawings, and a second drawing clearly showing the two pipes was prepared to satisfy the general contractor. The calculations for the second pipe would be essentially the same as the first pipe because they are the same length and both have the same "load." There was testimony regarding new calculations supporting the plans, R-1, these calculations were introduced as R-2. They also show the pressure was adequate. The plans were approved by the State Fire Marshall's Office, by the Department of Education, and the Petitioner's expert witness opined that two pipes would supply sufficient water to service the area. Credible testimony was received that the quality and performance standards for valves, alarm checks, and switches were contained in the specifications provided to the bidders by the general contractor. These were not necessary in the Respondent's plan. Credible testimony was received that the entire project had one classification of hazard occupancy, as stated on the calculations, Joint Exhibit 1. No credible evidence was received that electrical or mechanical rooms have a different hazard occupancy and should have been treated any differently. The Board's witness testified that one of the design approaches is hydraulic calculation, See Tx 75-75. It is clear from the calculations, Joint Exhibit 1, that this was the method used. The installation of the backflow preventer was the responsibility of the general contractor and not part of the Respondent's responsibility. Further, pipes, valves, etc., were contained in the general contractor's specifications. Lastly, there is a four-inch check valve shown in the detail for the fire riser, which is a four-inch pipe and is the responsibility of the Respondent. The source of water is city water, which is treated. There would be no microbial corrosion concerns. The first page of the plans marked Petitioner's Exhibit 1, shows the fire riser as being located in the northwest corner of the building. The second and third pages show the fire riser as being located in the northeast corner of the building. Testimony was received concerning the modification of the plans to conform to the location of the fire main. Except for computation of the hydraulically most demanding area, location of the riser is not particularly important. The location of the fire riser was in fact, on the northeast corner, and this was the location used for calculation of the hydraulically most demanding area. The "as built" drawings, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, clearly show the riser in its proper location. To the extent that page one fails to reflect the same location as pages two and three, it is of no real significance. Under the contract for the sprinkler system, the general contractor was responsible for providing water to the fire riser and the sprinkler contractor was responsible for the system from that point. In sum, the plans incorporated those specifications given. Section 633.021(18), Florida Statutes, defines the "point of service" as the point at which the underground piping for a sprinkler system using water as the extinguishing agent becomes used exclusively for the sprinkler system. The statute provides that the point of service is designated by the engineer who sealed the plans for a system of more than 50 heads. The Respondent was not responsible for designing or presenting plans for the underground water service "mainward" of the fire riser. The riser by definition is not underground service. Therefore, the Respondent was not responsible for that portion of the total system at which the point of service would have been designated. No evidence was presented to establish that the definition of point of service creates a requirement for an engineer designing sprinkler design to control the system design to that point. No evidence was presented regarding the practices of the profession when this factual situation arises. No evidence was presented on the importance of the point of service in terms of a sprinkler system, and no testimony was offered regarding how an engineer would sign and seal plans that were beyond the scope of the work he was engaged to do. Special Findings Regarding the Various Sets of Plans As stated above, there were several sets of plans introduced at hearing. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 was identified as the set of plans signed and sealed by the Respondent; however, there was no evidence that these plans were used to build any portion of the project. In fact, the testimony was to the contrary, that these plans were expected to be modified and were modified prior to construction. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 was identified by Mr. Caldwell as a set of plans which he "red lined" as "as built" drawings after the construction was completed. He did not identify what iteration of the original plans he used; however, inspection and comparison show that they are virtually identical to the set, Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Mr. Caldwell qualified his additions to the plans to state that they reflected only what he could see without removal of tiles or materials. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was identified by Chris Thomas as being plans that were amended to address the concerns of Mr. Schmidt. These plans show two pipes where the original plans showed one pipe servicing the women's shower room. Because of the delay in prosecuting this case and the losses due to storms these plans are received and accepted as definitive because to do otherwise would raise due process issues the Petitioner having been aware of the alleged problems since before the plans were executed. No evidence was received regarding the customary practice in signing and sealing multiple versions of plans. There was no evidence presented regarding amended calculations in support of the drawings. In the absence of such testimony, it is concluded that only one set of calculations were prepared, and they were determined by the approving authorities to be sufficient. The Respondent admits that he did not date the calculations or the plans.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board dismiss the complaint against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Bruce A. Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Alvin L. Petters, Esquire Peters and Scoon 25 East 8th Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Doug Sunshine, Esquire V.P. for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Anne Shiell, is a licensed real estate salesman holding license No. 0044116. The Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, is an agency of the State of Florida, having jurisdiction over licensing and the regulation of licensure status of real estate salesmen. This dispute arose out of a business transaction involving the showing by the Respondent and others of a piece of residential real property to the complaining witnesses, William G. and Geraldine Fellows (son and mother). On March 6, 1979, the Respondent, Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were employed as real estate salesmen by Mannix, Inc. On that day Juanda Marsh, while attempting to find residential property listings, became aware of a home owned by Paul E. Phipps and his wife which was for sale. After talking to the owners of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Phipps, Ms. Marsh went back to the Mannix realty office where she spoke to the Respondent and advised the Respondent of the Phippses' home being for sale. Ms. Marsh then met the complaining witnesses, the Fellowses, and took them to meet Mr. Phipps at the home in question. This was late in the afternoon of March 6, 1979, and the electricity had been turned off in the home. Mr. Phipps was then in the process of wallpapering and painting the dwelling, which he used as rental property. After leaving the home that evening, the complainants decided to offer the Phippses $37,000 for the property. The complainants and Ms. Marsh prepared the contract, which was executed that evening by the complainants. The sellers executed the contract the following day, and the transaction was closed March 15, 1979. The complainants did not take possession of the premises until sometime in April of 1979. On March 6, 1979, when the complainants first viewed the premises, the Respondent, Marsh, Mark, as well as Phipps, the seller, were present. The complainant addressed the group of people generally, asking what kind of condition the roof was in. All concerned looked toward Mr. Phipps; he nodded his head, assenting that the roof was in good condition. There was a general agreement that the house appeared to be in good condition. Neither the Respondent nor Ms. Marsh nor Skip Mark had any additional knowledge regarding the condition of the house other than that which they saw that day in the presence of the complainants. All were seeing it for the first time. The Respondent did not give any assurance to the complainants that the roof was in good condition; she relied, as did all present, on the assurance given by Mr. Phipps at the time. Immediately prior to the drafting of the contract on that evening, the complainants were advised by the Respondent that if an "as is" clause were placed in the contract it might induce the seller to accept the lower offer which the complainants had in mind, and the complainants agreed. Accordingly, Ms. Marsh inserted in the contract the "as is" clause on the face of the contract, meaning that the purchasers, the Fellowses, would buy the property in the condition it was in at the time for the price they were offering and which, ultimately, the owner accepted. Prior to the closing of the transaction, the Fellowses called the Respondent by telephone to ascertain that all checks had been made pursuant to the Buyer Protection Plan and the Respondent advised that she thought everything was in good working condition, but she would attempt to inspect the premises to ascertain for sure if all equipment and appliances were working. The Respondent attempted to make an inspection of the premises a day or two before closing and there was no electricity or water turned on so that the various appliances could not be tested. She informed the complainants of this, but they said they could not afford to have the utilities turned on. The Respondent then called Mr. Phipps and explained the situation to him. She asked if he was in a position to tell the complainants what condition everything was in and he told her that so far as he knew the only thing in the house that might not function properly was the dishwasher. Mr. Phipps told the Respondent that the air conditioner functioned properly and indeed the vents were in the walls or ceiling and appeared to be in order. The Respondent looked in the oven door of the range in the kitchen and the oven element appeared to be in good condition, although it was impossible to test it because the utilities were not on. The Respondent removed the kitchen range elements and visually inspected them. Again, no electricity was available to test them after this fact had been disclosed to the complainants. Upon taking possession of the property in April, 1979, the complainants discovered certain defects consisting of: a leaky roof; duct work missing from the air conditioning system; the oven was inoperable; the range had several inoperative elements; the plumbing in the toilets leaked; the hot water heater was inoperable; and the disposal was not connected. Witness Ralph Porch inspected the air conditioning system and found that no duct work existed in the hall ceiling to connect the air conditioning system to the mechanical unit. He did not try to turn on the air conditioner. He did recall seeing the air supply grills and stated that the only way one could find out that there were no ducts in place was to climb up in the attic and look; that it was not a defect observable from the normal living areas of the house. The Respondent, in addition to inspecting the kitchen appliances, inspected but saw no evidence of a mineral deposit or other symptoms of leaks around the toilets. Mr. Phipps had represented that the hot water heater was not very old and so the Respondent had no reason to believe that the hot water heater was inoperable. She looked beneath the sink to examine the garbage disposal and did not notice any pipes or electrical wiring absent. The complainants maintained that the Respondent represented to them that the electricity had been turned on for one day and that all the appliances had been checked out and were in working order. The Hearing Officer finds this testimony not credible inasmuch as the Respondent testified that she had never made such a representation, but rather had visually inspected them to the best of her ability with no electricity available to actually test the functioning of the appliances, which testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Bernice Shackleford from the Orlando Utilities Commission, who established that the electricity was turned off March 5, 1979, the day before the property was first shown to the Fellowses and to the Respondent. Ms. Shackleford also testified that the utilities were inactive continuously until April 20, 1979, long after the closing and long after the alleged inspection of the appliances took place. The undersigned thus finds that the Respondent never represented to the Fellowses that the electricity had been turned on for a day, nor that she had thus tested the appliances and found them all in working order. The Respondent did not make any statement to the effect that the roof did or did not leak. A reasonable inspection of the residence would not disclose that the air conditioning vents or air supply grills were not connected by ducts to the mechanical portion of the air conditioning system. Subsequent to their taking possession of the house and initially complaining to the Respondent and Mannix, Inc., concerning the defects in the dwelling, the complainants filed a civil action regarding their complaints. The complainants sued the Phippses, who were the sellers; Juanda Marsh; Mannix, Inc.; the Respondent; and Electronic Realty Associates, Inc. Although the complainants denied settlement of the case, in their testimony in the instant proceeding, the civil litigation was in fact dismissed by their attorney (see Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Respondent's Exhibit A). In that civil action, only Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were alleged to have made false representations to the complainants. In summary, the Respondent was not shown to have had any knowledge regarding the condition of the premises which she failed to reveal to the complainants and sometime after the controversy arose, the Respondent offered, on behalf of Mannix, Inc., to purchase the property back from the complainants for what they had paid for it, but this offer was rejected.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Mary Anne Shiell be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Doherty, Esquire 3220 Chelsea Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Charles N. Prather, Esquire 17 South Lake Avenue, Suite 103 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Are Petitioner’s outside water supply connections in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, should Petitioner be assessed an administrative fine for such violation?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner is permitted by the Department in accordance with Chapter 513, Florida Statutes, to operate the Peace River Campground, (Campground) which is a Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park (182 spaces) and a Mobile Home (MH) Park (15 spaces), annual permit number 14-010-97. The Campground’s water is supplied by a community public water utility company. Each RV and MH space has an outside water tap as required by Chapter 10D-26, Florida Administrative Code. Many of the outside water taps do not have a backflow or back-siphonage prevention device installed on them. On February 6, 1997, the Department conducted a routine inspection of the campground and determined that the campground was in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the required backflow or back-siphonage prevention. The citation required Petitioner to install backflow or back-siphonage prevention by February 28, 1997, the next scheduled inspection date. On February 28, 1997, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the Campground’s water system and determined that the alleged violation had not been corrected. Petitioner disagreed with the Department’s determination that the Campground’s water system was not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water system designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. On February 28, 1997, the Department issued a citation of violation (citation) to Petitioner alleging a violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water supply connection designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. The Campground’s water connections at each RV and MH site have water taps which are above ground and have standard water shut-off valves. The Campground’s water system has good water pressure of approximate 70-100 pounds pressure per square inch (psi). The Campground’s outside water taps are neither constructed nor designed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage in the event the water pressure drops to a point which would allow backflow or back-siphonage, such as if the water main feeding the Campground’s water system broke. If the water pressure in the Campground’s water system should drop allowing backflow or back-siphonage, hazardous material could possible be injected in the water system. Although there has never been a recorded incident of backflow or back-siphonage into the Campground’s water system, without the some type of backflow or back-siphonage preventer being installed there remains a potential for this to happen. The Campground’s outside water connections would not prevent backflow or back-siphonage under certain conditions and are not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. There are six basic types of devices that are recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency and the engineering profession which prevent backflow and back-siphonage. These devices are: (a) air gaps; (b) barometric loops; (c) vacuum breakers--both atmospheric and pressure type; (d) double check with intermediate atmospheric vent; (e) double check valve assembler; and (f) reduced pressure principle devices. The Department does not mandate which device the Petitioner must install, only that a proper device be installed which will prevent backflow or back-siphonage. A hose bib vacuum breaker such as Department’s Exhibit 3 provide the minimum protection against backflow or back-siphonage and is considered acceptable for compliance with Rule 10D- 26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $150.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Martin Scott, Esquire Department of Health Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 George Lempenau, pro se Peace River Campground 2998 Northwest Highway 70 Arcadia, Florida 34266 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact On or about December 28, 1987 Hy Kom filed with the Department an application for a permit to construct a .0126 MGD Advanced Waste Water Treatment Plant on Emerson Point, Snead Island in Manatee County. The proposed waste water treatment plant would discharge effluent into the waters of Terra Ceia Bay in Manatee County. The proposed waste water treatment plant would discharge effluent into the waters of Tampa Bay in Manatee County. The proposed waste water treatment plant would discharge effluent into the waters of Manatee River in Manatee County. The waters of Terra Ceia Bay have been designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) by the Department. On or about April 27, 1989 the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial concerning Hy Kom's permit application. The parties stipulate the Intervenor, Manasota-88, has standing to intervene as a party Respondent and to object to the issuance of the permit. Petitioner's evidence can best be summarized by what was not submitted. First, the expert witness called to identify the application had not prepared any part of the application or verified any of the studies presented therein. Similarly Petitioner's expert on the proposed treatment plant did not testify that Petitioner was committed to using this plant, or that the construction of the plant and the operation of the plant would comply with statutory and rule requirements. The only witness called by Petitioner to testify to the effect the discharge from the proposed advanced waste water treatment plant would have on the receiving waters was also Respondent's expert; and this witness testified that the effluent discharge from this proposed plant would have an adverse effect on the receiving waters, would seriously degrade the receiving waters as a nursery habitat for both crustacea and fishes endemic to the area, and that no reasonable assurances that this would not happen were ever presented by the Petitioner. This witness further testified that no discharge into these receiving waters would be acceptable not only because of the nitrogen level (which was the most significant reason for denying the permit) but also because even a discharge of absolutely pure water would upset the salinity of the receiving waters at the critical time the receiving waters act as a marine nursery.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application of Hy Kom Development Company, for a permit to construct and operate an advanced waste water treatment facility at Emerson Point, Snead Island, Manatee County, Florida. DONE and ORDERED this _15th_ day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: JAMES W. STARNS ESQ 501 GOODLETTE RD SUITE D-100-24 NAPLES FL 33940 W DOUGLAS BEASON ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this _15th_ day of September, 1992. DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 THOMAS W REESE ESQ 123 EIGHTH ST N ST PETERSBURG FL 33701 DANIEL H THOMPSON ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 CAROL BROWNER SECRETARY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
