The Issue Whether Respondent is in violation of various provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated October 30, 1991.
Findings Of Fact BEI's composting facility is a potential source of water and air pollution and to operate the facility, BEI requires a permit issued by DER. The original permit issued to DER for this facility expired on June 1, 1991 and has not been renewed. Although its permit had expired, BEI was allowed to continue to operate while informal proceedings were ongoing between BEI and DER. When these informal proceedings were terminated by DER on May 20, 1992, further operation of this composting facility was in violation of Chapter 403.707(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-709.400(1), Florida Administrative Code. On at least two occasions while this composting facility was in operation, the air around the facility was polluted by foul odors. During the period following the expiration of BEI's license, BEI failed to submit monthly operating reports and did not conduct quarterly samplings and testing of the compost and submit the testing to DER as required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the DER enter a Final Order finding that BEI has violated Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, on each of five counts; and that BEI should immediately cease operation of its solid waste facility, volume reduction plant, until and unless it obtains an appropriate and valid permit from DER and in that regard, BEI shall: Immediately cease acceptance of all materials on the property. In the event that Respondent does not receive a permit from the Department to resume operations at the facility, within 90 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall remove all solid waste from the property to an approved solid waste management facility and provide the Department written documentation of its disposal within 30 days of removal. In the event that Respondent does receive a permit from the Department to resume operation at the facility, Respondent shall remain in strict compliance with all terms and conditions of such permit. Within 30 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall, if it has not already done so, provide the following to the Department: All records of testing and monitoring conducted on the compost material since January 1, 1990, including daily reports on the temperature and moisture content of compost material, and any testing of compost material conducted prior to distribution. All records documenting application rates of stillage, manure, and leachate to the compost withdrows since January 1, 1990. All records, documenting distribution of composted or mulch material, including amount of compost or mulch material delivered, date of delivery, specific destination of compost or mulch, and intended use of compost or mulch material delivered, since January 1, 1990. All records documenting amount of yard trash received at the facility since January 1, 1990. Within 30 days of execution of the Final Order, Respondent shall make payment to the Department for costs and expenses in the amount of $500.00. Payment shall be made by, cashier's check or money order to the "State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation". Payment, specifying Office of General Counsel Case No. 91-2006, shall be sent by certified mail to Administrator, Division of Waste Management, Department of Environmental Regulation, 3804 Coconut Palm Drive, Tampa, Florida 33619. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, 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 June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Howard C. Batt, Esquire 611 Druid Road East Suite 712 Clearwater, Florida 34616 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ken Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent, S.M.G., Inc. (SMG), has provided reasonable assurance that its existing air curtain incinerator will be operated in accordance with applicable statutory and rule provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency responsible for receiving applications for, and the issuance of, permits for the construction and operation of air curtain incinerators in the State of Florida. SMG is a contracting company, with residential, trucking, agricultural, and commercial driver's license divisions. SMG is the applicant for a permit to operate an air curtain incinerator. Petitioners reside in Citrus County, Florida, in the vicinity of the constructed and operational air curtain incinerator. For the most part, Petitioners reside northeast, east, or southeast of the site. The Petitioners demonstrated their standing in this proceeding. SMG's Construction Permit On May 23, 2001, SMG submitted an application for an air construction permit to the Department's Southwest District Office. The application sought authorization to construct an air curtain incinerator "[o]n the east or west side of 6844 N. Citrus Avenue, Crystal River," Citrus County, Florida. 1 The general purpose of pursuing this permit was to burn wood waste. On July 9, 2001, the Department issued SMG a Notice of Intent to Issue the Proposed Air Construction Permit (Permit No. 0170360-001-AC). A copy of the Notice of Intent was published in the Citrus Times in Citrus County on July 19, 2001. On August 6, 2001, the Department issued SMG an air construction permit for the proposed air curtain incinerator. The construction permit authorized the construction of a McPherson Systems, Inc. - Model M30E air curtain destructor (incinerator) with under fire air at a natural non-Title V facility. Pursuant to the terms of the construction permit, in November 2001, SMG constructed an air curtain incinerator on approximately 500 acres of land on the east side of State Route 495 north of Crystal River in Citrus County, Florida, on property owned by the Gerrits family. See Endnote 1. Pursuant to the construction permit, SMG installed a McPherson Systems, Inc. - Model M30E air curtain incinerator with under fire air, a refractory lined burning pit, three upper chamber refractory lined walls (ten feet high), and a stainless steel spark arrester screen. The manifold blower and under fire air fans are powered by an electric engine. The manufacture designs and specifications for the McPherson model were submitted with the application for the air construction permit and admitted in evidence. Construction of a portable air curtain incinerator with a blower/fan system powered by a diesel-fired engine was contemplated by the air construction permit. Although cheaper, SMG instead chose to install the McPherson model that would produce the cleanest burn, i.e., one with fewer emissions, that was operated by electricity. The McPherson model used by SMG is recognized as an efficient, reliable model of air curtain incinerator. The diesel-fired blower/fan/engine system contemplated by the construction permit is considered exempt from permitting. An engine operated by electricity has no emissions and therefore does not require an air permit from the Department. The Department could not require a permit for the blower/fan system alone. The operating permit supercedes the construction permit, except as amended. Testing after Construction of the Incinerator On November 23, 2001, SMG began operating the air curtain incinerator. Pursuant to Special Condition 22 of the air construction permit, an initial visible emissions (VE) (opacity test) compliance test was performed on November 23, 2001, by Bernard A. Ball, Jr., an environmental engineer with Southern Environmental Services, Inc. The results of the initial VE compliance test were within the opacity limits contained in the construction permit. Specific Condition 19 of the construction permit requires SMG to maintain daily operating logs of the air curtain incinerator's daily operations. In order to obtain an air operating permit, a permit applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the Department's rules and with the conditions of the construction permit. The Department requires an applicant for an operating permit to submit copies of recent daily operating records for the facility and copies of the emissions test required by the construction permit. These operating records are submitted in order for the Department to determine whether the applicant is complying with the applicable emissions standards and that the applicant is, in fact, maintaining the required operating logs as required by the construction permit. In order for SMG to obtain the operating permit for the incinerator, Specific Condition 28 of the construction permit required SMG to file an application for an air operating permit with the Department within 45 days of testing and required the application to include a copy of the VE test report and copies of at least two recent weeks of daily operating logs. On March 14, 2002, a second VE test was conducted by Mr. Ball, which also indicated that emissions were within the construction permit's opacity limits. On April 1, 2002, SMG submitted its application for the air operation permit to the Department. The application was signed by Sean Gerrits, and contained copies of the VE test reports for the November 2001 and March 2002 tests, as well as three and one-half months of daily operating logs, certificates showing that the incinerator operators were trained, and photographs of the incinerator in operation. SMG submitted the documentation required under the construction permit. On April 19, 2002, Robert E. Soich, Jr., air compliance inspector for the Department's Southwest District Office, performed an unannounced inspection and conducted a VE test in response to a complaint by Mr. Leonard Kaplan (a Petitioner), complaining of odors present. Excessive visible emissions were observed by Mr. Soich on April 19, 2002. The incinerator did not pass the VE test because of the improper alignment of the blade angle on the manifold of the blower system and because of green leaves and inadequate drying of the materials to be burned in the incinerator. Mr. Soich also observed, in part, that "materials need to be prepared better for burning." As a result of this unannounced inspection and the negative VE test, the Department requested SMG to provide an explanation of the VE test results and of the type of changes SMG planned to implement to correct the problem. On learning of the problem, SMG shut down the incinerator and called a McPherson mechanical contractor to come out and adjust the blade angle. Southern Environmental Services conducted another VE test to ensure the problem had been corrected. On April 22, 2002, a VE test was conducted by Southern Environmental Services on-site which showed compliance with the construction permit. On April 30, 2002, SMG advised the Department that adjustments were made to the baffles to correct the angles. SMG provided the Department with the April 22, 2002, VE test results. SMG also implemented better operational procedures. On May 30, 2002, with Mr. Soich present, SMG, by Byron E. Nelson, performed another VE test. The test results showed compliance with the opacity limits in the construction permit and the results were submitted to the Department.2 Mr. Nelson, an environmental engineer with Southern Environmental Sciences, testified that he has been involved in preparing approximately two dozen applications for air curtain incinerators and has conducted probably "thousands" of visible emissions tests. Mr. Nelson is certified by the State of Florida to conduct VE tests. He has seen "two or three dozen" air curtain incinerators in operation and has conducted VE tests on about 20 of them. Based on his experience, Mr. Nelson testified that SMG employed the same practices and controls to control odor, smoke, and fugitive emissions as other such incinerators he is familiar with. He testified that the amount of smoke and odors from the SMG incinerator is similar to that emitted from other air curtain incinerators, and that the fugitive emissions from the SMG incinerator were probably less than others he is familiar with. Based on his experience, Mr. Nelson opined that SMG has taken reasonable measures to minimize odor, smoke and dust/particulates from the operation of the incinerator. Mr. Nelson likewise opined that the SMG incinerator is well run, perhaps better run than other incinerators. (Mr. Nelson had been on the SMG site twice when the incinerator was operating and burning wood products.) Based on his experience, Mr. Nelson opined that SMG meets the requirements necessary to obtain an air operating permit from the Department and has demonstrated that it has complied with the conditions of its construction permit. Mr. Soich is the air compliance inspector for the Department's Southwest District Office. He testified that he has inspected the operations of other air curtain incinerators over the last 15 years. Mr. Soich testified that SMG is one of the "better operators" of air curtain incinerators he is familiar with. (Mr. Soich visited the SMG site approximately nine times from March 13, 2002, to October 15, 2002.) Mr. McDonald is the Air Permitting Engineer for the Southwest District Office of the Department. He is responsible for reviewing all applications for air curtain incinerators in the Southwest District and has reviewed applications for between 25 and 30 incinerators. Mr. McDonald reviewed the SMG permit applications. Based on the latest VE test results, copies of the records attached to the operating permit application, and his experience, Mr. McDonald, for the Department, determined that SMG had demonstrated compliance with the conditions of the construction permit and recommended issuance of the operating permit for the incinerator. He maintained the same position at hearing. SMG provided assurance that the DeRosa Fire Department would respond in the event of a fire at the incinerator. On June 19, 2002, the Department issued the proposed air operating permit. Operation of the Air Curtain Incinerator Emissions from the incinerator are controlled by a curtain of forced air at a very high static pressure over and around the burning pit. The air curtain traps smoke and small particles and recirculates them to enhance combustion and reduce smoke. The underfire air introduces air underneath the air curtain to ensure complete combustion and minimize opacity at start-up. The refractory-tiled ceramic concrete burn pit provides a safe combustion chamber, and the refractory panels keep excess heat from escaping. The upper chamber refractory panels, which surround three sides of the burn pit, allow more retention time in the burner to better control opacity and sparks. The stainless screen spark arrestor also controls sparks and debris from leaving the burner. The operating permit application proposed the use of an air curtain blower along with a manifold to provide forced air to the burning pit. According to the manufacturer specifications, the blower can force air into the pit at velocities of between 100 and 120 mph. This ensures that the flames in the burn pit receive enough oxygen to combust completely. The air circulates inside the burn pit to ensure a complete burn, which reduces smoke and odor. The combustion temperature for the burning pit ranges from approximately 1,800 to 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. The operating permit allows a maximum charging rate of ten tons per hour on a daily average basis and 31,200 tons per any consecutive 12 month period. The incinerator has been operating below the maximum charging rate. The operating permit limits the hours of operation (charging) to 3,120 hours per year, i.e., ten hours/day, six days/week, 52 weeks/year. According to various SMG operating and maintenance logs, the incinerator has been operated below this limit. The operating permit, in accordance with Rule 62- 296.401(7), Florida Administrative Code, allows the burning of only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber, and prohibits the burning/incineration of materials such as sawdust, paper, trash, tires, garbage, rubber material, plastics, liquid wastes, Bunker C residual oil, roofing materials, tar, asphalt, railroad cross ties, or other creosoted lumber, chemically treated or painted wood, and other similar materials. Biological waste shall not be burned in the incinerator. During its operation, the incinerator only burned wood and yard waste, and Mr. Gerrits testified that the waste materials are inspected before being burned in order to ensure that no prohibited materials are burned. If any non-authorized materials are observed, they are removed before the waste is burned. See Finding of Fact 24. The operating permit allows visible emissions during start-up periods (not to exceed the first 30 minutes of operation) of an opacity up to 35 percent, averaged over a six- minute period, as provided for in Rule 62-296.401(7)(a)-(b), Florida Administrative Code. The McPherson model is designed to meet the requirements of the above-referenced rule, and the VE tests run during start-up periods (except one performed by Mr. Soich on April 19, 2002) demonstrated compliance with this requirement. Id. The operating permit limits visible emissions outside of start-up periods (the first 30 minutes of daily operation) to no more that five percent opacity, with visible emissions of up to ten percent opacity allowed up to three minutes in any one hour as provided for in Rule 62-296.401(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60, Subpart CCCC, adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 62- 204.800(8)(b)74, Florida Administrative Code. (Rule 62- 296.401(7)(a) permits up to 20 percent opacity. The ten percent rate is required by the new federal standard. See SMG Exhibit 13, page 3 of 9.) The opacity limits in the operating permit are more stringent than those contained in the construction permit, which allows visible emissions of up to 20 percent opacity up to three minutes in any one-hour period. (By definition, a "visible emission" is "[a]n emission greater than 5 percent opacity or 1/4 Ringelmann measured by standard methods." Rule 62-296.200(278), Florida Administrative Code.) The VE test results submitted by SMG demonstrate compliance with the opacity limits in the operating permit and with the opacity limits in the construction permit for the days tested. See Findings of Fact 18, 22, 27, and 29. The operating permit requires that the incinerator must be attended at all times while materials are being burned and that public access to the incinerator must be restricted. A certified operator is in attendance whenever the incinerator is operated, i.e., when something is burning in the incinerator. A fence has been constructed around the property. The operating permit prohibits starting the incinerator before sunrise and requires that all charging of the incinerator be completely stopped before sunset as required by Rule 62- 296.401(7)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Gerrits testified that the incinerator is never started before sunrise and is typically started after 8:00 a.m. Mr. Gerrits testified that the incinerator is never charged after sunset and that charging typically stops at 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. See Endnote 4. These practices are consistent with the Operations and Maintenance Guide for the incinerator. The operating permit limits the height of the ash in the burning pit to one-third of the depth of the pit or to a point where the ash begins to impede combustion, whichever occurs first as provided in Rule 62-296.401(7)(m), Florida Administrative Code. The one-third depth line is marked on the outside of the incinerator. Mr. Gerrits testified that ash is regularly removed from the burning pit every third day to keep the ash level low, which helps ensure better combustion and reduces smoke. The operating permit provides that material shall not be loaded into the incinerator in such a way that it will protrude above the air curtain. Testimony established that the SMG incinerator is properly loaded. The operating permit requires that all operators of the incinerator be trained in the proper operation and maintenance of the incinerator and that an operations and maintenance guide be maintained at the facility at all times. All of the operators of the SMG incinerator have taken a four-hour training course to learn how to operate the incinerator in accordance with Department regulations and good operating practices, and certificates attesting to that training were submitted with the application for the operating permit. An Operations and Maintenance Guide was submitted with the application for the construction permit. The operating permit requires the maintenance of a daily operating log. The daily operating log must be maintained at the facility for at least five years and must be available for inspection by the Department upon request. SMG currently maintains a daily operating log that meets the requirements of the construction permit. SMG submits those daily logs to the Department on a monthly basis after the Department requested that SMG do so. The log includes a date and site location, daily operating hours, total charges, total material charged in tons, average hourly charging rate, any maintenance performed, fuel usage in gallons, and the operator's signature. The logs of record contain this information and have been initialed by SMG's operator for each day when the incinerator has been operated. SMG operators responsible for preparing the logs have no incentive to indicate the incinerator is not operating on days or during hours when it is running, as a deliberate misstatement on the operating logs could result in enforcement action by the Department and being fired by SMG. The operating permit requires that all reasonable precautions be undertaken to prevent and control the generation of unconfined emissions of particulate matter in accordance with Rule 62-296.320(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code. SMG takes reasonable precautions to prevent and control the generation of unconfined emissions of particulate matter, including paving the road that leads to the incinerator to reduce dust, wetting the ashes removed from the burn pit, wetting the ash piles and ramp that addresses the incinerator, approaching the incinerator at a slow rate, and placing a charge into the incinerator slowly and carefully. SMG voluntarily added a sprinkler system on all four corners of the burning pit that was not contemplated by the construction permit. The Department witness Mr. McDonald testified that this provided an additional method to control unconfined emissions. Although the construction permit and proposed permit do not contain conditions prohibiting the burning of green wood or wet wood waste, SMG takes precautions at the request of Mr. Soich to ensure that the wood is properly dried before being burned. See Finding of Fact 24. This helps to reduce smoke and emissions from the incinerator. (Moisture is the primary factor that inhibits burning and causes smoke and potentially odor.) As part of the routine practice in handling the wood waste before it is burned, trucks bringing wood waste to the incinerator are instructed to dump it into a pile. SMG operators then use a loader to flatten out the pile and remove dirt, prohibited materials, and harvestable pieces of wood. Harvestable pieces of wood and dirt are removed to separate staging areas. The remaining wood waste is separated into long windrows, with the oldest row closest to the incinerator. The windrows are flipped or rolled over in the direction of the incinerator, allowing the waste to dry. The waste in the row closest to the incinerator is burned, and subsequent windrows are rolled over in its place. Ash is generally removed from the burn pit every third day; it is wetted on removal to reduce dust, and the ash piles adjacent to the incinerator are also kept wetted by the sprinkler system. The ash is eventually mixed with the dirt in a composter for use as Class-A unrestricted compost. The SMG operator in charge on a particular day decides whether the incinerator will operate that day, in accordance with standard operational practices. The operator checks the weather forecast. If it is raining or if there are high winds (over 20 miles per hour), the incinerator will not be operated that day, and SMG typically waits four days after a rain to begin operating the incinerator again. These procedures are not contained in any permit conditions. The purpose of not operating during or immediately after a rain and taking steps to ensure the wood is dry is to reduce smoke; wet wood smokes more. Rainy weather can also affect odor. The purpose of not operating during windy conditions is to reduce the possibility of fire on SMG's property, but wind can also affect odor and visible emissions. On days when the incinerator is not operating, SMG conducts yard maintenance, maintains the waste windrows, and runs the composter. The composter is a source of noise and is located adjacent to the incinerator and is run when the incinerator is shut down. To ensure that the visible emission limitations are not exceeded and objectionable odors3 not generated, the operating permit requires that the incinerator's fan shall continue to operate after the last charge of the day until all combustion (presence of any flame or smoke) has ceased. Generally, the incinerator keeps burning an hour to an hour and one-half. Mr. Gerrits testified that the fan is kept running until the flames and smoke die out and that a certified operator is present until the fan is switched off. The operating permit requires that the testing of visible emissions must be conducted within 90-100 percent of the maximum allowable charging rate of 10 tons/hour and shall be conducted when the highest emissions can reasonable be expected to occur.4 Testing of the SMG incinerator was conducted at within 90-100 percent of the maximum allowable charging rate of 10 tons per hour, and the May 30, 2002, test results indicated that the incinerator was operating within the opacity limits of its permit even when operating at close to maximum capacity. Evidence established that the May 30, 2002, VE test complied with the specific conditions of both the construction and operating permit. See Finding of Fact 29. The test method for visible emissions required by both the construction permit and the operating permit is EPA Method 9, adopted and incorporated by reference at Rule 62- 204.800(8)(b)74, Florida Administrative Code. (Method 22 is not required pursuant to Department rules for compliance testing of an air curtain incinerator.) Testimony established that Method 9 was the method used for the VE tests conducted on the SMG incinerator. As required by both the construction and operating permits, the incinerator is located in excess of 300 feet from any pre-existing occupied building located off site as required by Rule 62-296.401(7)(j), Florida Administrative Code. The closest residences, that of Mr. Gerrits' father and his tenant, are approximately 1,500 feet away. Petitioners' Challenge For the most part, Petitioners reside northeast, east, or southeast of the incinerator. One Petitioner resides approximately three-tenths of a mile southeast of the incinerator; others reside at greater distances, up to approximately a mile and one-half away from the incinerator. Each of the Petitioners who testified have resided in this area for many years, pre-dating the operation of the incinerator. The Petitioners who testified were credible and well- intentioned. Each of these Petitioners maintained daily logs covering several months when the incinerator was authorized to operate. Some kept logs for several months, while others kept logs for several days. They noted their observations and perceptions in the logs. Admittedly, Petitioners are not experts in the detection of odors or noise levels. Nevertheless, they recorded their own experiences as to what they saw, heard, and/or smelled, believing that the odors and noise came from the incinerator. Some recorded that they smelled the strong odor of smoke, an "acrid smell," a "pungent smell," for example; "it makes your eyes burn and throat burn" said another during the hearing. One witness described the experience as being a prisoner in his house. Another does not go outside when the smell is bad. Generally, the level of odor varied with the weather conditions, i.e., a stronger odor was noticed on foggy and wet days or nights and when the wind blows from the west, which Petitioners contend is the prevailing wind. Some witnesses only smelled the odor during the night and not during the day, and not all of the time. Some complained about the odor and noise, or one and not the other. Some believed the noise coming from the incinerator was a major problem. At least two witnesses who live approximately three-tenths of a mile and 3,500 feet, respectively, from the incinerator site, described the noise as being like a jet airplane. One witness shuts her windows to keep out the noise. (SMG also operates a "wood chipper" or "composter" on site which is loud. Mr. Gerrits stated that he did not think the sound was the same as made by the incinerator fan. He also stated that "[i]t doesn't exceed the noise decibels. It doesn't exceed background noise levels at [their] property line.") Petitioners documented their concerns which are described, in part, above, and also documented their complaints to the Department and local government. It appears that each of the logs prepared by the Petitioners (who kept logs) were given to Petitioner Martha Futscher, who summarized and compiled a hand-written master list of the complaints. Then, Mr. Harvey inputted this data on the master list (spread sheet) of complaints, which appears as Petitioners' Exhibit F1. The master list contains recorded observations from May 2002 through January 2003. The master list contains a representation of when the incinerator started and stopped for various days and when it was operational or not, and this information was derived, according to Mr. Harvey, from the logs maintained by SMG. The master list also provides tons per hour of waste burned on particular days, the observer's initials, and the approximate distance each observer lived from the incinerator, and the comments, with time of observation or perception noted. There are discrepancies between the master list and the actual logs maintained by SMG as to when the incinerator was operational. There also appears to be several differences in observations between the Petitioners' master list and other evidence which indicates when Mr. Soich inspected the incinerator and determined that the incinerator was operating satisfactorily. Compare Petitioners' Exhibit 2 with Petitioners' Exhibit F1. For example, the master list records an observation from May 30, 2002, when the incinerator was operating, when there was noise and smoke noted at 8:00 a.m., and flames at the incinerator and odor at 5:30 p.m. Conversely, Mr. Soich was on-site on May 30, 2002, and observed the scheduled VE test. No problems were noted with the operation on this date by Mr. Soich. Mr. Soich also noted that "wood waste was properly dry and free of debris." The VE test on May 30, 2002, was performed from 10:29 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. and showed compliance with opacity limits. The master list indicates that black smoke was observed (no time given) on May 7, 2002, when the incinerator was operational, yet Mr. Soich inspected the incinerator on that day and there is a notation in the record that the incinerator was operating between 0-5 percent visible emissions. (Mr. Soich opined that it should be very rare to smell objectionable odors if the visible emissions run at a 5 percent level.) For October 15, 2002, there is a notation in the master list that a Petitioner commented that the incinerator was running during the day ("AM/PM Running") and that there was a strong smell at approximately 7:05 p.m. A strong smell at the person's house was also noted at approximately 9:30 p.m. on that day. However, Mr. Soich performed an annual inspection of the incinerator on October 15, 2002, and there is a notation on the master list, Petitioners' Exhibit 2, that the incinerator was not operating due to recent rain. As one Petitioner testified, her point was that the inspectors are not there when she hears the noise, sees smoke, and smells the odor. Mr. Soich confirmed that he does not inspect the facility in the evening. Petitioners also provided, as evidence in support of their position, six videotapes of the incinerator for September 19, October 3, October 23, November 25 (2 tapes), 2002, and January 10, 2003. (Mr. Harvey took the videotapes from the same location, across the street and west of the incinerator.) Each tape, except for September 19, 2002, showed smoke emanating from the operational incinerator. On September 19, 2002, the incinerator was not running according to the SMG log. There was a malfunction which was reported to the Department. The SMG log indicates that the pit was cleaned out, site cleared and rows moved. There is also a notation in the SMG log for this date that there was a power failure/malfunction at the incinerator at 9:00 a.m., and that the power was out. According to Mr. Gerrits, the malfunction caused smoke. (One Petitioner observed smoke from ashes on September 19, 2002.) While the Petitioners proved that there was smoke emanating from the operation of the incinerator on the days which were videotaped, with the exception of September 19, 2002, this did not necessarily prove that the emissions exceeded the requirements of the Department rules or that there was an objectionable odor emanating therefrom. Mr. Stoich observed the videotapes played during the hearing. In particular, with respect to the January 10, 2003, videotape, Petitioners' Exhibit 12, Mr. Stoich stated that a level of opacity cannot be determined from photographs and videotapes. He also noted that there was "a lot of white smoke," an atypical situation according to him, emanating from the incinerator and that he, as a compliance inspector, would have investigated further and performed an inspection, including a VE test, to determine if there was a violation, had he seen this smoke. However, he stated that without actually seeing the operation, he could not determine whether a violation had occurred. There was persuasive evidence that compliance with the opacity limits of a permit can only be determined through VE tests conducted using the Department-approved EPA Method 9. The VE test takes into account wind, the angle of the plume, the position of the sun, and other factors, and must use appropriate averaging to ensure that the test is valid. A smoke plume can look quite dense at the wrong angle or if the light is reflecting off the plume in a certain way, when in fact it is in compliance with Department rules. The VE tests for the incinerator have, with one exception, see Finding of Fact 24, demonstrated compliance with the opacity limits in the construction permit. As noted herein, upon receipt of notice that one VE test failed, SMG implemented corrective actions, and two VE tests conducted after the time showed the incinerator was operating in compliance with the opacity limits of the permit. See Findings of Fact 27 and 29. The Department relies on its compliance inspectors, such as Mr. Soich, to make a determination of whether an air emission source is causing an objectionable odor. There does not appear to be an approved Department method for measuring odors from incinerators. (Mr. Nelson stated that odors are difficult to test and that "odor is done collecting samples." No samples were taken or analyzed.) On the other hand, Mr. Soich testified that, based on his years of experience, he has developed certain methods for determining whether a facility is emitting an objectionable odor under the rules. If he receives an odor complaint, which he has in this case, he goes to the site and checks the prevailing winds. He also travels around the facility to determine the source of the odor. An odor can be deemed objectionable if it is very strong and overpowering, such that he cannot stay on- site and breathe in the odors. An odor can also be deemed objectionable if, after being on-site for some extended period of time, he begins to develop symptoms such as runny eyes, a scratchy throat, or a headache as a result of the smell. Finally, he may bring along another Department employee to determine whether the other individual finds the odor objectionable. Enforcement actions can be taken if objectionable odors are detected. Mr. Soich testified that he has inspected the incinerator at least nine times in the past year and never detected an objectionable odor. On some of the visits, the incinerator was not operational. On rebuttal, several residents of the area testified that they had not experienced objectionable odors from the incinerator. David Stevens, the Chief of the DeRosa County Fire Department, testified that an open land-clearing burn emits black smoke, more so than he observed from the incinerator. This fire department only had to respond to false alarms at the incinerator. Mr. Stevens personally inspected the operation of the incinerator and thought it was a very safe operation. Randy Morgan, a wildlife firefighter and certified burner with the Division of Forestry with over 16 years of experience in fire control, testified that approximately 50,000 acres of the state land burns occurred in Citrus County last year. These land burns can be a significant source of smoke and odor. In addition, approximately 50 open burn authorizations are issued each day. He also testified that controlled burns of approximately 15 fires of approximately 50 to 2,000 acres a day occurred in 2002 in proximity of the SMG incinerator which is a source of smoke and odor. The state also conducts open burns of some kind approximately ten months out of the year. Other witnesses testified that, given the rural nature of the community, open burning of trash, wood, and leaves occurs on a regular basis. Ultimate Findings of Fact Credible evidence established that SMG meets or exceeds the requirements in the construction permit to reduce smoke, dust, and odor, and these requirements are carried over to the operating permit. Credible evidence established that SMG employs the same, if not better, practices and permit conditions to control smoke, dust, and odor as other air curtain incinerators in the state. Credible evidence established that the SMG incinerator is operated in accordance with its construction permit. Credible evidence established that the SMG incinerator can be expected to be operated in accordance with its operating permit. Credible evidence established that the SMG incinerator is operated in accordance with Department rules. In light of the foregoing, SMG has demonstrated reasonable assurance that its air curtain incinerator has been operated in compliance with the construction permit and that the incinerator can continue to be operated in accordance with the conditions of the operating permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting SMG's application and issuing Permit No. 0170360-002-AO, as amended, and subject to all conditions, including but not limited to the Specific Conditions set forth in the Department's Notice of Intent to Issue, for the operation of an air curtain incinerator in Citrus County, Florida. It is further recommended that Petitioners' challenge to the amendment to the operating permit be dismissed. See Preliminary Statement. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.5 CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license should be disciplined for reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint filed herein dated November 30, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the State agency charged with regulating the construction industry and is responsible for prosecuting administrative complaints issued pursuant to Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. At times material hereto, Respondent, George Walton, was licensed as a Certified General Contractor in Florida and holds License No. CG C031400. (Petitioner's exhibit E.) At all times material hereto, Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for AMI Improvements Incorporated (AMI). On March 10, 1987, David Lee entered into a contract with AMI to remodel his bathrooms. The scope of the job entailed tearing out interior walls to accommodate a new bathroom, remove a closet to fit a newly installed tub, installation of a marble tub with pad and step, installation of a vanity and tile floors, mirroring the walls, installation of lights over the sink and tub, installation of new faucets and tape and finish the walls. (Petitioner's exhibit 1.) The total contract price was $6,332.50. Pursuant to the contract, AMI was required to obtain the necessary building permits for the job. On April 7, 1987, AMI began remodeling the Lee's bathroom and was paid all but $502.27 of the total contract price by that time. Respondent did not obtain a permit prior to commencement of the work on April 7, 1987. A building permit was required to remodel a bathroom in Broward County in 1987. (Testimony of Susan Marchitello, Custodian of Records for the Broward County Building and Zoning Enforcement Division.) On April 23, 1987, a notice of violation from Broward County was issued to David Lee requiring that he cease and desist from continuing the remodeling work in his home, which work was being performed by AMI. AMI suspended work on the Lee residence on approximately April 23, 1987, and it remained dormant until he applied for a permit on May 7, 1987. While the work was stopped by the cease and desist order, Lee had no bathroom in his home. Upon issuance of the cease and desist order, Lee contacted Richard Bird of AMI, who advised that AMI customarily does not pull permits for inside work as they are normally in and out before anything is seen by building officials. AMI refused to pull the building permits and Lee therefore applied for, and obtained the building permits. AMI's plans and intentions were to complete the construction work at the Lee's home without a building permit. An Owner-Builder permit was issued to Mr. Lee on May 7, 1987. (Respondent's Exhibit 1.) Mr. Lee was without a toilet for 21 days and without a tub and shower for approximately six weeks. AMI promised Mr. Lee that the work would be completed within two weeks after the permits were obtained. Despite this promise, the bathroom did not pass final inspection until July 21, 1987, approximately two months after the permits were obtained. Mr. Lee communicated his concern to AMI in the form of a "punch list" of items to repair. AMI refused to repair those items and Lee, in turn, contacted Daniel Durbano Construction during August 1987 who provided Lee with a proposal to complete those items either that were not completed or to complete/repair those items that were not of workmanlike quality. Durbano presented Lee with his proposal on August 4, 1987, with an estimated cost (to repair the Lee's home) of $3,858.75. (Petitioner's exhibit 3.) After Durbano's proposal was presented to Lee, AMI returned to install the mirror around the tub and the shower stall enclosure. During the time when Lee was negotiating with Durbano about completing the project undertaken by AMI, Respondent was never at the subject site. When a final inspection was called for by Lee, the work completed by AMI did not pass the final inspection. Among the items listed in Lee's "punch list" were (1) the shower stall failed to drain properly as the pitch was almost flat and water settled around the bottom of the shower instead of draining, (2) the marble tub step is crooked and is larger on one end that on the other, (3) the knee wall is crooked and is approximately one inch thicker at the top than at the bottom, (4) the bathroom window does not open properly, (5) the door jam going into the master bedroom is improperly installed, and (6) the plastic caps that affix the toilet to the floor were lost. Lee prepared a second "punch list" and presented it to AMI during August 1987. Among the items listed as deficient were that the floor was uneven and the carpet or tile flooring could not be installed without correcting the floor. Daniel Durbano, a general contractor who is licensed in Florida, performed an inspection of the subject work performed by AMI during September 1987. Durbano found that the tile was not properly laid and the floors were "bumpy and wavy." He also found that the drywall was "wavy" and needed preparation to install wallpaper, there was no casing on the door entrance from the bathroom to the master bedroom, and that the cost would be approximately 20% less than the original estimate of $3,800 that he provided Lee. (Petitioner's exhibit 5.) Respondent is 64 years old and has been a certified contractor since 1954. He is licensed in the states of Ohio, West Virginia, and Florida. Respondent has apprenticed as a carpenter, brick layer, electrician and a plumber. He has been licensed in Florida since 1969. Respondent has twice been a qualifier, once for AMI and with a present engagement, Fixel's Fix It, Inc. As a qualifier for AMI, Respondent pulled permits and supervised construction during the periods of January 1987 through August 1987. Respondent no longer is qualifier for, or is otherwise affiliated with, AMI. Respondent was not aware of the work being performed at the Lee residence, although he was engaged, as a qualifier, to supervise all jobs where AMI was required to obtain a permit. Respondent first learned of problems with the Lee job when he was contacted by Petitioner during December of 1987. Respondent admits that although some of the work done in the Lee's home was probably up to industry's standards, there were areas of workmanship that should have been performed better. Respondent also admits that he relied on Richard Bird, a builder/developer affiliated as a coordinator with AMI and AMI's principal/owner, Tony Enzo, to inform him of projects that needed his supervision or assistance in obtaining permits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that 1/ Petitioner enter a final order imposing an Administrative Fine in the amount of $1,000, payable to Petitioner within thirty days of entry of its final order, for the above-referenced violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1989.
The Issue At issue is an agency decision which concluded that proposed alterations to the Florida Sun bulk cement transfer facility to be located in Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida, do not constitute "modifications" or "substantial modifications" as those terms are defined by rule.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Benyon's letter of May 25, 1989, to counsel for Tuxedo provided, in pertinent part: The alterations are as follows: The plans delete the construction of the packhouse and rail unloading facilities. . . This change completely eliminates particulate discharges previously approved under the 1984 permit for the above mentioned facilities totaling 0.47 tons per year. The truck loadout facility has been moved from outside the silos, where it was exposed to the ambiant air, to inside the silos where it is fully enclosed. This change has eliminated the bin atop the truck loadout as a source of ambient emissions. Emissions from the bin were projected as 05 tons per year on the 1984 applications. As a result of this change, silo configuration and location has changed slightly to accommodate the trucks. . . There will be no emission points from the moved silo. * * * The model of the Fuller baghouse unit atop the silos has changed from Fuller Plenum 48-7-3500 to Fuller Jet 196 CI0FM. The outlet emissions of the unit remains the same (i.e. 0.02 gr/acf). Convey lines from ship to silo will now be 12" and 14" vis a vis a uniform 12", with the 12" portions being those located over water on floats or on the barge. This change has no effect on environmental efficiency of the system. * * * Although it is the Department's determination that the changes in design are not modifications that give rise to a point of entry because they decrease the emissions from the facility and provide improved air pollution controls, if you wish to contest that finding, a petition must be filed (received) in the Office of General Counsel, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 within 14 days of your receipt of this notice. Upon receipt of the Benyon letter, Tuxedo timely filed the petition challenging the Department's determination which is the subject of this case. Official recognition has been taken of the record in DOAH case No. 89- 1121. In DOAH case No. 89-1121, Tuxedo challenged the Intent to Issue a permit for a barge-mounted unloading device for the same Florida Sun facility. The petition in DOAH case No. 89-1121 was filed with the Department on February 21, 1989. The permit challenged in DOAH case No. 89-1121 related to the unloading system which Florida Sun intended to utilize for the facility permitted in 1984. On April 12, 1989, the undersigned ruled on a motion to dismiss in DOAH case No. 89-1121, and found: Florida Sun and the Department have correctly concluded that Petitioner may not challenge the permits issued to Florida Sun in 1984. The point of entry for a challenge to those permits is long past. In denying the motion to dismiss, the petition has been considered only as a challenge to the permit for the barge-mounted unloader and the potential damages which may result from that installation. It is anticipated that discovery will clarify issues of fact regarding how the present permit conflicts, if at all, to the previously approved permits. (e.s.) Paragraph 11 of the petition filed in case No. 89- 1121 alleged that Florida Sun's proposed cement terminal "has materially and substantially changed and in fact has been drastically modified to be different from what was permitted in 1984." Tuxedo then itemized examples of the differences between the proposed facility and the one permitted in 1984. The examples itemized included, in pertinent part: The proposed location of the 1984 permitted facilities is ambiguous; placing the facilities on a 4.78 acre lot, closer to where the facilities are now proposed. However, Florida Sun now states that the lot is less than one acre. The proposed silos are different from those presented in 1984, and are at different locations in relation to one another and in relation to Tuxedo Fruit Company. The immense silos will be only 15 feet from the property line and right-of-way along Port Avenue The proposed truck loadout facility is completely different than originally proposed ... Moreover, the truck loadout has been relocated to areas beneath each silo. Air pollution control devices and some control methods have changed. Air pollutants will be released at different heights and at different locations than originally permitted. There will be a dramatic increase in airborne contaminants emitted over that which was originally permitted and reviewed by DER in 1984. The facilities as now proposed will offload, store, and load onto trucks almost twice as much cement as was contemplated by Manatee Cement Co.'s 1984 permit application as reviewed by DER. The vastly increased product throughput, physical changes, process changes, truck unloading, truck traffic, and operating hours will result in more emissions of pollutants from point sources, more pollutant emissions from unconfined sources of particulate matter, fugitive particulate, increased secondary emissions of particulate matter, and increased nuisance dust all of which will occur near or right next to Tuxedo Fruit. It is apparent from these allegations that Tuxedo considered the changes in the intended operation of the Florida Sun facility to be "modifications" as defined by the rule. During the hearing of DOAH case No. 89-1121, evidence was offered regarding the planned operation of the Florida Sun facility, the emissions which may be expected to result from its operation, and the impact on Tuxedo and others which may be expected. Specific alterations to the facility as permitted in 1984, with the resulting ramifications, were included in the evidence presented. Whether the alterations constitute "modifications" or "substantial modifications" as those terms are defined was implicit since the emissions resulting from the facility, as altered, were included in the presentation. Paragraph 13 of the petition filed in DOAH case 89-3309 set forth the differences between the facility to be built by Florida Sun and the one permitted in 1984. Those differences included: The parcel size is reduced from over four acres to less than one acre. The two silos are now located in east/west direction along Port Avenue and are both within 15 feet of the right-of-way. A provision is made for constructing a third silo. A different baghouse has been specified for the top silo, a Fuller Jet Pulse Dust Collector Model Size 196C10, to be located on the top of the western most silo. Separate structures no longer exist for the truck loadout operation or the bagging operation. The silo height has been increased to 178 feet in order to install a truck load-out operation underneath each silo. Thus, there are now two truck load out facilities. Each loadout spout would be controlled by Fuller Jet Pulse Dust Collector, Model 36DS8. Both the loading spout and bag house are of different design than originally proposed. The detailed plans no longer show a packing facility to be built at the site now as a 1,750 square foot two story office building. There will be an increase in ship unloading rates from 264 tons per hour in the 1984 permits to 400 tons per hour in the 1988 application. This would result in an increased through-put of 220,160 tons per year. The increase in either the hourly or annual through-put would result in increase in actual omissions (sic) from the side bag house. The bag house specified in the building plans are different than those specified in the permits granted by the Department in 1984, thus affecting the emission characteristics of the stack discharge. The increase in annual through-put would require additional truck loading. The 1984 permits would require 933 trucks per month or 11,198 trucks per year. The 1988 through-put requires 1,667 trucks per month for 20,004 trucks per year. This would be an increase of 734 trucks per month or 8,808 trucks per year. This increase would result in increased actual emissions from both' the truck load-out bag houses and the silo' bag house. Increase in truck traffic would increase the amount of fugitive and nuisance dust. There would be an increase in fugitive and nuisance dust due to the increase in number of trucks being loaded. From a review of the foregoing, the similarity in the allegations in DOAH case No. 89-1121 and DOAH case No. 89-3309 is obvious. Since the evidence related to the facility has been offered in DOAH case No. 89-1121, additional evidentiary hearing would appear unnecessary. More specific to the questions regarding emissions expected from this facility are the following findings of fact made in DOAH case No. 89-1121: The potential sources of air pollutant emissions associated with the Florida Sun cement facility are as follows: unconfined and unquantifiable particulate matter emitted from the hold of the ship during the unloading process; the emissions from the Cyclonaire unit (the venting required to separate the dust-laden air in order to pass the cement into the conveyor line); emissions from two diesel engines which generate energy for the extraction and conveying unit; `the baghouse which vents the silos as they are being loaded; the truck spout venting units; and the unconfined but quantifiable particulate matter generated by truck traffic. The total of the quantifiable emissions for the Florida Sun facility will be 19 tons per year. The Florida Sun facility will not contain the 240 ton cement storage bin authorized by the 1984 permits. Based upon Florida Sun's stipulation to that effect, potential emissions from that source have not been considered. The Florida Sun facility will not contain the packhouse authorized by the 1984 permits. Based upon Florida Sun's stipulation to that effect, potential emissions from that source have not been considered. The stipulated Florida Sun annual throughput of cement for this facility will be 279,000 tons per year, plus or minus 10 percent. In addition to the equipment to be utilized to limit the expected emissions, Florida Sun intends to pave or grass its entire facility. Regular maintenance of this area will provide reasonable precautions that unconfined particulate matter will not be released into the atmosphere. Further, training of personnel will aid in the proper operation and maintenance of the equipment. Operation of the Cyclonaire should not occur during wind conditions exceeding 35 miles per hour.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order dismissing the petition filed in DOAH case No. 89-3309 as that case has been rendered moot since the disputed issues were addressed in DOAH case No. 89-1121. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 4th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Bram D.E. Canter Haben & Culpepper, P.A. 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sylvia M. Alderman Paul R. Ezatoff Katz, Kutter, Haigler, Alderman, Eaton, Davis and Marks, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul H. Amundsen Blank, Hauser, & Amundsen 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carol A. Forthman Deputy General Counsel Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michael N. Kuvin (Kuvin), was at all times material hereto a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers CG CB07136 and CG C007136. Kuvin, under license number CG CB07136, was the qualifying agent for Gerald S. Krigel Corporation (Krigel Corp.). During the years 1904 and 1985, Krigel Corp. acted as the general contractor for Lomar Communities Inc. (Lomar), the owner/developer of Sugarwood and Heritage Park subdivisions, Dade County, Florida 1/ Gerald Krigel was the president of Krigel Corp. and Lomar. While the Sugarwood and Heritage Park subdivisions were under development, Kuvin did not supervise, direct, manage, or control the contracting activities of Krigel Corp., nor did he supervise, direct, manage, or control any of its construction activities in the subdivisions. He did, however, meet with Mr. Krigel twice a year, at which times he signed and delivered to Mr. Krigel an indeterminate number of blank building permit applications. On each occasion, Kuvin was paid $1,500. 2/ In mid-December 1985, Lomar and Krigel Corp. closed their offices. In January 1986, Lomar filed a petition in bankruptcy. The Freedman Residence On January 8, 1984, Marc Freedman and his wife entered into an agreement with Lomar for the purchase and sale of a single family residence in the Sugarwood subdivision. The agreement, as subsequently modified on May 11, 1984, called for Lomar to build the house in accordance with an agreed floor plan and deed it to the Freedmans in exchange for an agreed price of $106,337.50. On June 7, 1984, a building permit application was submitted to the Dade County Building and Zoning Department (Dade County) to construct the Freedman house. The application listed Lamar as the owner, Krigel Corp. as the contractor, and was signed by Kuvin. The requested permit was issued July 10, 1984, and a certificate of completion was issued on October 3, 1984. A closing was held on the Freedman purchase in late October 1984. Certain construction deficiencies existent on closing or subsequently discovered have not, however, been rectified despite demand of Lamar and Kuvin. 3/ The deficiencies include a backyard which is prone to flooding because of poor drainage, a pool deck area which has cracked into 14 separate pieces because not scored and which floods because not graded; interior dry wall which has cracked and buckled, and cracked tiles in the bathroom. The Florez Residence On February 23, 1985, Maria Florez entered into an agreement with Lomar for the purchase and sale of a single family residence in the Heritage Park subdivision. The agreement called for Lomar to build the unit in accordance with an agreed floor plan and deed it to Ms. Florez in exchange for an agreed price of $69,500. Under the terms of her agreement with Lomar, Ms. Florez was obligated to pay an initial deposit of $1,000, and an additional deposit of $2,500 upon approval of her application for a mortgage loan. Ms. Flores paid Lomar the initial deposit of $1,000, the $2,500 deposit upon approval of her application for financing with Pan American Bank, as well as the additional sum of $1,136 to add an air vent in the bathroom and to upgrade the carpeting. On June 25, 1985, a building permit application was submitted to Dade County to construct the Florez unit. The application listed Lomar as the owner, Krigel Corp. as the contractor, and was signed by Kuvin. The requested permit was issued July 5, 1985, and construction apparently completed in November 1985; however, Dade County has not yet issued a certificate of completion. No closing was ever scheduled for the Flarez unit. Upon learning of Lomar's bankruptcy, Ms. Florez filed a claim in the bankrupt's estate. To date, that claim has not been resolved. The Cevallos Residence On March 13, 1985, Pedro Cevallos and his wife entered into an agreement with Lamar for the purchase and sale of a single family residence in the Heritage Park subdivision. The agreement called for Lomar to build the unit in accordance with an agreed floor plan and deed it to the Cevallos in exchange for an agreed price of $69,900. Under the terms of the Cevallos' agreement with Lamar, they were obligated to pay an initial deposit of $500, and an additional deposit of $3,000 upon approval of their application for a mortgage loan. The Cevallos paid the deposits of $3,500, as well as an additional $190 to add an air vent in the bathroom. On June 6, 1985, a building permit application was submitted to Dade County to construct the Cevallos unit. The application listed Lomar as the owner, Krigel Corp. as the contractor, and was signed by Kuvin. The requested permit was issued June 13, 1985, and a certificate of completion was issued on November 14, 1985. The Cevallos had a walk through inspection of their unit and noted no deficiencies. A closing never occurred, however, because of Lamar's bankruptcy. The Cevallos are a claimant in the bankrupt's estate, but that claim has not been resolved. The Sujansky Residence On October 21, 1934, James Sujansky and his wife entered into an agreement with Lomar for the purchase and sale of a single family residence in the Heritage Park subdivision. The agreement called for Lomar to build the unit in accordance with an agreed floor plan in exchange for an agreed price of $64,900. On April 12, 1935, a building permit application was submitted to Dade County to construct the Sujansky unit. The application listed Lomar as the owner, Krigel Corp. as the contractor, and was signed by Kuvin. The requested permit was issued on April 26, 1985, and a certificate of completion was issued on October 9, 1985. On October 22, 1985, a closing was held on the Sujansky unit. At closing, the Sujanskys received a no-lien affidavit, a builder's warranty from Lomar, and Lomar's assurances that the deficiencies noted on the punch list would be corrected. Lomar failed or refused to correct the following deficiencies: the yard was prone to flooding because of poor drainage, cracked tiles were noticeable in both bathrooms and the kitchen, the dry wall was not sanded or painted, the exterior walls contained cracks in the stucco finish, the window trim rattled, the front door had gaps around it, the kitchen cabinets had missing or unsecured handles, and the formica was peeling off the kitchen counter. Subsequent to closing, the Sujanskys received a claim of lien against their property from GDG Services, Inc., B.Q. Interiors Contractors, and Bird Plumbing Corp. These companies claimed monies owed for materials and services furnished to the property under a contract with Lomar or Krigel Corp. The proof established that B.Q. Interiors was owed the sum of $390, but failed to establish the validity or amount of the remaining claims. The Frisby Residence On March 25, 1985, Thomas Frisby and his wife entered into an agreement with Lomar for the purchase and sale of a single family residence in the Heritage Park subdivision. The agreement called for Lomar to build the unit in accordance with an agreed floor plan in exchange for an agreed price of $69,000. On June 6, 1985, a building permit application was submitted to Dade County to construct the Frisby unit. The application listed Lomar as the owner, Krigel Corp. as the contractor, and was signed by Kuvin. The requested permit was issued on June 13, 1985, and a certificate of completion was issued on December 31, 1985. On November 3, 1985, a closing was held on the Frisby unit. At closing, the Frisbys received a no-lien affidavit and a builder's warranty from Lomar. Subsequent to closing, the Frisbys noted numerous deficiencies which Lomar failed or refused to remedy. These deficiencies included a back yard prone to flooding because of poor drainage, a bedroom wall that leaked and caused the wall and carpet to mildew, chipped and cracked sidewalks, and an uneven livingroom floor. Additionally, the Frisbys received a claim of lien against their property from B.Q. Interiors Contractors, S&R Industries, Inc., and Val's Air Conditioning, Inc. These companies claimed monies owed for materials and services furnished to the property under a contract with Lomar or Krigel Corp. The proof established that B.Q. Interiors was owed the sum of $390 and that S&R Industries was owed the sum of $632.50, but failed to establish the validity or amount of the lien claimed by Val's Air Conditioning.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Michael N. Kuvin's certification as a general contractor, license numbers CG CB07136 and CG C007136, be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 1937, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1987.
Findings Of Fact On January 23, 1985, following the filing of the and its on-site inspection, DER issued its notice of intent to grant the air construction permit, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapters 17-2 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The notice stated that the proposed equipment, with a cyclone primary dust collector followed by a Dustex Baghouse Model DW-14-28W dust collector, was adequate to insure compliance with DER particulate emission standards. The ambient air standards for sulfur dioxide emissions by the plant were to be controlled by the use of low sulfur fuel oil (maximum 0.5 percent sulfur). Subsequent to the issuance of the notice of intent, DER received a Petition for Administrative Hearing regarding the issuance of the permit. The petition alleged, inter alia, that the plant would emit particulates and gases in contravention of Chapter 17-2, F.A.C., and that stormwater run-off from the plant would be contaminated with oil, scum and debris. The petition further asserted that this run-off would cause water pollution in contravention of Chapters 17-3 and 17-25, F.A.C., and would introduce pollution into Dry Branch and Bayou George, a Class I Water. The permit application covers only the proposed batch plant site and the immediately adjacent property consisting of 2.15 acres. The location of the building would be at the northern end of the parcel, approximately 0.10 miles from both Star Avenue and U.S. Highway 231. There is no residential use of property immediately adjacent to the project site. However, Petitioners all reside in the immediate area, and will be affected to some extent by this facility. Dust from construction activity has already been experienced. In this regard, it must be recognized that the area has no zoning restrictions and is therefore subject to industrial uses such as that proposed here. The Applicant owns several acres of property surrounding the location of the proposed batch plant. The permit application at issue covers only the request to construct the facility on a 2.15 acre portion of the larger parcel. Anticipated environmental problems caused by activity not on the immediate parcel are not related to this permit application and thus are not germane to a determination whether the permit should be issued or denied. Further, the construction permit will only allow the applicant to build the proposed air pollution source. Before such a source can actually be operated, a separate operation permit application must be made, and testing for compliance with standards by the facility must be satisfactorily completed. Petitioners demonstrated that the individuals who own Triangle Construction Company, Inc. were previously employed by Gulf Asphalt Company, which was occasionally out of compliance with state air emission standards. Petitioners asserted that these individuals would likely fail to operate the proposed facility in compliance with DER standards. Although these individuals did have managerial responsibility at Gulf Asphalt, final decisions concerning financial expenditures for repairs and maintenance were made by the owner of the plant, rather than the Applicant's owners. It was also established that the Gulf Asphalt Plant continued to have emission problems after such individuals left as employees. Petitioners contend the Applicant's unrelated dredging activities in an adjacent borrow pit area caused turbidity in Dry Branch Creek, and characterized the Applicant as a habitual violator who could not be expected to comply with state pollution control regulations in the operation of the proposed facility. Testimony revealed that the Applicant constructed a culvert in Dry Branch, which flows through a borrow pit area and did some other incidental dredging in areas within the landward extent of waters of the state. However, when the Applicant became aware that activities in the proposed borrow pit area were potentially in violation of DER rules, it ceased activities and applied for the appropriate permits. An asphalt concrete batch plant is a relatively simple operation in which sand and aggregate are dried, then mixed with hot liquid asphalt and loaded directly into trucks. It is the drying process which emits the particulates which the cyclone and the baghouse are designed to control. Baghouse operations are similar to those of a vacuum cleaner. Particulate-laden air from the drying process is vented into the baghouse, where it is filtered through a number of cloth bags. The bags trap the particulates, and pass the filtered air through the bag cloth and out of the building. When enough air has been filtered to cause a build-up of trapped particulates, a portion of the baghouse is taken off cycle and reverse air is blown through the bags. The reverse air causes the trapped particulates to fall into a hopper where they are removed for disposal. The baghouse was designed to function efficiently in conjunction with a plant producing up to 120 tons per hour of asphalt concrete. Applicants's plant will produce only 80-85 tons of asphalt concrete per hour due to the limited size of the dryer. The estimated air to cloth ratio in the amended permit application is 6:1, which will result in emissions substantially lower than DER standards. Air to cloth ratio is not a specific standard or requirement, but is a figure which is used by engineers to determine projected emissions which may reasonably be anticipated from facilities which use an air pollution control mechanism. A projected air to cloth ratio of 6:1 for this baghouse may be reasonably expected to yield emissions of approximately 0.014 micrograms per dry cubic foot, which is approximately one-third of the DER standard of 0.04 mg. per dry cubic foot. The equipment to be installed is used and in need of minor repairs. The testimony established that necessary repairs will be accomplished prior to plant activation, and that operations will not be adversely affected when such repairs are complete.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a final order granting Triangle Construction Company an air construction permit. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynn C. Higby, Esquire BRYANT, HIGBY & WILLIAMS, P.A. Post Office Box 124 Panama City, Florida 32402 E. Gary Early, Esquire and Clare E. Gray, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Smoak, Esquire SALE, BROWN & SMOAK Post Office Box 1579 Panama City, Florida 32402 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a variance to permit an onsite treatment and disposal system should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The lot of land for which the Bank seeks a variance for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system is located at 341 Compass Lake Drive in Jackson County, Florida. The lot is approximately 40 feet wide and 300 feet deep, with approximately 40 feet of frontage on Compass Lake. Prior to its severance in 2010, the lot was part of a larger parcel of land with an address of 343 Compass Drive in Jackson County. The larger parcel was owned by Charles Paulk and had substantial improvements consisting of a house, boathouse, and dock. In 2004, Mr. Paulk borrowed money from the Bank and gave the Bank a mortgage lien on the entire larger parcel to secure the loan. At some point, a survey was prepared which subdivided the larger parcel into two lots -- the first containing the substantial improvements, and the other consisting of the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot lot at issue, which is .28 acres in size, with no improvements. There is no indication that the survey was ever recorded in the public records. Later, in 2010, Mr. Paulk decided to sell the lot with the substantial improvements for $330,000. Because the Bank had a lien on the entire larger parcel, Mr. Paulk requested that the Bank release its lien on the lot with the substantial improvements. The Bank agreed to release its lien on the lot with substantial improvements and, after receiving what the Bank felt was a “sufficient pay-down” on the loan, shifted its lien to the smaller, unimproved lot that is at issue in this case. The sale and release of lien transaction “substantially reduced the loan versus the collateral value” that the Bank previously had. According to the Bank’s Senior Vice President, James Goodson, after the sale transaction, there was “not a lot of money left on the loan ” Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot and shift its lien to the remaining unimproved lot, it was unaware that a variance would be required for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system (septic tank) on the unimproved lot. The facts as outlined above, however, demonstrate that the Bank was an active participant and beneficiary of the transaction that ultimately resulted in the creation of the two lots, one of which was the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot unimproved lot at issue in this case. In 2012, Mr. Paulk experienced financial problems and was having difficulty paying back the loan to the Bank secured by the unimproved lot. Because it was easier than foreclosure, the Bank agreed to take a deed to the unimproved lot in lieu of foreclosure.1/ At the time of the Bank’s release of lien in 2010, as well as at the time of the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the 40- foot by 300-foot lot size of the unimproved lot was too small to meet the statutory requirements for a septic permit. Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank accepted the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Bank was aware that the lot was too small and would need a variance for a septic tank. He did not explain, however, why the Bank had earlier been unaware of the need for a variance when it agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot in 2010. After the Bank acquired title to the unimproved lot, a third party offered to purchase it on the condition that the Bank could obtain a permit. The Bank went to Jackson County to request a permit, knowing that its request would be denied because the lot size was insufficient for a septic tank without a variance. Nevertheless, the Bank believed that it would qualify for a variance on hardship grounds because it did not “intentionally” create the hardship. The Bank commenced the permitting process by submitting an application with the Jackson County Health Department on October 4, 2012. The County denied the application on the grounds that the lot was deficient in width and total area. Next, the Bank submitted a request to the Department for a variance. The request was considered by the Department’s Variance Review and Advisory Committee (Committee) on December 6, 2012. The Committee has only recommending authority to the State Health Officer. In a four to three vote, the Committee recommended approval of a variance. The members voting against a recommendation for approval were representatives of the State Health Office, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the County Health Department. Eight objections from adjacent property owners were provided to the Committee’s review and consideration. After considering the facts, including the decision of the County Health Department, objections filed by adjacent property owners, actions taken by the Bank, and the recommendations of all the members of the Committee, Gerald Briggs, Bureau Chief for Onsite Sewage Programs for the Department of Health, made the Department’s preliminary decision that the Bank’s variance request should be denied, concluding, among other things, that “[a]ny perceived hardship that [the Bank] might experience as a result of the obligation to meet established standards comes about as a direct result of your own proposed action.” Likewise, considering the facts and evidence as presented in this case, the undersigned finds, as a matter of fact, that the Bank intentionally participated in and benefitted from the transaction that resulted in the hardship posed by the small lot size that it now owns and for which it seeks a variance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying SunSouth Bank’s application for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a reasonable attorney's fee should be assessed against Respondents, Paul and Barbara Corbiey, and their attorneys, and awarded to Petitioner, Action Instant Concrete, LLC (AIC), under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes,2 after the Corbieys unsuccessfully challenged AIC's use the Concrete Batching Plant Air General Permit promulgated by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-210.300(4)(a)2.3
Findings Of Fact No Service Without Filing AIC made no motion or request for attorney's fees under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, prior to the filing of proposed recommended orders (PROs) in DOAH Case 05-2891. The joint PRO filed by DEP and AIC in DOAH Case 05-2891 proposed a reservation of jurisdiction to enter an award of costs and attorney fees to DEP and AIC pursuant to Section 57.105(1) and (5), Florida Statutes. The Recommended Order in DOAH Case 05-2891 granted the request and retained jurisdiction 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. AIC did not serve a motion seeking sanctions under Section 57.105, Florida Statutes, without filing it, prior to either its PRO in Case 05-2891 or its Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees, which was filed within 30 days of the Final Order in Case 05-2891 and initiated this Case 06-1552F. Failure to Present Evidentiary Record Under a pre-hearing Order entered in this case, AIC was required to present the evidentiary record from DOAH Case 05- 2891, which had been transmitted to DEP, for use in this case. AIC failed to present the evidentiary record. But no findings made in this Final Order require the evidentiary record (i.e., the exhibits) from Case 05-2891, and AIC was not required to present a transcript of the final hearing in that case since the hearing had not been transcribed. Unsupported Claims AIC proved that some claims raised by the Corbieys in DOAH Case 05-2891 were not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims. The Corbieys had and presented no evidence to prove that visual emissions (VE) in excess of five percent opacity occurred during cement loading of the silo, which is the demonstration clearly established by Rule 62-296.414(1) for determining compliance of stack emissions. Their entire case on that issue was based on two claims: questioning 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; and questioning the consistent and reasonable testimony of all the experts that valid, authorized VE observations could not be performed using Petitioners' videotapes. The first claim was speculation and was rejected as unfounded; and, besides having no evidence to counter the expert testimony on the inability to use videotapes for the stack emission demonstration, the videotape presented in evidence by the Corbieys did not even 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, or that AIC's stack emission demonstration was invalid. AIC proved that some claims raised by the Corbieys in Case 05-2891--specifically, claims relating to zoning, the location and hours of operation of AIC's facility, local construction permitting and licensing, roadway debris, diesel truck emissions, noise, and bright lights on trucks and on a billboard on the property--were not supported by the application of then-existing law to the material facts necessary to establish the claims, and were not presented as a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of success were stricken as irrelevant. The other claims made by the Corbieys in DOAH Case 05-2891 either were supported by the application of then-existing law to the material facts necessary to establish the claims, or were presented as a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of success.
