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 The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, a disappointed bidder, waived its right to pursue administrative remedies by failing timely to file a notice of intent to protest.
Findings Of Fact On November 26, 2002, Respondent Department of Transportation ("Department") issued a request for proposals on a contract for the development of a transportation facility, which was to be located adjacent to the Miami International Airport. On March 3, 2002, Petitioner MIC Development, LLC ("MIC") submitted the only proposal that the Department received in response to this solicitation. The next activity of relevance to this case occurred three years later, on May 20, 2005, when a selection committee decided to reject all proposals (as mentioned, there was just one) and discontinue the procurement. By two letters dated May 31, 2005, each of which was addressed to a principal of MIC and marked "certified mail," "return receipt requested," the Department notified MIC of its decision. It is undisputed that the Department did not post its decision on the internet. There is, however, a genuine and spirited dispute concerning the date on which MIC received the Department's decision-letters; as a result, the evidence is in conflict regarding whether MIC received the Department's notice of rejection on June 3, 2005, as the Department contends, or on June 10, 2005, as MIC maintains. It is not necessary to resolve this particular dispute because——for reasons that will soon become apparent——the contested fact is immaterial. On June 14, 2005, MIC filed a notice of intent to protest the Department's decision to reject its proposal. Nine days later, on June 23, MIC filed its formal written protest. The Department insists that MIC's initial protest- notice, having been filed more than 72 hours after MIC's receipt of the notice of rejection, was untimely, thereby constituting a waiver of the right to a hearing. The Department urges that this case be dismissed on that basis. MIC asserts that its notice was filed within 72 hours after receiving the Department's letters——which it claims were defective in any event and hence legally insufficient to trigger the 72-hour filing period——and that, even its protest-notice were untimely, equitable principles should be invoked to allow this case to go forward notwithstanding the filing delay.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department refer this matter to DOAH for a final hearing on the merits of MIC's protest of the rejection of its proposal. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 20th day of April, 2006.
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.
Findings Of Fact Selwin Coleman is the record holder of land located near Maytown Road three miles west of Oak Hill, Florida, at latitude 28o51'25" North, longitude 80o54'26" West in Sections F and G, Township 19 South, Range 34 East in Volusia County (the proposed site). He has authorized his son-in-law, Ron Biritz, to seek DOT site approval and a license for a private airport as the proposed site. Petitioners and intervenors own land in the general vicinity, and Robert L. Hart owns extensive mineral rights, including rights to any minerals underlying the proposed site. Other land owners, including Warren J. Brull, who owns part of the land over which the existing air strip runs, C.R. "Dick" Powell, and Vaughn L. Grasso, who owns a crop duster he stores in a building he characterizes as agricultural, also made Mr. Biritz their agent for purposes of the pending application. Known as "Blue Ridge Flightpark," a 4,000-foot grass air strip at the proposed site had been used by light planes for some time, until recently. The air strip has been significantly improved within the last two years; at one time watermelons were grown on the property. Originally, scrub hickory and gopher tortoise holes made its use as an air field impractical. When John Bronson Monteith, the aviation specialist for DOT's District Five, learned the grass strip at the proposed site was "operational," he contacted the owners and instructed them to close down operations until site approval was granted; and told them how to apply for site approval. As one result, they caused a large "X" to be placed on the strip, indicating the field was closed to operation. When Mr. Monteith visited the proposed site on November 21, 1991, he saw rust on a brake disc on Mr. Biritz's airplane, suggesting disuse. After DOT received the application, Mr. Monteith determined that it was complete and seemed to meet all rule and statutory criteria, so he prepared a notice to grant the application for Nancy Houston's signature. He caused copies of the notice of intent to be sent by certified mail to all airports and municipalities within 15 miles and to all landowners within 1,000 feet of the proposed site. The notice of intent was published in the News Journal, and a public hearing was held on July 18, 1991. There is some question regarding the true nature of several largish buildings along the air strip. Treated as "agricultural" for purposes of construction without building permits, the buildings look to some more like hangars than barns. But, as to the air strip itself, Volusia County zoning officials have recognized a nonconforming use antedating adoption of County zoning ordinances, a use which the ordinances allow to continue, as long as it does not entail construction of any new structures. Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 4 and 7. As experience has demonstrated, the proposed site is "feasible" and "adequate." Despite military air traffic in the general vicinity, the Federal Aviation Authority concluded that, if limited to private use, the "airport will not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft." Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Only a windsock and markings, including threshold markings, are needed to meet licensing requirements.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DOT grant site approval on the conditions stated in Order No. 91-34; and, after the requirements of Section 330.30(2), Florida Statutes (1991) have been satisfied, issue a private airport license to Ron Biritz. DONE and ENTERED this 28 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. own. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28 day of May, 1992. APPENDIX Both intervenors adopted petitioner's proposed findings of fact as their Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have been adopted in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3, the legal status was not clear. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 5, a preponderance of the evidence established that flights had stopped recently. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 6 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7 is properly a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Dan R. Warren, Esquire 315 Silver Beach Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32118 Bruce Best Post Office Box 2793 New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170 Cheryl M. Sanders Post Office Box 2793 New Smyrna Beach, FL 32170 James S. Morris, Esquire Storch, Hansen & Morris, P.A. 1620 South Clyde Morris Blvd., #300 Daytona Beach, FL 32219 Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are 1) whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection, Hillsborough County, as the permitting authority, should issue a final Title V Air Operation Permit to Respondent Southeast Oil Development Corporation, for its fiberglass lay-up and abrasive blasting facility in Thonotosassa, Florida; and 2) whether the conditions contained in the Draft Title V Air Operation Permit proposed for issuance to Southeast Oil are sufficient to ensure compliance with applicable provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, JAMES REINA, ANGELO M. REINA, NANCY C. REINA, HELEN REINA, and STEVE QUICK, are residents of Thonotosassa, in Hillsborough County, Florida, and reside within one-third mile of a fiberglass lay-up and abrasive blasting facility owned and operated by Respondent SOUTHEAST OIL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Petitioners’ residences are located to the southwest of the fiberglass facility. Respondent, SOUTHEAST OIL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SOUTHEAST), owns and operates a fiberglass lay-up and abrasive basting facility located at 11801 Elyssa Road, Thonotosassa, in Hillsborough County, Florida. Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY (EPC), is the local regulatory agency authorized to act as the permitting authority for Title V Air Operations permits. EPC is processing and acting on the subject’s air permit on behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, pursuant to operating agreements between the state and local agencies. The SOUTHEAST facility operation which is the subject of these proceedings consists of taking a steel tank shell and abrasive blasting around the filer ports openings. The tank is then covered with a layer of mesh, mylar, and styrene based fiberglass resin. The tank is rotated to aid in an even application. Prior to shipment, wood crates are cut to protect the tank in transit. The SOUTHEAST facility has been in continuous operation, manufacturing tanks at this location since 1985. During the manufacturing process, there is no open air venting while chemicals are mixed. Manufacturing is conducted in an enclosed and covered facility. Chemical containers are tightly capped when not in use. The SOUTHEAST facility currently manufactures approximately 150 tanks on an annual basis. The tanks are primarily used for gasoline storage. Styrene is the chemical that produces a fiberglass odor during the tank manufacturing process. Under the terms and conditions of its current and proposed permits, SOUTHEAST is limited in the amount of styrene allowed to be used in the manufacturing process. Approximately three years ago, SOUTHEAST changed its formula for the manufacturing process. The current formula includes a secret ingredient designated “Ingredient A” which contains significantly less styrene than SOUTHEAST’S prior formula. The use of “Ingredient A” has resulted in less styrene emission during the manufacturing process. The fiberglass odor emitted during the manufacturing process is sporadic and dependent on the wind and weather conditions. Petitioners do not detect the odor on a continual basis, and for several months at a time, there is no noticeable odor. The objectionable nature of the odor is dependent on the various sensitivities of the Petitioners. On at least two occasions within the last year, some of the Petitioners have complained to EPC of the odor; however, EPC’s investigators who responded to the complaints in a timely manner were unable to detect significant levels of fiberglass odor at Petitioners’ residences. The investigators did not consider the odors detected as objectionable. The fiberglass odor emitted during the manufacturing process is not offensive to all of the neighboring businesses and residences. The owner of the business closest in proximity to SOUTHEAST has not made a complaint regarding an objectionable odor emission and does not consider the odor objectionable. There is no evidence that the odor emitted during the manufacturing process presents a health problem to the residents of the area. The permit proposed by EPC contains conditions controlling the emission of objectionable odors and places limits on the amount of styrene which may be utilized by SOUTHEAST during the manufacturing process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order granting Southeast Oil’s Application for Title V Air Operation Permit for the fiberglass lay-up and abrasive blasting facility, with the conditions included in the December 13, 1996, Draft Permit with conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. Carr, Esquire 600 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard E. Fee, Esquire Ganther and Fee, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Barnett Plaza, Suite 1030 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sara M. Fotopulos, Esquire Vernon R. Wagner, Esquire Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission 1900 9th Avenue Tampa, Florida 33605 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James Reina, pro se 9947 Fowler Avenue Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 Angelo M. Reina, pro se Nancy C. Reina, pro se 9949 Fowler Avenue Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 Helen Reina, pro se 9951 Fowler Avenue Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 Steve Quick, pro se Betty Quick, pro se 9953 Fowler Avenue Thonotosassa, Florida 33592
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
Findings Of Fact On June 17, 1983, Respondent, Department of State, Bureau of Systems Management, issued Invitation to Bid No. DOS 80-82/83 to prospective bidders to provide 22,059 square feet of office space for use as offices for the Division of Licensing and Division of Corporations in Leon County, Florida. According to the general specifications and requirements, the space was to be located within one mile of the Capitol Building and available by August 1983, or within 30 days after execution of a valid lease. Sealed bids were to be received no later than 2:15 p.m. on July 27, 1983. At that time, all bids would be publicly opened. Petitioner, George E. Winchester, a partner in George and Lewis Winchester Construction Company, is the current lessor to Respondent of space used by the two divisions that will utilize the space requested in the bid. The monthly rental amount is $12,639.50. Although the lease expired on August 11, 1983, Respondent continues to lease the office space from Petitioner while this controversy remains pending. As is pertinent here, paragraph eleven of page seven of the Invitation to Bid contained the following miscellaneous requirements: Pest control. Soundproofing in specified areas (see floor plan Attachment H). Office must be prewired for telephone service (DMS-100 telephone system) 50-pair cable to support 20-button sets. Special climate control for selected areas where a concentration of heat-producing machines are located. All such equipment must be maintained at a maximum of 78 degrees. Capability for coaxial cable to be installed in all areas at lessor's expense. Capability for lessee to install additional coaxial cable at a later date. Office space must be able to receive dedicated electrical outlet for EDP and other specialized equipment. Offices to be prewired to provide for public announcement system in specified areas (Space 8,060 square feet). Offices to be located on one floor in reasonably close proximity (desired for Space 8,060 square feet). Window coverings to be provided on all windows. If office space has structural pillars or protrusions, lessee reserves the right to require decorative treatment of those struc- tures. Attached to the Invitation to Bid was a one-page document entitled "Attachment H" which provided a suggested configuration of offices and rooms. The "specific electrical, telephone and soundproofing requirements" within the office area were also reflected in Attachment H. Paragraph five of the General Conditions of the Invitation to Bid provides as follows: INTERPRETATIONS Any questions concerning conditions and specifica- tions shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening. Inquiries must reference the date of bid opening. No inter- pretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. Petitioner was in possession of The Invitation to Bid for several weeks prior to The bid deadline of July 27, 1983. However, because he considered the matter to he only a "small lease," and one which would not take a great deal of time to prepare, he waited until five or six days before July 27 to begin preparations for submitting a bid. In reviewing paragraph eleven on page seven of the general specifications and requirements, he concluded that items 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were too "vague" to prepare a bid. In an effort to clarify the alleged ambiguities, he sought assistance from Department personnel on Thursday, July He was advised to contact a Mr. Cushing, chief of the Department's Bureau of Management Systems. He did so by telephone on July 22 but did not receive satisfactory information. Finally, on the afternoon of July 26, he met with five or six employees of the Department of State to discuss the items in question. After the meeting, Winchester did not indicate he was still confused. Based upon Winchester's questions, the Department decided to issue a revised page seven. The revisions were not substantive in nature but were merely intended to provide further clarification and assistance to the bidders. As revised, paragraph eleven of page seven provided as follows: Pest control (once monthly--professional exterminator.) Soundproofing in specified area (see floor plan Attachment H). (Maximum soundproofing acoustical tile to be used in two rooms-- llx7 and 18x10--which will house computer equipment; other rooms specified for sound- proofing should have material to prevent voices from being heard through the walls.) Office must be prewired for telephone service (DMS-100 telephone system) 50-pair cable to support 20-button sets. Special climate control for selected areas where a concentration of heat-producing machines are located. All such equipment must be maintained at a maximum of 78 degrees. Capability for coaxial cable to be installed in all areas at lessor's expense. Capability for lessee to install additional coaxial cable at a later date. Breaker box or fuse box must be able to receive three 220 lines for EDP and other specialized equipment. Offices to be prewired to provide for public announcement system in specified areas (Space A 8,060 square feet only). (Muzak-type sys- tem with PA capability is acceptable.) Offices to be located on one floor in reasonably close proximity (desired for Space A 8,060 square feet). Window coverings to be provided on all windows (flame-retardant drapes or mini-blinds) If office space has structural pillars or protrusions, lessee reserves the right to require decorative treatment of those struc- tures. (The structural protrusions shall be made compatible with the wall areas in the rooms in which they are located.) All three prospective bidders were either advised by telephone or in person that afternoon that a revision was being issued. The Petitioner received his copy shortly after his meeting with the Department's representatives. After receiving the revision, Winchester called several subcontractors the next morning to obtain price quotations for the various items. Although he still maintained the bid was a guess" and he did not know if he could make any profit, he was nonetheless sufficiently informed to prepare specific prices for each item he had questioned. The bid package was filed prior to the deadline. Winchester did not use other professionals to interpret the specifications or to assist him in the preparation of his bid. He also did not avail himself of the provisions in paragraph five of the General Conditions which permitted him to make written inquiry to the Department concerning any alleged ambiguities. On the afternoon of July 27, 1983, the bids, numbering three, were opened by Respondent. 1/ Thereafter, on August 1, 1983, the Director of the Department's Division of Administration wrote Intervenor/Respondent, Hobco, Inc., a letter which reads in pertinent part as follows: In response to your bid to provide 22,089 square feet of office space to the Department of State, you are hereby notified that you are awarded the bid. The award prompted the instant proceeding. Although item 9 stated that offices were "to be located on one floor in reasonably close proximity," this was not a mandatory requirement. Rather, it was a preference on the part of the Department. This was confirmed by a letter from the Department to Crown Properties, another bidder, which had made a written inquiry to the Department on June 23, 1983, concerning that provision. Further, the specifications indicate that one floor was "desired," and that in the weighting process, the providing of one floor was not a dispositive attribute in determining the award. The evidence is conflicting as to whether certain items within the miscellaneous requirements in question are vague and ambiguous. However, it is found that the evidence is more persuasive that the specifications were sufficiently clear to allow a bidder to formulate a competitive bid to lease office space. A reading of the specifications themselves, including Attachment H, a visual inspection of the presently leased premises, and the use of other professionals for assistance would provide sufficient information relative to soundproofing, communications and electrical requirements to prepare a bid that would conform with specifications. Moreover, the General Conditions of the Invitation to Bid provided all prospective bidders with the opportunity to make written or oral inquiry concerning any "conditions and specifications" that they questioned.
Recommendation Based on The foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent award Invitation to Bid No. DOS 80-82/83 to Hobco, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Bayfront commenced construction of the biological waste incinerator here at issue prior to March 21, 1992, the effective date of the moratorium on construction of biological waste incinerators and was exempt from that moratorium. An inspection of the premises on April 9, 1992, (exhibit 5) showed substantial work had been accomplished and the inspector concluded, and DEP's legal counsel concurred, that in order to have achieved the construction progress shown on April 9, 1992, the work had to have been commenced prior to March 21, 1992. Further, a building permit to renovate the building into which the waste incinerator was placed was issued November 12, 1991, (exhibit 7) and a building permit to install a waste incinerator was issued March 4, 1992, (exhibit 6). No contradictory evidence was submitted by Petitioner. Respondent's witnesses testified without contradiction that Bayfront's application for an operation permit was complete in all respects, including certification by a professional engineer; that all test results showed the emissions into the atmosphere were within the prescribed standards; that certain conditions contained in the construction permit as a result of the settlement agreement resolving the challenge to the issuance of the construction permit are contained in the operation permit; that those conditions exceed the conditions required by the rules for incinerators; and that Bayfront affirmatively provided the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information that the operation of the incinerator will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of DEP's standards as contained in Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code. This testimony is accepted as factual. The draft permit authorizes Bayfront to burn a maximum of fifteen hundred pounds per hour of waste. Each time a test run is conducted to check the emissions, the pounds of waste burned per hour during the test establishes an upper limit on the rate of burning waste. As explained by James L. McDonald, the engineer processing air pollution applications for the Department at Transcript p. 50-51: The construction application asked for a permit at fifteen hundred pounds per hour. So the construction permit is -- the condition that we would want, the Department would normally want the test within ten percent of that fifteen hundred pounds an hour in order to go ahead and issue, if its in total compliance, to issue an operating permit at fifteen hundred pounds. Since the test came in at a reduced rate, below the ten percent, then that's why in the operating permit condition twenty-one says you're limited to the rate that we're, the test was conducted. [sic] Now, also, its interesting to note that in their test, if you look at their runs two and three -- because there are rules that say the Department could accept two runs out of three if a condition occurred that was out of their control -- if your average runs two and three, they would average within ten percent of fifteen hundred. So, as a permit processor, it even gave me some reasonable assurance that they could probably comply with the fifteen hundred. But, since the test of all three runs came in as an average of twelve fifty-one, then the operating permit included that twelve fiftyone. And like the real world out there, just like power plants, when it comes time for their annual testing, if they are at half speed, their business is down, it allows them to test at half speed. We won't require them to go up to full speed. They can test at half speed. But then they are limited there. And if they go above it at a later date they would have to retest. So they can work their way back up to where the Department has reasonable assurance that the upper limit of fifteen hundred pounds -- that's where later in condition twenty-one of the operating permit it says but in no case shall the maximum permit or burning rate of fifteen hundred pounds per hour be exceeded. Petitioner's second two grounds for challenging the issuance of the operation permit was answered by McDonald's testimony, above quoted, and this evidence was not rebutted by Petitioner. The primary thrust of the evidence presented by Petitioner was that Bayfront had somehow misled the City of St. Petersburg regarding the operation of the incinerator and had not complied with all of the City's requirements in other respects, ergo, Bayfront could not be relied on to comply with the conditions in the operation permit. This evidence is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not the operation of the incinerator complies with all of the Department rules. The conditions of the operating permit require Bayfront to submit periodic reports to the Department from which the Department can determine whether the conditions in the permit are being complied with. Furthermore, the Department requires the permittee to notify the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management at least fifteen days prior to the date on which each formal compliance test is to begin (Permit Condition No. 22) to allow them to witness the test, if desired. The construction permit, complying with the settlement agreement, required Bayfront to adhere to more frequent testing and more extensive testing then is required by the rules for operating biological waste incinerators. All of the tests and reports submitted by Bayfront on the operation of this incinerator met all of the requirements in the construction permit and the draft operation permit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Bayfront Medical Center be issued Permit No. AO52- 224337 to operate a biological waste incinerator at Fifth Avenue South and Eighth Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 16th day of November 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Adrian W. Helm, Esquire 925 14th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Daniel N. Burton, Esquire Thomas K. Maurer, Esquire Terri L. Gillis-Tucker, Esquire Foley and Lardner 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
