The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner based on his age in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on December 7, 1944. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was 58 years old. Petitioner began working for Respondent as a pipe fitter in 1974. Respondent terminated Petitioner on August 5, 1998. He was 53 years old at that time. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was a member of the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union Local 1561 (the Union). Based on his seniority, Petitioner became a predictive/preventative lubrication mechanic (PPM mechanic) in the late 1980s. A PPM mechanic is responsible for lubricating equipment, monitoring oil pressure on induced draft (ID) fans, changing oil filters, and repairing equipment in the powerhouse. A PPM mechanic's duties also include performing vibration analysis on equipment in the powerhouse. As a PPM mechanic, Petitioner was required to look at several hundred pieces of equipment per day. These inspections were essentially "walk-by" inspections. Petitioner was not required to record his observations or to keep a maintenance log. If a piece of equipment needed repair and Petitioner was able to perform the work, he would do so. If he was unable to repair the equipment, Petitioner would report the problem to the powerhouse maintenance department to execute the repair. A computer-generated list identified the equipment that needed inspection. Some of the equipment needed to be lubricated daily, some weekly, and some on a monthly basis. Petitioner worked as a PPM mechanic for about three years. In the early 1990s, his PPM mechanic position was awarded to a more senior employee. In March 1991, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment for falsifying his time card. The union's subsequent grievance procedure resulted in Petitioner being suspended for six months without pay. In 1994, Petitioner once again became a PPM mechanic. At that time, Petitioner worked the day shift from 7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. He would attend a crew meeting at the beginning of each shift. A crew consisted of pipe fitters and millwrights. After the crew meeting, Respondent expected Petitioner to walk his route to perform his inspections as quickly as reasonably possible. Joseph McCall began working for Respondent on May 8, 1989. He became Petitioner's immediate supervisor on November 1, 1996. Mr. McCall was the supervisor of all PPM mechanics. He supervised Petitioner until Petitioner's termination on August 6, 1998. At the time of Petitioner's termination, Mr. McCall was approximately 30 years old. On or about January 29, 1997, Mr. McCall met with Petitioner to discuss his work performance. Mr. McCall counseled Petitioner to stop doing "government jobs" (personal jobs) during work hours and then requesting overtime to finish his normal duties. Mr. McCall had observed Petitioner doing personal work on company time on at least six occasions. Mr. McCall did not allow employees under his supervision to do "government jobs" on company time. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. McCall observed anyone other than Petitioner performing "government jobs" during work hours prior to Petitioner's termination. During the January 29, 1997, meeting, Mr. McCall counseled Petitioner regarding his failure to consistently perform his daily maintenance inspection route first thing in the morning. The morning inspection was important because the overnight swing shift did not have a PPM mechanic on duty. After the January 1997 oral warning, Mr. McCall met with Petitioner again in June 1997 to discuss Petitioner's unacceptable job performance. After the meeting, Mr. McCall issued a written reprimand to Petitioner on June 16, 1997. The reprimand stated that Petitioner's job performance needed to improve immediately. The reprimand outlined Respondent's expectations and Petitioner's performance deficiencies. Specifically, Petitioner had not consistently completed his inspection route first thing in the morning. Mr. McCall counseled Petitioner that this responsibility was the highest priority. Mr. McCall counseled Petitioner that he needed to check equipment, such as the oil filter on the No. 3 power boiler ID fan, more frequently. Petitioner needed to take care of housekeeping items, such as cleaning up oil leaks that occurred on his shift. Additionally, Petitioner needed to collect data more efficiently; pay closer attention to critical equipment, such as the ID fans; cooperate with his relief; and follow directions issued by his supervisor. Petitioner's work did not improve in response to the June 16, 1997, written reprimand. On September 24, 1997, Mr. McCall witnessed Petitioner sleeping on the job in the corner shop of the powerhouse. As a result of this incident and Petitioner's failure to consistently meet expectations, Petitioner was suspended from work for 17 days. Respondent suspended Petitioner instead of firing him in recognition of his long service with Respondent. In a disciplinary letter dated October 3, 1997, Respondent memorialized the reasons in support of Petitioner's suspension. The letter also set forth the terms and conditions of a "last chance agreement" containing the following conditions of Petitioner's continued employment: (a) Petitioner would remain in the PPM mechanic job; (b) Petitioner would not violate any mill rules; (c) Petitioner would consistently meet the job performance expectations as established; and (d) Petitioner would work cooperatively with Mr. McCall, with co-workers, and employees in the production areas. Petitioner and Mr. McCall signed the letter, which clearly stated that failure to comply with the conditions for continued employment would result in Petitioner's immediate discharge without recourse. One of Petitioner's most important jobs was to monitor the oil pressure differential on the No. 4 power boiler ID fan because a high oil pressure differential on that fan can cause the power boiler and turbine generator to trip, resulting in a loss of production. This piece of equipment was so critical that it could only be shut down during a "cold outage" in which the whole mill shut down. On March 25, 1998, the No. 4 power boiler tripped. The trip was not so severe as to as to shut down the power- generating turbine. After this incident, Mr. McCall counseled Petitioner about his failure to adequately monitor the oil pressure. On June 11, 1998, Petitioner was working on a job when a co-worker, Kenny Waters, requested Petitioner to stop his work in progress and add oil to a pump that Mr. Waters was working on. Petitioner refused the request telling Mr. Waters that he had the ability to add oil to the pump. Petitioner failed to work cooperatively with his co-worker by refusing to add oil to the pump. On June 17, 1998, Mr. McCall was not at work. Therefore, Kenny Caine (aged 47) was acting as "set-up foreman" (temporary foreman) for Mr. McCall. That same day, Randy Dortch (aged 48) was acting as set-up foremen for the maintenance department and Kip Norton (aged 58) was the powerhouse supervisor. On June 17, 1998, a powerhouse operator informed Mr. Norton that there was a high oil pressure differential on the No. 4 power boiler ID fan. Mr. Norton called Mr. Dortch at 7:10 a.m. to request the services of the PPM mechanic on duty to check the filter on the fan. Mr. Norton was concerned that the filter needed to be changed to alleviate the pressure differential and avoid a possible turbine trip. Petitioner happened to be the PPM mechanic on duty for that area of the mill. After talking to Mr. Dortch, Mr. Norton paged Petitioner. However, Petitioner did not respond to the page. Mr. Norton then called Mr. Caine in an attempt to locate Petitioner. Mr. Dortch located Petitioner in the break room. Mr. Dortch specifically directed Petitioner to go check the oil pressure on the No. 4 power boiler ID fan. Rather than immediately responding to Mr. Dortch's request, Petitioner sat down at the break table, drinking coffee, and reading the paper. Mr. Dortch then contacted Mr. Caine who went to the break room to speak to Petitioner. Petitioner explained to Mr. Caine that the filters on the fan were too small, that they were scheduled for change, and that new filters had been ordered. Mr. Caine went to the production staff to relay Petitioner's explanation that there was no cause for concern about the filters. Mr. Caine then returned to speak with Petitioner, stating that the production department wanted the filters changed despite Petitioner's representation that the equipment was performing normally. Mr. Caine went with Petitioner to the No. 4 power boiler ID fan. Petitioner then proceeded to change the filters. Mr. Caine subsequently counseled Petitioner to respond to every request from an operator for assistance. Mr. Caine reminded Petitioner that he should not have to have a foreman of any sort, production or maintenance, tell him what to do. Mr. Caine mentioned the June 17, 1998, incident to Mr. McCall but did not recommend that Petitioner be disciplined. Petitioner stayed in the break room almost one hour after Mr. Dortch instructed Petitioner to check the oil pressure differential on the No. 4 power boiler ID fan. Petitioner's delay in following directions was insubordinate and a violation of his last chance agreement. Don Wilson was Respondent's engineering and systems manager. Based on Mr. McCall's recommendation, Mr. Wilson (aged 60) made the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. Mr. Wilson's decision is memorialized in a letter dated August 5, 1998, which states that Petitioner's behavior on June 11, 1998, and June 17, 1998, violated the conditions of his continued employment. Mr. Wilson's decision was reviewed and approved by Doug Owenby (aged 56), Respondent's plant manager. Stan Shaw (aged 49), Respondent's human resource manager, also reviewed and approved of the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. When Respondent terminated Petitioner, Respondent replaced him with Doug Anderson, an individual who was approximately in his mid-30s. Roger Brown, also in his mid-30s, and Kenny Caine, aged 47, also performed the job formerly held by Petitioner. In each instance, the PPM mechanic position was awarded based on seniority in accordance with the terms of the Union labor agreement. The labor agreement gave Respondent no discretion in selecting Petitioner's replacement. Petitioner grieved his termination through the Union. Mr. Shaw denied the grievance. Subsequently, the Union voted against taking Petitioner's grievance to arbitration. While he was employed with Respondent or during the grievance process following his termination, Petitioner never complained that he was being discriminated against because of his age to any manager, supervisor or human resources representative. However, at least two of Petitioner's co-worker's harassed him occasionally by calling him names such as "old mother fucker" and "old square-headed mother fucker." Mr. McCall was aware that some of Petitioner's co-workers were making jokes about his employment situation relative to the last chance agreement. Even so, there is no persuasive evidence that anyone called Petitioner names in front of Mr. McCall or any other person in a position of authority. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that the two co-workers called Petitioner names because he took the PPM mechanics job away from Billy Dortch, an individual that they liked. At some point before he was terminated, Petitioner learned from the Union that Respondent intended to downsize its workforce. Respondent planned to offer some employees early retirement packages. Respondent intended to eliminate other positions through attrition. Most PPM mechanics were close to Petitioner's (aged 53). Some of the PPM mechanics accepted the retirement package but Petitioner informed Mr. McCall that he needed to continue working and would not be interested in a retirement package if Respondent offered him one. The reduction-in-force took place in October and November 1998 due to market conditions during which 150 positions were eliminated. No employees were involuntarily terminated. Respondent did not consider age as a factor during the reduction-in-force or seek to eliminate older workers through the voluntary retirement packages. Petitioner's termination was unrelated to the downsizing process. The voluntary retirement package offered by Respondent gave each employee who accepted the package at least one week of severance pay per year of service. Employees with more than 15 years of service got two weeks of severance pay per year of service. Therefore, Respondent incurred greater expense allowing employees to chose whether or not to accept the voluntary retirement package based on seniority. The labor agreement with the Union does not require Respondent to offer any severance benefits during a reduction-in-force. At the time of Petitioner's termination, there were 10 other PPM mechanics under Mr. McCall's supervision. All of them were over the age of 40. Five were older than Petitioner. Specifically, Earl Powell was aged 68, Larry Sloan was aged 62, Edward Holland was aged 60, Howard Patrick was aged 57, and Lee Stonewall was aged 54. Mr. McCall never had cause to discipline these five men. None of the PPM mechanics other than Petitioner were terminated. After Petitioner's termination, Mr. McCall did have to issue a verbal warning to Phil Caddel (aged 50) and Clay Bonner (late 30's). In both incidences, the discipline was for performing "government jobs" on company time. During the time that Mr. McCall supervised Petitioner, he was never asked to serve in a set-up capacity. Instead, Mr. McCall selected Mr. Caine, Mr. Dortch, and Bob Stewart, all younger than Petitioner, to act as substitute foremen when Mr. McCall was not at work. Mr. McCall kept notes on Petitioner's performance. In fact, Mr. McCall kept detailed notes on the performance of a great majority but not all of the employees under his supervision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 11th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas R. Brice, Esquire McGuireWoods LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether two persons were employees or independent contractors of Respondent, pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and, if employees, an additional issue is the penalty that Petitioner should impose against Respondent for his failure to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for the two employees.
Findings Of Fact At the time in question, Respondent was in the business of erecting enclosures for swimming pools. On most of these jobs, Respondent served as a subcontractor of Commercial Residential Construction. On April 7, 1998, Respondent was providing labor and materials, as a subcontractor to Commercial Residential Construction, on a screened-enclosure job located at 2242 Otter Creek Lane in Sarasota. Commercial Residential Construction supplied the aluminum and screen used for this job. For this job, Respondent hired two individuals who had worked for Commercial Residential Construction or other independent contractors in the construction business. Respondent did not have workers’ compensation coverage for the two individuals working with him on this job. Respondent’s agreement with these two persons was to pay them, on a weekly basis, a specified percentage of the total price that Respondent was to receive for the work. If the contractor refused to pay Respondent due to unsatisfactory work, then Respondent would not pay the two individuals. The two individuals had to supply their own tools. Sometimes they transported themselves to the job site; sometimes, as a matter of convenience, Tom Dybalski, the owner of Respondent, transported them or was transported by them. The two individuals did not testify. Petitioner called Mr. Dybalski as a witness; otherwise, Petitioner’s witnesses consisted exclusively of staff and investigators. However, these witnesses were unable to establish the statements of the two putative employees because of hearsay. The findings of fact contained in this recommended order are derived from Mr. Dybalski’s testimony or admissions made to one of Petitioner’s investigators. However, the administrative law judge has not relied on hearsay testimony, which is admissible under the exception for admissions against interest, that Mr. Dyblaski admitted that the two individuals were employees. Mr. Dyblaski is an aluminum contractor, not an attorney, and his “concession” concerning a complex matter, especially given his obvious ignorance of the applicable legal criteria, is not entitled to any weight. Admissible evidence does not establish whether the two individuals had exemptions from workers’ compensation. Mr. Dybalski testified that he did not know whether they did. The two individuals did not testify, so it is impossible to determine from this source whether they had exemptions. The record is similarly devoid of competent evidence establishing Respondent’s contention that the two individuals were employees of Commercial Residential Construction while working on the subject job.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers’ Compensation enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of failing to obtain workers’ compensation coverage to two employees and imposing a penalty in the amount of $1000. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Louise T. Sadler Senior Attorney Division of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 A. Brent McPeek Attorney 3986 South Tamiami Trail Venice, Florida 34293 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application to qualify two additional business entities should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, David Rheaume, has been an electrician since about 1960. Petitioner is a certified electrical contractor, holding Florida license number EC 13003139. Petitioner currently serves as the primary qualifier for two companies, David's Electric Service, Inc. (David's Electric), in Fort Myers, and Primary Electric of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Primary Electric), in Cape Coral. As the primary qualifier for David's Electric and Primary Electric, Petitioner is responsible for the supervision of all operations of the business organization, for all field work at all sites, and for financial matters, both for the organization in general and for each specific job. § 489.522(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). David's Electric is wholly owned and operated by Petitioner. He is the sole officer and employee. On average, Petitioner works three-to-four hours per day, five or six days per week, doing mostly service work and upgrades. He gets most of his work from the local pennysaver-type advertising circular, and his schedule depends on the number of calls he receives from customers. He may work for six hours on one day, and not at all on the next. Petitioner considers himself semi-retired, and no longer undertakes new home installations. Petitioner is able to make his own flexible schedule as the owner/operator of David's Electric, and believes that he will be able to supervise the operations of the additional entities for which he seeks to act as qualifier. Primary Electric performs electrical service work and the wiring of newly constructed houses. Petitioner spends a "couple hours a week at the most," supervising the electrical contracting work of Primary Electric. The owner/operator of Primary Electric calls Petitioner when a job is ready for inspection. Petitioner then goes to the job site and checks to make sure the job has been done properly before the county inspector arrives. The owner/operator consults Petitioner if he has a problem understanding the blueprints on a job. The staff of Primary Electric consists of the owner/operator and two helpers. Petitioner is officially the vice president and owns ten percent of the company. He serves in a consulting capacity, and performs no physical work for Primary Electric. At the hearing, Petitioner identified the owner/operator of Primary Electric as "Don," and could not, with confidence, recall "Don's" surname. Don supervises the business on a day-to-day basis. Petitioner knew that Don's wife "signs all the checks," but was not certain whether she has an official position in the company. The checkbook and financial records are forwarded to the office of Petitioner's CPA, where Petitioner checks them. Don, the owner/operator of Primary Electric, is not a licensed electrical contractor. Petitioner allows Don to hire and supervise the helpers who work on Primary Electric's job site. Petitioner readily conceded that he knows nothing about the hiring or qualifications of the helpers, and that he relies on Don to address any problems with faulty work performed by the helpers. Primary Electric has pulled permits and performed electrical contracting jobs without Petitioner's prior knowledge. Petitioner testified that he allowed Don to go to local building departments and pull permits for electrical contracting jobs without prior consultation with Petitioner, because "I have that much faith in him." Petitioner acknowledged that on some smaller jobs, such as additions or service work, the owner/operator of Primary Electric has finished the jobs and gone through final inspections without ever notifying him. In response, Petitioner told Don to "at least call me." Petitioner applied to serve as the primary qualifier for Dolphin Electric of SW Florida, Inc. (Dolphin Electric), a start-up company based in Cape Coral. Vincent Sica is the president of Dolphin Electric, and Petitioner is the vice president and ten percent owner. Mr. Sica is a friend of Petitioner, and formerly worked for Petitioner at David's Electric. Mr. Sica was denied an electrical contractor's license by the Board, then asked Petitioner to serve as his qualifier, thereby allowing Dolphin Electric to work in the field of electrical contracting. Dolphin Electric, if approved as an additional business under Petitioner's license, would operate as an electrical contracting business focusing primarily on wiring new custom houses built by Mr. Sica's brother, who is a general contractor. Mr. Sica and his son would perform the work. Petitioner will perform no physical work for Dolphin Electric. Petitioner intends to supervise Dolphin Electric in the same manner that he supervises Primary Electric, including allowing Mr. Sica to pull permits for electrical jobs without first consulting Petitioner. According to Petitioner, Mr. Sica was an electrician in New Jersey and is very qualified. Petitioner stated that he would likely supervise Dolphin Electric a little more closely, if only, because he and Mr. Sica are friends and spend a lot of time together. Petitioner applied to serve as the primary qualifier for Mill Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Mill Electric), a start- up company based in Fort Myers. Terry Gaschk is the president of Mill Electric, and Petitioner is the vice president and ten percent owner. Mr. Gaschk is a friend of Petitioner, and worked for Petitioner at David's Electric during a busy time. Although he has only known Mr. Gaschk for one year, Petitioner testified that Mr. Gaschk is "like a brother" to him and is a better electrician than Petitioner. When Mr. Gaschk wanted to start his own company, Petitioner was willing to serve as his qualifier. Mill Electric, if approved as an additional business under Petitioner's license, would probably operate as an electrical contracting business focusing primarily on wiring newly constructed houses. Petitioner was not sure of Mr. Gaschk's intentions, because of the current softness of the residential construction business. Petitioner guessed that Mill Electric would stay a one-man operation doing service jobs until the market improves. Petitioner intends to supervise Mill Electric in the same manner that he supervises Primary Electric, including allowing Mr. Gaschk to pull permits for electrical jobs without first consulting Petitioner. Petitioner did not demonstrate intent to adequately supervise the operations of the proposed additional entities, Dolphin Electric and Mill Electric. At Petitioner's application request hearing, the Board's chief concern was the appearance that Petitioner was engaged in a "license selling" scheme with his friends. At the de novo hearing before the undersigned, Petitioner did little to put this concern to rest. Petitioner's intent is to continue working part-time for his own company, and to allow his friends to run the day-to- day operations of the two start-up companies, including the hiring and supervision of employees, the pulling of permits for electrical work, and the performance of that work without the direct supervision of a certified electrical contractor. In general, Petitioner would be consulted when there is a problem with the work, or when his presence is required for an inspection. The undersigned does not find that Petitioner had any conscious bad intentions in making his applications. Petitioner sincerely believes that Mr. Sica and Mr. Gaschk are at least as proficient in the field as is he, and is confident enough, in his opinion, to risk his license on their behalf. However, Petitioner's casual manner of supervising the work of his friends, coupled with the sheer volume of supervisory work that he proposed to undertake for a total of three companies plus his own, caused reasonable doubts in the mind of the Board. Unfortunately, Petitioner was unable to dispel those doubts in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A final order be entered denying Petitioner's applications to qualify Dolphin Electric of SW Florida, Inc., and Mill Electrical Contractors, Inc. as additional business entities. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Reginald D. Dixon, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Howard Andrew Swett, Esquire Knott, Consoer, Ebelini, Hart & Swett, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 301 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of contracting and the licensure of those engaged in the practice of contracting of all types, in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent engages in re-modeling and other construction-related work both as his own business and employment by a certified general contractor. This case arose upon a Complaint filed with the Petitioner Agency by Mr. Kenneth Hatin. The Complaint asserted his belief that the Respondent had engaged in a contract to construct an addition on his home, and after being paid substantial sums of money, had wrongfully left the job and never finished it. The residence in question is co-owned by Mr. Hatin and his fiancée, Ms. Beverly White. Ms. White's first cousin is Ms. Julie Crawley. Ms. Crawley is the Respondent's fiancée. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent were introduced by Ms. Crawley and Ms. White. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent thus met socially and as they got to know each other discussed Mr. Hatin's desire to have an addition placed on his home. The addition consisted of a pool enclosure to be constructed on his property located at 33 Botany Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Hatin expressed the desire to have the Respondent assist him in constructing the pool enclosure. The Respondent agreed to do so. The Respondent is employed by his brother, who is a Florida-Licensed General Contractor, but neither the Respondent nor his business, JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., are licensed or certified to engage in contracting or electrical contracting. In accordance with his agreement with Mr. Hatin, the Respondent provided labor and assistance with the renovation project, including digging ditches, picking-up supplies and being present at the work site. In addition to the Respondent, other friends and family members of the protagonists assisted with the project, including the Respondent's son, Ms. Crawley's son, Mr. Hatin's employer, Ms. White's brother-in-law, and Mr. Hatin himself. This was, in essence, a joint family/friends cooperative construction project. Over the course of approximately five months during the construction effort, Mr. Hatin wrote checks to the Respondent in the total amount of $30,800.00. All contractors or workmen on the job were paid and no liens were placed on Mr. Hatin's property. The checks written were for the materials purchased and labor performed by tradesmen or sub-contractors engaged by the Respondent and Mr. Hatin for various aspects of the job such as roofing, tile or block laying, etc. The Respondent received no fee or profit in addition to the amounts paid to the material suppliers, contractors, and laborers on the job. It is not entirely clear from the record who prepared the contract in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four, or the document that the parties treated as a contract. It is not entirely clear who actually signed it, but the document was drafted relating to the work to be done on Mr. Hatin's home (the contract). Mr. Hatin maintained that the Respondent prepared and signed the contract. Ms. Crawley testified that the contract was actually prepared by herself and Ms. White (for "tax purposes"). It is inferred that this means that the contract was prepared to provide some written evidence of the amount expended on the addition to the home, probably in order to raise the cost basis in the home to reduce capital gains tax liability potential at such time as the home might be sold. The term "tax purposes" might mean other issues or consequences not of record in this case, although it has not been proven that the contract was prepared for a fraudulent purpose. Ms. Crawley testified that the Respondent did not actually sign the document himself but that she signed it for him. What was undisputed was that there were hand-written changes made to the contract so as to include exhaust fans, ceiling fans, sun tunnels, a bathroom door and outside electrical lighting. Although there was a change to the contract for this additional scope of work, there was no increase in the amounts to be paid by Mr. Hatin for such work. After the project was commenced and the addition was partially built, Mr. Hatin and Ms. White were involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Work was stopped on the project for a period of approximately seven weeks, with Mr. Hatin's acquiescence, while Ms. White convalesced. The Respondent, during this time, dedicated all of his time to his regular job and other work commitments. It was apparently his understanding, expressed in Ms. Crawley's testimony, that, due to injuries he received in the accident and more particularly the more serious injuries received by his fiancée, that Mr. Hatin was not focused on the project at that time, but let it lapse until the medical emergency was past. After approximately seven weeks of inactivity Mr. Hatin contacted the Respondent requesting that he begin work on the project again. A meeting was set up between Mr. Hatin and the Respondent. The Respondent however, was unable to attend the meeting with Mr. Hatin that day, tried to re-schedule and a dispute arose between the two. Additionally, family disputes over money and interpersonal relationships were on- going at this time leading to a lack of communication and a further dispute between Mr. Hatin, Ms. White, the Respondent, and Ms. Crawley. A threat of physical harm was directed at the Respondent by Mr. Hatin (he threatened to put out the Respondent's "one good eye" if he came on the subject property again). Because of this, the Respondent elected not to return to the project. Inferentially, at that point the process of filing the subject complaint soon ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Garvin B. Bowden, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (hereinafter "DOT") advertised for bids on State Project No. 72190-3530 in Duval County, Florida, with the bids to be closed on June 19, 1985. The notice to contractors and the special provisions included with the bid package provided that the subcontractor participation goal for the project for firms owned and controlled by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (hereinafter "DBE") was eight percent and for firms owned and controlled by Women Business Enterprises (hereinafter "WBE") was two percent of the total contract bid for that traffic signal installation and resurfacing project. In response to that advertisement for bids, Regency Electric Contracting Company (hereinafter "Regency") submitted a bid of $571,561.86 for the project. Mike Hunter, Inc.; Traffic Control Devices, Inc.; and Wiley N. Jackson Company also submitted bids for that project. Regency was the apparent low bidder. The bid submitted by Regency proposed to utilize 6.21 percent DBE subcontractors and .39 percent WBE subcontractors. Mike Hunter, Inc., proposed to utilize 5.4 percent DBE subcontractors and 2.8 percent WBE subcontractors. Traffic Control Devices, Inc., proposed to utilize 9.8 percent DBE subcontractors and 2.6 percent WBE subcontractors. Wiley N. Jackson proposed to utilize 39.9 percent DBE subcontractors and 2.7 percent WBE subcontractors. DOT, after reviewing the bids, issued a notice of switch in apparent low bidder for the project based upon the failure of Regency to achieve the DBE/WBE project goals and failure to submit documentation of good faith efforts to achieve those goals. Since Mike Hunter, Inc., (the second lowest bidder), also failed to achieve the project's DBE/WBE goals, DOT declared Traffic Control Devices, Inc. (the third lowest bidder), to be the low responsible bidder with its bid of $660,240.47 which is $88,678.61 more than the bid submitted by Regency. The 9.8 percent DBE participation proposed by Traffic Control Devices, Inc., was achieved by allocating a portion of the electrical work being performed by Traffic Control Devices, Inc., to a single DBE subcontractor at a price which was approximately double that proposed to be charged by Regency utilizing its own forces. W & T Enterprises, Inc., is the sole DBE subcontractor proposed to be utilized by Traffic Control Devices, Inc. Although W & T is a North Carolina corporation, it is certified by DOT as a DBE subcontractor for participation in contracts awarded by DOT. W & T qualified to transact business in the State of Florida on August 4, 1980, but its permit to transact business in Florida was revoked on December 16, 1981 for failure to file the annual report as required by law. Since that time, W & T has not re-qualified itself to do business in Florida, and W & T cannot now qualify to do business in Florida since there is now a Florida corporation under the name of W & T Enterprises, Inc. which is not affiliated with the North Carolina corporation, so that that name is no longer available in the State of Florida. Further, the North Carolina W & T Enterprises, Inc. is not registered under a fictitious name in Seminole County where it is alleged to maintain an office. Since Regency's Utilization Form No. 1 reflected that Regency had failed to achieve either the DBE or the WBE goals required for the project, an evaluation was made by DOT's "good faith efforts" review committee of Regency's "good faith efforts" documentation required to be submitted with its bid. In an attempt to evidence "good faith efforts" Regency submitted with its bid a one-page note which lists the DBE and WBE firms contacted by Regency. Regency only contacted a total of ten potential subcontractors and did not contact all of the potential subcontractors in any of the possible areas of subcontracting. The note further fails to indicate when the solicitations were made or that the solicitations were made at least seven days prior to the bid letting. Further, the few solicitations that were made were done by telephone and not by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by hand-delivery with a receipt. There is no evidence to indicate what information was given in the solicitations or that Regency offered to assist the firms contacted with preparation of their quotes, with review of the bid package, or with the obtaining of any required bonding or insurance. Lastly, none of the quotes obtained from any of the DBE or WBE firms contacted were attached to Regency's bid. DBE goals and WBE goals are established by DOT on a project-by-project basis. The evidence in this cause indicates that there were a number of facets to the project including, for example, grassing, asphalt/concrete, barricades/signs, guard rails, signalization and striping. Although one of Regency's witnesses who was not qualified as an expert made the statement that there was an insufficient amount of work available for subcontracting in the project, no specifics were offered as to the basis for that opinion other than the fact that Regency did not choose to subcontract any of the signalization work. No evidence was offered to show what portions of the project involved other-than-signalization work what portion of the project involved materials, or why no portion of the signalization should be subcontracted other than that witness's testimony that loop assembly work proposed to be subcontracted to W & T Enterprises Inc., by Traffic Control Devices, Inc., doubled the price of that portion of the work over Regency's estimate of the costs to do the loop assembly using Regency's own forces. Further, two of the four bidders were able to allocate sufficient portions of the project to subcontractors to meet the DBE goals set by DOT for the project, and three of the four bidders met the WBE goals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered declaring the bid of Regency Electric Contracting Company on State Project No. 72190-3530 nonresponsive, rejecting that bid, and dismissing with prejudice Regency's formal protest of intent to award a contract. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of November, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 1st day of November, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-2820 The following proposed findings of fact of Regency Electric Contracting Company have either been adopted verbatim or have been adopted as modified to conform to the evidence: 3-6 and 16-19. The following proposed findings of fact of Regency Electric Contracting Company have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but as constituting either argument of counsel or conclusions of law: 1, 2, 13-15, and 20. The following proposed findings of fact of Regency Electric Contracting Company have been rejected as unnecessary: 7-12. The following proposed findings of fact of the Department of Transportation have either been adopted verbatim or have been adopted as modified to conform to the evidence: 1, 4, 7, and 8. The following proposed findings of fact of the Department of Transportation have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but as constituting either argument of counsel or conclusions of law: 2, 3, 6, and 11. The following proposed findings of fact of the Department of Transportation have been rejected as unnecessary: 5, 9, and 10. The following proposed finding of fact of the Department of Transportation has been rejected as not being supported by any evidence: 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald W. Brooks, Esquire 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race and sex, and whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for making complaints of discriminatory treatment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent JATC is an apprenticeship program which provides training to persons who desire to become journeymen electricians. JATC is supervised by the United States Department of Labor and a corresponding State of Florida governmental agency. JATC is based in Gainesville, Florida, and is headed by a six-member committee of three contractor representatives appointed by the area's National Electrical Contractors Association and three labor union representatives appointed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 1205. The committee decides disciplinary actions and policy matters involving apprentices. The committee employs a director. JATC's geographical jurisdiction is bounded at Wildwood, Florida, on the south to the St. John's River on the east, cutting across west of Jacksonville through Tallahassee and Panama City, Florida, to the west, and includes three counties in Georgia to the north. An advisory subcommittee deals with routine matters in and for the Tallahassee area, and a similar advisory subcommittee handles routine matters in and for the Panama City area. For matters which are not considered routine and require final action, the subcommittees refer the matters to the full committee at the Gainesville headquarters. JATC does not have actual offices in Tallahassee or Panama City, but utilizes the union halls for the subcommittees' activities. Persons desiring to become journeymen electricians apply to JATC to enter the apprenticeship program and, if selected for the program, are required to enter into an apprenticeship agreement with JATC. In order to complete the program, a person must complete 8,000 hours of on-the-job training, complete 144 hours per year of classroom training, and pass various tests. The apprenticeship program was originally designed as a five-year program, but JATC has condensed the classroom work and the on-the-job training to four years with no summer vacations. JATC is responsible for the selection, placement, and training of the apprentices as work is available. JATC does not employ apprentices. It refers apprentices for employment to participating electrical contractors for positions which provide wages and on-the-job training within JATC's geographical jurisdiction. When a participating contractor needs to hire electrician apprentices, the contractor contacts JATC. In turn, JATC contacts the requested number of apprentices and refers them to the contractor for possible hiring. The decision to hire an apprentice is made by the contractor, who also determines whether to terminate or layoff an apprentice. The duties of the apprentice on the work site are assigned by the contractor and may include such tasks as carrying trash and digging ditches. The policies and standards of JATC do not require an apprentice to be under constant supervision on job sites. Apprentices are provided direct supervision, which allows them the opportunity to have direction from persons who are knowledgeable in the type of work that is being performed by the apprentices. Opportunities for on-the-job training depend on the needs of the contractors. Jobs can last anywhere from two days to four years, and depend on the amount of building construction in the area at any given time. Due to the fluctuation in the number of jobs available in the various areas within JATC's jurisdiction, apprentices have been referred to and have worked on jobs in areas within JATC's geographical jurisdiction that are away from the apprentices' residences. Johnson, a black female, entered into an apprenticeship program with JATC in August 1998. She signed an Apprenticeship Agreement, sometimes referred to as an "Indenture," in which she agreed "diligently and faithfully to perform the work of said trade during the period of apprenticeship, in accordance with the registered standards of [JATC]." The Policy Statements of JATC govern the conduct of the apprentices. Johnson received copies of each Policy Statement in effect during the time that she participated in the apprenticeship program. She signed statements acknowledging that she had read, understood, and would comply with the Policy Statements. The Policy Statements provided: "Violations of J.A.T.C. rules and policy may lead to or result in termination of indenture or other action deemed appropriate by J.A.T.C." Johnson was interviewed and accepted for the first JATC class in Tallahassee. During the interviews of apprentices for the first Tallahassee class, the candidates were specifically asked whether they would be able to travel to other cities for work, away from where they normally resided. During her interview, Johnson did not indicate any problems or difficulty with traveling to work in areas away from her Tallahassee home. On October 16, 1998, Johnson was issued a Notice of Termination from Miller Electric Co. (Miller). She had been employed by Miller on referral from JATC. The reason given on the notice was that Johnson had resigned; however, JATC had actually pulled Johnson away from the job because it understood that Miller was going to terminate Johnson. JATC felt that Johnson had potential as an apprentice so she was referred to another contractor, Raytheon Constructors, Inc. (Raytheon) which had an opening for an apprentice. On March 12, 1999, Raytheon issued a Termination Notice to Johnson, terminating her employment for "failure to meet job site requirement," and indicating that she was not eligible for rehire with Raytheon. Johnson had failed a drug test. Johnson informed JATC of the situation with Raytheon. The Director of JATC advised her to present a clean drug test, which she did. Although the Policy Statements provided that Johnson could be disciplined for being terminated and receiving a "not for rehire," she was not disciplined. She was referred for more job assignments. By letter dated December 17, 1999, Johnson complained to the Director of JATC that she was not being given work when work was available. She requested that JATC force her former employer, Hartsfield Electric, to reemploy her, even though she complained that when she worked for Hartsfield that she was given "the hardest and dirtiest jobs they had." She concluded her letter by stating: "I will do what ever it takes to stay in this program, but I won't leave Tallahassee to do so." Johnson resided in Tallahassee and was unwilling to take assignments outside the Tallahassee area. When the Director of JATC received the December 17, 1999, letter from Johnson, he investigated her allegations, including her work assignments with Hartsfield. He determined that Johnson's assignments were within the duties of an apprentice and, although some of the tasks may have been "crappy work," that was part of being an apprentice. Hartsfield was not satisfied with Johnson's work and was unwilling to rehire her. Johnson received an "unsatisfactory job performance" evaluation from Atkins Electric Co. for the period April 13, 1999, to May 7, 1999. Because of her prior job performance, participating Tallahassee contractors were refusing to hire Johnson. JATC continued to accommodate Johnson's desire not to work outside the Tallahassee area. When a new contractor who did not have previous experience with Johnson would come to Tallahassee, JATC would refer Johnson to that contractor. Apparently Hartsfield changed its position and rehired Johnson at some point, because on May 15, 2000, Hartsfield gave Johnson a Notice of Termination. The notice cited lack of production, the need for constant supervision, and tardiness as the reasons for termination. The notice also indicated that Johnson was not eligible for rehire. The JATC Policy Statements provided that an apprentice who was terminated from a job or received a "not-for-hire" was to appear before the committee to discuss the termination before any disciplinary action would be taken. The Policy Statements also provided that the apprentice would not be reassigned to any job until JATC reviewed the termination. Johnson was noticed to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee, who referred the termination issue to the committee in Gainesville. Johnson was issued a notice to appear before the Gainesville committee. No disciplinary action was taken against Johnson for the termination. The committee gave her the option of going to another location to find employment and, when work became available in Tallahassee, being sent back to Tallahassee to work. By letter dated August 9, 2000, Hartsfield wrote to the Local Union 1205, requesting that Johnson not be referred to Hartsfield and giving as reasons that Johnson did not follow orders well, was not dependable, and was irresponsible. On November 3, 2000, JATC notified Johnson to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee for absenteeism from class. The class attendance sheets showed that Johnson had been absent from class three times from August to October 2000. No disciplinary action was taken against Johnson because of her absences. Around November 16, 2000, the Director got Johnson hired by a new participating contractor in Tallahassee. Johnson was terminated by that contractor for having a bad attitude. The contractor would not rehire Johnson. Johnson appeared before the subcommittee and requested that she be allowed to come up with a plan in which she would wire her home and those hours working on her home would be counted towards her required on-the-job training hours. The Director told her to put the plan in writing so that it could be presented to the committee. Johnson failed to prepare a written plan. After being on the job with Miller Electric for 28 days, Johnson received a poor performance evaluation on March 3, 2001. The evaluation indicated that Johnson needed improvement in her work habits, needed constant supervision, stood around and showed little interest in her job, was resentful and uncooperative, and had very little mechanical aptitude. Johnson was noticed to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee concerning her poor evaluation. The subcommittee referred the issue to the committee in Gainesville. Johnson was notified to appear before the committee in Gainesville, which she did on March 27, 2001. She told the committee that she was getting mixed feelings on what she was expected to do on the job. The committee explained in great detail what was expected of her. Johnson acknowledged that she understood. The committee placed her on one-year probation and advised her in writing that "any further infraction to the policy statement could mean your immediate termination." Johnson filed an appeal of the action placing her on probation. The Director investigated her claims and spoke to anyone he could find on the job site in question. He interviewed the supervisors, who had been on the job with Johnson. Johnson was given the opportunity to provide the committee with the names of witnesses who could support her claim that she should have been given a better evaluation and any other information that she had concerning the performance evaluation. At the April 24, 2001, meeting of the Gainesville committee, the Director advised that he had statements from some of the people he interviewed. Johnson had not supplied the committee with any additional information. Having received no information from Johnson, the committee denied her appeal. On two occasions, Johnson told the Director that she believed the Tallahassee contractors were discriminating against her. On each occasion, the Director investigated her claims, interviewed individuals on the job site, and interviewed Johnson. Based on his investigation, he was unable to conclude that she had been discriminated against. Electricians in North Florida or Tallahassee cannot make a living by limiting their job opportunities to the towns in which they live. The supply of workers is greater than the demand for labor. After Johnson was put on probation, JATC continued to have difficulty finding any contractors in Tallahassee who would hire Johnson. The Director offered her referrals wherever work was available, such as Panama City, Gainesville, and Palatka. She refused the offers, and stated that she would not leave Tallahassee. Around August 7, 2001, JATC committee member and assistant business manager for IBEW Local 1205, Tommy Ward, attempted to contact Johnson by telephone to provide her referrals for on-the-job training work. He continued to attempt to contact her two times by telephone during the following week. Several referrals for jobs were available at that time. On August 13, 2001, Mr. Ward learned that Johnson had changed and updated her address and telephone number. He attempted twice to contact her using her new telephone number. He was unsuccessful, but he left messages for her to contact him. Johnson failed to return Mr. Ward's calls, so he sent her a certified letter dated August 15, 2001, advising her that he had been trying to reach her. She signed for the receipt of the letter on August 18, 2001. He continued to attempt to contact her by telephone after he sent the letter. From August 9, 2001, through September 5, 2001, Mr. Ward attempted to contact Johnson at least ten times, but was unsuccessful. The Policy Statements require that one unexcused absence from class in any semester may result in apprentices being terminated from the program. Johnson had been absent from class two times in August 2001. A certified letter dated September 10, 2001, was sent to Johnson by JATC notifying her that action would be taken at the September 25, 2001, Gainesville committee meeting to terminate her from her indenture with the apprenticeship program for failure to attend classroom training and failure to respond to work assignments. The letter was unclaimed, and the postal service returned the letter to JATC after the September 25, 2001, meeting. The committee was advised that Johnson had called the Interim Apprenticeship Director the day of the meeting, asking for the telephone number for Mr. Ward. Unaware that Johnson had not received the notice of the committee meeting, the committee voted to terminate Johnson from the apprenticeship program. By letter dated October 23, 2001, JATC notified Johnson that the committee had voted to terminate her from the program. The Policy Statements of JATC provide procedures for appealing actions of the committee. The procedure is as follows: APPEAL PROCEDURE If an apprentice feels that he or she has been treated unfairly or canceled without due course, he or she may file an appeal within ten (10) days of receipt of notice of the committee's action. This complaint shall be in writing and signed by the apprentice and shall include his/her name. No reinstatement shall be considered unless a written appeal is received within ten (10) days after receiving cancellation notice from the J.A.T.C. The Policy Statements also require that when an apprentice requests to appear before the committee, the apprentice has the responsibility to make certain that he or she is available at the time assigned by the committee. Johnson appealed the committee's decision to terminate her from the program. By letter dated December 21, 2001, JATC notified Johnson that her appeal would be heard at the Gainesville committee meeting scheduled for January 22, 2002. Johnson advised the committee that she would not be able to attend the January 22 meeting because her house had burned. JATC notified Johnson by letter dated February 13, 2002, that she could present her appeal to the committee at its meeting on February 26, 2002. Johnson received notice of the meeting, but failed to appear at the February meeting. The committee notified her that it would consider her appeal at the March 26, 2002, meeting. Johnson received notice of the meeting, but failed to attend the March meeting. JATC took no further action on her appeal after her failure to appear. Johnson claims that the younger white males in the program were treated differently than she. The only person that she could recall was Mark Hoffman, whom she asserted was absent more than she and was not disciplined for his absences. As revealed by the records of JATC, Mr. Hoffman was terminated from the program in December 2001 for a failing average for the year and for absenteeism. At least three males had been terminated from the program for absenteeism before Johnson was terminated. Johnson also claims that she was treated differently than the younger white males on the job site because she was given tasks such as cleaning up the work site and digging ditches. All apprentices are given tasks such as cleaning up the work site and digging ditches. It is part of the job. When a person progresses from an apprentice to a journeyman, the person is still expected to do work such as cleaning up the site and digging ditches. The evidence does not support Johnson's claim that she was treated differently in the duties that she was being given on the work site. Johnson was involved in an automobile accident in September 1999. As a result, she suffered a torn rotator cuff, which required surgical repair. Johnson brought suit against the other driver in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, Carol Johnson vs. Kone, Inc., and Kirk Kyle Pope, Case No. 01-CA-2412. Her deposition was taken in that case on June 10, 2002. In her deposition, Johnson was asked the following questions and gave the following answers: Q. And I am asking you, okay, do you think, do you think that you would be an electrician today if you didn't have the shoulder problem? A. Yes. Q. Okay, and why do you say that? A. Because eventually I will have to find another career. I have waited all my life to do work in construction. I finally found a job that I like and now I can't, I wouldn't be able to do it much longer. Q. Well, what, why don't you think you are going to be able to continue in your chosen field as an electrician or apprentice or helper? A. Because the pills, the pain pills I take they make me sleepy. They make me tired. I can, I can't get up and do like I used to, so eventually I will have to find a desk job. I won't even probably be able to go back to agriculture because you have to be able to work in the field. I will have to find another career. Part of the duties of an electrician, apprentice, or journeyman, includes being able to lift and carry over 50 pounds and having good motion ability. Johnson admits that during her apprenticeship and as of the final hearing that she had a physical disability that affected her ability to perform in the apprenticeship program. She stated that she would be slowed down in her work, and she would not be able to pick up and handle heavy things like she could do prior to her accident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Gainesville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee did not discriminate against Carol D. Johnson based on race or sex and did not retaliate against her for making complaints of discrimination, dismissing her petition, and denying Gainesville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee's request for attorney fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 12th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Donnelly, Esquire Donnelly & Gross Post Office Box 1308 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1308 Laura A. Gross, Esquire Donnelly & Gross Post Office Box 1308 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1308 Carol D. Johnson 1420 North Meridian Road, Suite 108 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Florida Power Corporation (FPC) engaged in an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against James A. Brand on account of handicap in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1989)
Findings Of Fact Florida Power Corporation is an electrical utility engaged in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. FPC operates and maintains electrical generating plants throughout its service area, including Crystal River, Florida, where it operates two fossil generating plants, Crystal River South and Crystal River North, and a nuclear generating plant, Crystal River 3. The maintenance of the plants' equipment is performed by plant maintenance employees and by employees assigned from the System Maintenance Crew (SMC). Both regular and temporary employees work as members of the SMC in the job classifications of mechanic, certified welder mechanic, and electrician. Petitioner, James Brand, was employed by FPC on nine separate occasions during the years 1985 through 1988 as a temporary employee in the job classification of mechanic and certified welder mechanic on FPC's SMC. Temporary employees, such as Mr. Brand, are hired by FPC for the SMC for time periods of less than six months to perform overhaul and maintenance work on boilers, turbines, generators, pumps, fans, and other plant equipment during a unit or plant outage. Temporary employees are laid off and their employment is terminated as the outage work is completed. Mr. Brand had a preemployment physical examination before being initially hired as a temporary employee on the SMC in 1985. Thereafter, he had preemployment physical examinations on two occasions prior to reemployment by FPC. In June 1988, Mr. Brand was notified by letter from his attorney, Alwyn Luckey, that he has an asbestos-related lung disorder known as asbestosis. In June 1988, Mr. Brand received a clinical evaluation from Dr. Lewis J. Rubin, Head, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, that he has pulmonary asbestosis. In approximately January or February 1989, Kathleen Moyer, a human resources representative in FPC's Crystal River office, contacted Mr. Brand regarding reemployment as a mechanic or certified welder mechanic on the SMC to work during a unit or plant outage. Mr. Brand went to Ms. Moyer's office to update his records and, at that time, provided her with Dr. Rubin's clinical evaluation reflecting that he has pulmonary asbestosis and with a copy of Mr. Luckey's June 21, 1988, letter. Ms. Moyer provided Dr. Rubin's report to Dr. Alex Sanchez, FPC's regional medical director. Mr. Brand was thereafter scheduled for a physical examination with Dr. Sanchez in February 1989. Mr. Brand also provided Dr. Sanchez with copies of Dr. Rubin's clinical evaluation and Mr. Luckey's June 21, 1988, letter. Dr. Sanchez asked Mr. Brand to get a second medical opinion. On March 4, 1989, Mr. Brand went to a physician, Dr. Nikhil Shah, who conducted a pulmonary examination and a pulmonary function or spirometry test. The results were given to Dr. Sanchez. Dr. Sanchez thereafter received a letter dated March 16, 1989, from Dr. Lewis Rubin, who had initially diagnosed Mr. Brand's medical condition as pulmonary asbestosis. Dr. Rubin stated in his March 16 letter that he had reviewed the pulmonary function test performed by Dr. Shah on March 4, and that Mr. Brand's asbestosis "should in no way impair his ability to do his job as long as he is not being exposed to noxious fumes or other environmental irritants." Dr. Ronald S. Kline, Director of Health Services for FPC, thereafter reviewed Mr. Brand's medical records, including Dr. Rubin's clinical evaluation diagnosing Mr. Brand as having pulmonary asbestosis and Dr. Rubin's March 16 letter. As Director of Health Services for FPC, Dr. Kline is responsible for the overall function of the medical department, which includes responsibility for determining whether a person has a physical or mental impairment which might limit his/her activities as they relate to his/her employment. Dr. Rubin's clinical evaluation states that Mr. Brand is at risk for the progression of pulmonary asbestosis even-in the absence of further exposure to asbestos. Dr. Kline did not request that Mr. Brand undergo any additional tests to determine if he suffers from asbestosis nor did Dr. Kline make an independent diagnosis that Mr. Brand has asbestosis. Dr. Kline accepted Dr. Rubin's evaluation and diagnosis of Mr. Brand. Dr. Kline had no reason to disbelieve the diagnosis of Mr. Brand's own physician, especially when the information regarding his medical condition was presented by Mr. Brand to FPC. On April 5, 1989, Dr. Kline issued a guideline to the human resources department placing the following restriction on Mr. Brand's employment activities: "No exposure to irritating gases or fumes, or any other environmental irritant." Dr. Kline based his recommendation on Dr. Rubin's evaluation and assessment. Moreover, Dr. Kline agreed, on the basis of his own medical experience, training, and education, that Dr. Rubin's recommendation of restrictions on Mr. Brand's activities was entirely reasonable. In Dr. Kline's medical opinion, Mr. Brand's continued employment in a position where he would be exposed to noxious fumes, gases, or other environmental irritants would pose a substantial risk of injury or harm to Mr. Brand's health. Dr. Kline does not and did not make decisions or recommendations regarding the hiring or reemployment of employment applicants. At no time did Dr. Rline recommend or otherwise indicate that Mr. Brand should not be reemployed by FPC. Rather, it was Dr. Kline's recommendation that he be employed in jobs in which he would not be exposed to noxious fumes, gases, or environmenta1 irritants. After receiving Dr. Kline's report, a human resources representative contacted Carey Hamilton, senior mechanical supervisor, and asked if he could employ a person in the position of mechanic or certified welder mechanic on the SMC who could not be exposed to irritating gases, fumes, and other environmental irritants. As senior mechanical supervisor, Mr. Hamilton is responsible for hiring and supervising the" regular and temporary mechanics and certified welder mechanics on the SMC. Mr. Hamilton has working knowledge of the environment inside the power plants due to his experience as an employee and supervisor on the SMC. He has been employed by FPC for over fifteen years in the job classifications of temporary mechanic, lab technician, certified welder mechanic, first line supervisor, and senior mechanical supervisor. He has worked as a certified welder mechanic, first line supervisor, and senior mechanical supervisor in all of FPC's power plants. Moreover, approximately ten years of Mr. Hamilton's experience has involved working with the SMC and supervising regular and temporary employees on the SMC, including during unit or plant outages. Based on his experience and firsthand knowledge of the work environment in the plants, Mr. Hamilton determined that he could not employ a person to work as a mechanic or certified welder mechanic on the SMC who could not be exposed to irritating gases, fumes, and other environmental irritants. At the time Mr. Hamilton responded to the human resources employment inquiry, he was unaware of the identity of the individual human resources was inquiring about or that this person has asbestosis. All employees on the SMC are initially hired into the mechanic classification. However, the temporary employees who are hired to work during a plant outage are usually upgraded to the certified welder mechanic position after they pass certain tests. The mechanics and certified welder mechanics working in the plant during an outage are continuously exposed to noxious fumes, gases, and other environmental irritants. Pulverized coal and fly ash, both of which have the consistency of face powder, exist in abundance throughout the plant in areas where the mechanics and certified welder mechanics are assigned to work. They are also exposed to other major irritants including sulfur dioxide gas, flue gases, smoke and dust created by tools, and irritants created by sandblasting and grinding. Mr. Brand was hired as a temporary on the SMC because of his welding and pipe fitting skills. He was qualified and certified to make safety-related pressure welds. FPC expends a significant amount of money in testing and certifying persons employed on the SMC so they can be used as welders. Prior to each period of his employment on the SMC, Mr. Brand was required to take welding certification tests in order to qualify as a certified welder. He always passed the certification tests and therefore was qualified to work as a certified welder mechanic. As a certified welder mechanic, Mr. Brand would work primarily in and around the boiler and boiler cavity. The work that is performed inside the boiler cavity by certified welder mechanics involves inspection, repair, and replacement of boiler tubes, replacement of burner fronts and defusers, and refractory repair. The certified welder mechanics clean the boiler tubes with a grinder prior to inspection. Thereafter, their work typically consists of repairing boiler tube leaks with a weld and replacing sections of the boiler tubes. The performance of this work involves grinding, burning, cutting, and welding, all of which produces fumes, gases, and other airborne irritants. The burner replacement and refractory repair work also exposes the certified welder mechanics to similar fumes, gases ~ and irritants. In addition to the boiler area, the certified welder mechanics perform work on the precipitators. This work involves burning, welding, and cleaning. The bottom ash hopper and the pulverizers that are used to crush coal are cleaned and repaired by certified welder mechanics during an outage. This work involves cutting, burning, grinding, and welding which produces noxious fumes and gases. Working on the water front and in the turbine areas during an outage exposes these SMC employees to fumes and dust particles created by sandblasting. During an outage, the SMC employees will be working on one unit that is out of operation; however, they are working next to a unit that is in operation. The unit that is in operation produces gases, fumes, and airborne irritants. The fact that Mr. Brand might work as a mechanic instead of a certified welder mechanic would not insulate him from exposure to noxious fumes, gases, and other environmental irritants. The duties of a SMC mechanic include sandblasting and grinding dirty or rusty metal, burning with a cutting torch, welding non-safety related welds, and' wire brushing. These activities are performed on a daily basis by mechanics. The sandblasting or grinding work is done with an abrasive disk that creates airborne particulates that contaminate the air. The burning process is used in making repairs such as in the steel ducts that transport air and gases to and from the boilers. Sulfur-based deposits collect in these ducts and when a torch is used in that area, the burning creates sulfur dioxide gas and other fumes. In addition, oxygen blasts are used in the burning process to increase the heat and blow metal out of the weld. This causes fly ash, dust, and other irritants to become airborne. The welding that is performed by mechanics also produces fumes and gases. All of the tools used by the SMC in the power plant are air-driven tools. The air discharged by these tools stirs up the dust, fly ash, gases, and other irritants in the workplace environment. During the time periods that a mechanic is not directly engaged in grinding, burning, or welding, he is working in close proximity to other employees who are performing those tasks, and thus, is exposed to the noxious gases, fumes, and irritants. Mr. Hamilton determined that he could not employ a certified welder mechanic on the SMC with the following restriction: "No exposure to irritating gases or fumes, or any other environmental irritant." He did not know that Mr. Brand was the proposed employee or that Mr. Brand has asbestosis. Mr. Hamilton knew that employing an individual to work as a mechanic or certified welder mechanic would expose that individual to gases, fumes, and other environmental irritants. The only positions supervised by Mr. Hamilton on the SMC are mechanic, certified welder mechanic, and tool room attendant. The tool room is housed in a large trailer parked outside of the plant. The tool room attendant's duties include issuing and receiving tools and repairing tools. These duties are performed in the tool room trailer. Because of his work location, the tool room attendant is not exposed to fumes, gases, and environmental irritants in the same way as the mechanics and certified welder mechanics. Mr. Hamilton later determined that Mr. Brand could be employed in the tool room consistent with the restrictions issued by Dr. Kline. Mr. Hamilton discussed with a human resources representative the possibility of employing Mr. Brand in the tool room. Mr. Hamilton had no objection to employing Mr. Brand in the tool room. However, there were no vacancies in that position and there have been no vacancies since that time. During 1990, Mr. Brand worked in Fluor Constructors Corporation, at Crystal River 3. Fluor Constructors is an independent contractor that is employed by FPC to perform repair and maintenance work. Mr. Brand received the referral to this job site through the Pinellas Park Local of the Pipefitters Union. While working for Fluor at Crystal River 3, he was supervised by Fluor's supervisors and not by FPC's supervisors. Mr. Brand is not seeking back pay for the period from February 23, 1991, through June 6, 1991. He was employed by a number of different employers during the period from January 1989 through May 1991. Such employers include Fluor Contractors, Inc., Teco Electric, Nisco, and a nuclear power plant in Mississippi. Mr. Brand would not be entitled to recover back pay or other monetary relief for the periods while working for other employers insofar as such interim employment periods coincided with SMC outage work periods. The hourly rate as well as other benefits of employment for temporary employees are set forth in the labor agreement between FPC and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. As of December 5, 1988, the hourly wage rate for a mechanic was $16.51 per hour and for a certified welder mechanic was $18.72 per hour.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order denying the Petition for Relief. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE R. KIESLING 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 11th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, James A. Brand 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 1(2); 3(3&4); 475 (5-7); 6(63); 7(8); and 8-16(10-17). 2. Proposed findings of fact 17-19, 21-35, 50-54, 65-70, 76, 77, 84, 85, 91, and 92 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 36-49, 55-64, 82, 83 and 86- 90 are irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 20 is unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact ,1-75 and 78-81 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Florida Power Corporation 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-63(1-62). COPIES FURNISHED: John Barry Relly II Attorney at Law Ray, Kievit & Kelly 15 West Main Street Pensacola, FL 32501 J. Lewis Sapp Sharon P. Morgan Attorneys at Law 800 Peachtree-Cain Tower 229 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303 Ronald M. McElrath, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 Johp Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue Whether the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Siting Board should approve (on appropriate conditions) or deny petitioners' application for a certificate authorizing construction and operation of the proposed Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project, an electrical power plant?
Findings Of Fact As far as the evidence showed, petitioners never analyzed the costs of a natural gas facility as compared to those of a coal-fired facility. According to uncontroverted testimony, however, natural gas is not commercially available in the quantities necessary to fire the plant. If fueled by natural gas, instead of by coal as proposed, the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project would require 50 million cubic feet of natural gas per day, on a firm basis. Natural Gas Availability The Florida Gas Transmission system, a branch of which (the "Brooker lateral") serves People's Gas System, the only local distribution company in Jacksonville, (RT.60) has no transmission capacity not already fully allocated to existing users. Among Florida Gas Transmission Company's customers are other power plants, including some operated by Jacksonville Electric Authority. Florida has "roughly 6,000 megawatts of power [generating capacity] that is primarily gas fired . . . [and] another 5,000 megawatts of power [generating capacity] that uses natural gas as a secondary fuel." RT.62. It would take more than "the entire capacity of the Florida Gas Transmission system to move . . . the fuel required to generate . . . 6,000 megawatts." Id. Jacksonville Electric Authority buys natural gas on an interruptible basis, because it has been unable to obtain a commitment to a constant or "firm" supply. The Florida Gas Transmission Company has plans to expand its transmission capacity by 100 million cubic feet a day to a total of 925 million cubic feet a day in 1991 or early 1992. But allocation of the increase -- an issue in obtaining approval from the FERC -- has already been accomplished, and the expansion will make no firm capacity available to new users. Talk of another expansion has already begun, but so far the company has done little more than collect questionnaires (which suggest demand for double the existing service.) At one time, liquefied natural gas came from Algeria to Elba Island near Savannah, Georgia, by ship. A 20- inch pipeline connects the terminal with the Sonat system on the mainland. But no Sonat pipeline comes within some 150 miles of Jacksonville, and shipments of liquefied natural gas to Elba Island ceased with the decline of oil prices after the mid-l970s. At present, the Florida Gas Transmission Company has a monopoly in Jacksonville and peninsular Florida. But `a system. in southern Georgia "called Mobile Bay" (RT.77) has plans to extend a 12-inch pipeline from an existing line near Live Oak to Jacksonville. With respect to some or all of this planned capacity, "certain commitments have been made." RT.59. Under pressure, the proposed 12-inch pipeline could transmit over 40 million cubic feet of natural gas a day, but only if that much gas reached Live Oak, and "the South Georgia system is constrained during certain parts of the year," RT.59, as it is. From the fact that a pipeline is to be constructed to bring less natural gas to Jacksonville than would be required to fuel the Cedar Bay project it might be inferred that the project itself would justify construction of a pipeline. But the opinion of petitioners' expert, Mr. Van Meter that natural gas is not an available or reasonable fuel for the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project (RT.65, 74, 79) -- and would not have been even if natural gas had been planned for earlier -- went unrebutted. Likewise unrebutted was the testimony of another of petitioners' experts that, from an economic standpoint, "Base load power plants['] most desirable fuels would be coal and nuclear." RT. 103. Construction Dewatering The applicants have modified their dewatering plan, and now propose new construction techniques for the railcar unloading facility; sequential installation of underground pipes; sequential excavation of pump pits; and an advanced effluent treatment system. (RT. 147, 149-52, 171-76, 178, 185-92; AES Ex. 4R) A cofferdam or groundwater barrier encircling the railcar unloading area would drastically reduce the amount of groundwater seeping into the excavation during construction. (RT. 173; AES Ex. 4R, 7R). Sheet piling is to be driven into perimeter trenches filled with bentonite cement. (RT. 174-75; AES Ex. 4R, 7R, 8R). Using a jet grouting technique, a five- to ten-foot thick seal would be created underneath the planned excavation. (RT. 175-76; AES Ex. 4R, 7R, 9R). Steel tie-back rods would strengthen the cofferdam, and a pump would move seepage to the surface from a sump designed to collect groundwater seeping through the cofferdam and up through the grout into the excavation. (RT. 176-77; AES Ex. 4R, 7R) The modified construction techniques now proposed would reduce maximum groundwater drawdown outside the cofferdam from approximately the 30 feet below grade originally contemplated to a currently anticipated level of approximately 5.5 feet below grade. (RT. 279; AES Ex. 10R). Excavations to install circulating water piping and to create pits to house runoff pumps would be scheduled to keep down the volume of dewatering effluent at any given time. (RT. 178-79, AES Ex. 4R) Installing a cofferdam, jetting in grauting, and sequencing construction, as now proposed, would reduce dewatering effluent flows from the 1000 to 2000 gallons per minute originally contemplated to no more than 200 gallons per minute. (RT. 180, 185; AES Ex. 4R, pp. 1 and 2) In another modification, the applicants now propose an advanced treatment system to improve the quality of (a diminished quantity of) dewatering effluent, prior to its introduction into Seminole Kraft's cooling water system. The proposed treatment system would employ as many as five treatment technologies, if needed, to ensure that cooling water system discharges to the St. Johns River containing dewatering effluent would meet Class III water quality standards. Equipment necessary to bring each technology to bear would be on site and available for use before dewatering began. (RT. 151, 185, 193, 196; AES Ex. 4R) Mixing dewatering effluent with lime would remove dissolved metals from solution. Then a clarifier would precipitate and separate solids. These first two stages of the treatment process now proposed comprise the whole of the treatment process originally proposed. (RT. 149-50, 185-68; AES Ex. 4R) Additional treatment, as needed, would include sand filtering, to eliminate the need for any turbidity mixing zone (RT. 151, 190, 198, 201; AES Ex. 4R); using a carbon filter to remove organic compounds (and some heavy metals), obviating the need for a phenol mixing zone (RT. 190-191, 198, 201; AES Ex. 4R); and, finally, selective ion exchange, to provide additional metals removal, if needed. (RT. 151, 191, 201-02; AES Ex. 4R) The applicants are to ascertain and report the quality of effluent as long as dewatering takes place. They must use a composite sampling method once a week for the first month. Thereafter they may use a single "grab" sample, but must continue assessing effluent quality once a week until dewatering ceases. The proposed monitoring program must be capable of detecting whether water quality standards are being met. (RT. 166, 195, 321-22; AES Ex. 4R). The applicants' modified dewatering plan is an environmental improvement over the previous plan and would ensure compliance with water quality standards. (RT. 193, 196, 261) DER has recommended and the applicants have agreed to accept modified Conditions III.A.12. (Construction dewatering), III.A.13 (Mixing Zones), and III.A.14. (Variances to Water Quality Standards). (RT. 152; AES Ex. SR as modified by the Joint Recommended Order filed November 1990). Based upon the applicants' modified dewatering plan, a reasonable allocation of water for construction dewatering is a maximum daily withdrawal not to exceed .288 million gallons. Modified Condition V.D. is reasonable and the applicants accept its terms. (RT. 254, 294-295; SJRWMD Ex. IR) Water for Cooling Purposes The applicants now propose to use either reclaimed water or river water for cooling, to the extent practicable, in an effort to avoid using groundwater as the permanent, primary source of cooling water. September drought conditions caused record low readings for the Floridan aquifer at 23 monitoring wells in the northern part of the St. Johns River Water Management "District, including wells in Duval County." RT. 248. The original proposal called for withdrawing four million gallons of water a day from the Floridan aquifer for cooling, when power generation begins. Under the modified proposal, groundwater would still be used as makeup for the steam or power generation system, as service water, and for potable purposes, but (except in emergencies) not for cooling, assuming the applicants obtain the regulatory approval they would be obliged to seek. The applicants have agreed to accept modified Condition XXV (Use of Water for Cooling Purposes). (RT. 155-158, 204-208; AES Ex. 6R, 12R, 13R) Condition IV.C. has been modified to reflect the reduced withdrawal of groundwater that would be necessary if groundwater is not used for cooling. For the next seven years, a maximum annual withdrawal from the Floridan aquifer for non- cooling uses of no more than 530.7 million gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal of no more than 1.45 million gallons represent amounts that are considered reasonably necessary and efficient. Unless the City of Jacksonville has agreed, on or before December 1, 1990, to supply reclaimed water for cooling, the applicants will redesign the cooling system so that river water can be used for cooling. Salt in the Broward and St. Johns rivers requires the use of highly corrosion-resistant materials for certain system components. Constructing these system components with such materials would enable the cooling system to use river water, reclaimed water from the City, or Seminole Kraft wastewater. (RT. 155-56, 159-60, 216-17; AES Ex. 6R). If river water is used, existing Seminole Kraft intake and discharge structures would be utilized. In order to reduce ill effects on aquatic organisms, the applicants would install screening and filter systems upstream of the pumps. Brackish river water must be changed or "cycled" more often than groundwater, lest evaporation cause scaling that would clog the system. The volume of river water required for cooling tower makeup is estimated at approximately 14 million gallons per day. Because cooling with river water would require more water, the applicants propose to increase piping and valve sizes for the cooling system. (RT. 155-57, 168, 215-16, 219-20; AES Ex. 6R) Modified Condition XXV specifies a procedure for amending site certification to require use of one of two primary cooling water sources: reclaimed water from the City or surface water from the Broward or St. Johns rivers. The applicants have agreed to apply within six months for modifications concerning design and operation of the plant cooling system. The application must contain information necessary to demonstrate that operation of the cooling system without using groundwater as the primary cooling water source would comply with all relevant non-procedural agency standards or qualify for a variance. The application must also detail the reasons for selection of one requested source over other possible sources. There would be no delegation to DER's Secretary for determinations under Condition XXV. Final authority to render determinations under Condition XXV would remain with the Siting Board. (RT. 207, 269; SJRWMD Ex. 2R) As drafted by the parties, modified proposed Condition xxv provides that groundwater may be utilized for cooling only in the event that neither river water nor reclaimed water from the City of Jacksonville obtains necessary environmental approvals of the preferred primary cooling sources are denied on the grounds of unavailability, or environmental or economic impracticability, as set forth in the condition. (RT. 207, 228-30; AES Ex. 12R) The applicants modified cooling system plans and modified Condition XXV, as drafted by the parties, are designed to ensure that the cooling system will use either river water or reclaimed water, to the extent it is economically and environmentally practicable. Use of either of these sources for this proposed cooling facility is viewed by the SJRWMD as equally appropriate to fulfill its conservation and reuse standards and the state water policy, which require consumptive users to utilize, to the extent practicable, the lowest quality water suitable for the proposed use. (RT. 242-43, 299-300) The applicants have stipulated that it is economically feasible and practicable for them to pay $.18-1/2 per thousand gallons for reclaimed water without phosphorous treatment or $.22 per thousand gallons for treated reclaimed water, unless expenditures have already been made to construct the cooling system to utilize river water. They also stipulated that the river water cooling option is economically feasible and practicable, if the facility is authorized to operate with the same type of cooling tower discharge operation variances granted to the St. Johns River Power Park. (RT. 206, 218, 245, 295j AES Ex. 12R) The St. Johns River Power Park, a power plant in Duval County which was certified under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, utilizes river water for cooling tower makeup and discharges its cooling tower blowdown into the St. Johns River. When river water is used for cooling, evaporation increases concentrations of pollutants already in the river. The St. Johns River Power Park's certification conditions include variances from Class III water quality standards which allow the facility to operate its cooling system with river water. These variances have been granted for two-year periods, with the permittee being required to obtain variance renewals every two years in order to continue operation of the cooling system. (RT. 206, 218-19, 288-89). Salt drift as well as concentrations of pollutants in the blowdown are being assessed. RT. 284. Use of Seminole Kraft's current wastewater is not mentioned in modified Condition XXV, as drafted by the parties. By the time the Cedar Bay cogeneration facility needs cooling water, the Seminole Kraft plant may have become a cardboard recycling facility, which would discharge a different and potentially more useful wastewater than is currently being discharged by Seminole Kraft. The precise quality of any such future effluent cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty at this time. (RT. 222-23, 238-43) But the applicants should "evaluate the practicability under [SJRWMD] rules of utilizing Seminole Kraft wastewater . . . [using] the best information . . . available," (RT. 243) during the post- certification proceeding new Condition XXV calls for, at least if reclaimed water is unavailable from the City of Jacksonville. If a primary source of cooling water other than groundwater proves unavailable or environmentally or economically impractical, as set out in modified Condition XXV, a maximum annual withdrawal from the Floridan aquifer for all facility uses not to exceed 1,990 million gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal not to exceed seven million gallons are reasonable for a period of seven years. (RT. 211,12, 296-97; AES Ex. 14R) In the event groundwater became the primary cooling source, proposed Condition xxv would require the applicants to implement their groundwater mitigation plan. (RT. 207, 229-30; AES Ex. 12R). Under this plan, the applicants would fund a free- flowing well inventory in Duval County. Additionally, they would provide a contribution of $380,000 per year for plugging free- flowing wells to reduce discharges from these wells by seven million gallons a day, if discharges of such magnitude are found. Thereafter, the applicants' annual contributions, which are to continue as long as groundwater is used for cooling, would fund a water conservation and reuse grants program in Duval County. The plan represents not only a water conservation measure but also serves as an economic incentive to the applicants to pursue necessary approvals for use of another primary cooling water source. Overall Evaluation Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. testified without contradiction that the project as now proposed "would produce minimal adverse effects on human health . . . the environment the ecology of the land and its wildlife . . . [and] the ecology of state waters and their aquatic life." RT.277. He also testified that the applicants' proposal would comply "with relevant agency standards." (RT.273) (although the evidence showed variances would be needed for cooling tower blowdown, at least if reclaimed water is not used.) Mr. Oven explained that he used permitting agencies' "criteria as a measuring stick to show compliance and to try to produce the minimal adverse impacts as allowed by regulatory policy." RT.274. Like Mr. Oven, Stephen Smallwood, Director of DER's Division of Air Resources Management interprets "minimal" as used in the Florida Electric Power Plant Siting Act to mean "minimal with respect to the standards of the agencies." DER's Exhibit No. 2R, P. 11. Otherwise, he explained, "[Y]ou'd have to perhaps conclude . . . that you couldn't license any coal-fired units [. T]hey'd either all have to be natural-gas fired or . . . nuclear or . . . solar." Id. DER staff concluded that the proposed Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project effects a reasonable balance between the need for the project and the environmental impacts associated with the project. On this basis, DER recommended that the project be certified subject to recommended conditions of certification.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Siting Board grant the site certification application filed by AES Cedar Bay, Inc. and Seminole Kraft Corporation, as amended, subject to the agreed conditions of certification attached to the recommended order as an appendix, and on condition that the facility use reclaimed wastewater as cooling tower make-up within seven years of beginning operation. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 29th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION When a condition is intended to refer to both AES Cedar Bay, Inc. and Seminole Kraft Corp., the term "Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project or the abbreviation "CBCP" or the term "permittees" will be used. Where a condition applies only to AES Cedar Bay, Inc. the term "AES Cedar Bay, Inc." or the abbreviation "AESCB" or the term "permittee," where it is clear that AESCB is the intended responsible party, will be used. Similarly, where a condition applies only to Seminole Kraft Corp., the term "Seminole Kraft Corp." or the abbreviation "SK" or the term "permittee," where it is clear that SK is the intended responsible party, will be used. The Department of Environmental Regulation may be referred to as DER or the Department. BESD represents the City of Jacksonville, Bio-Environmental Services Division. SJRWMD represents the St. Johns River Water Management District. GENERAL The construction and operation of CBCP shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of at least the following regulations of the Department Chapters 17-2, 17-3, 17-4, 17-5, 17-6, 17-7, 17-12, 17-21, 17-22, 17-25 and 17-610, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) or their successors as they are renumbered. AIR The construction and operation of AESCB shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of Chapters 17-2, F.A.C. In addition to the foregoing, AESCB shall comply with the following condition of certification as indicated. Emission Limitations for AES Boilers Fluidized Bed Coal Fired Boilers (CFB) The maximum coal charging rate of each CFB shall neither exceed 104,000 lbs/hr, 39,000 tons per month (30 consecutive days, nor 390,000 tons per year (TPY). This reflects a combined total of 312,000 lbs/hr, 117,000 tons per month, and 1,170,000 TPY for all three CFBs. The maximum wood waste (primarily bark) charging rate to the No. 1 and No. 2 CFBs each shall neither exceed 15,653 lbs/hr, nor 63,760 TPY. This reflects a combined total of 31,306 lbs/hr, and 127,521 TPY for the No. 1 and No. 2 CFBs. The No. 3 CFB will not utilize woodwaste, nor will it be equipped with wood waste handling and firing equipment. The maximum heat input to each CFB shall not exceed 1063 MMBtu/hr. This reflects a combined total of 3189 MMBtu/hr for all three units. The sulfur content of the coal shall not exceed 1.7% by weight on an annual basis. The sulfur content shall not exceed 3.3% by weight on a shipment (train load) basis. Auxiliary fuel burners shall be fueled only with natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.3% by weight. The fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.3% by weight. The fuel oil or natural gas shall be used only for startups. The maximum annual oil usage shall not exceed 160,000 gals/year, nor shall the maximum annual natural gas usage exceed 22.4 MMCF per year. The maximum heat input from the fuel oil or gas shall not exceed 1120 MMBtu/hr for the CFBs. The CFBs shall be fueled only with the fuels permitted in Conditions 1a., 1b and 1e above. Other fuels or wastes shall not be burned without prior specific written approval of the Secretary of DER pursuant to condition XXI, Modification of Conditions. The CFBs may operate continuously, i.e. 8760 hrs/yr. Coal Fired Boiler Controls The emissions from each CFB shall be controlled using the following systems: Limestone injection, for control of sulfur dioxide. Baghouse, for control of particulate. Flue gas emissions from each CFB shall not exceed the following: Pollutant lbs/MMBtu Emission lbs/hr Limitations TPY TPY for 3 CFBs CO 0.19 202 823 2468 NOx 0.29 308.3 1256 3767 SO2 0.60(3-hr avg.) 637.8 -- -- 0.31(12 MRA) 329.5 1338 4015 VOC 0.016 17.0 69 208 PM 0.020 21.3 87 260 PM10 0.020 21.3 86 257 H2SO4mist 0.024 25.5 103 308 Fluorides 0.086 91.4 374 1122 Lead 0.007 7.4 30 91 Mercury 0.00026 0.276 1.13 3.4 Beryllium 0.00011 0.117 0.5 1.5 Note: TPY represents a 93% capacity factor. MRA refers to a twelve month rolling average. Visible emissions (VE) shall not exceed 20% capacity (6 min. average), except for one 6 minute period per hour when VE shall not exceed 27% capacity. Compliance with the emission limits shall be determined by EPA reference method tests included in the July 1, 1988 version of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 and listed in Condition No. 7 of this permit or be equivalent methods after prior DER approval. The CFBs are subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da; except that where requirements within this certification are more restrictive, the requirements of this certification shall apply. Compliance Tests for each CFB Initial compliance tests for PM/PM10, SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, lead, fluorides, mercury, beryllium and H2SO4 mist shall be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f). Annual compliance tests shall be performed for PM. SO2, NOx, commencing no later than 12 months from the initial test. Initial and annual visible emissions compliance tests shall be determined in accordance with 40 CFR 60.11(b) and (e). The compliance tests shall be conducted between 90-100% of the maximum licensed capacity and firing rate of each permitted fuel. The following test methods and procedures of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 or other DER approved methods with prior DER approval shall be used for compliance testing: Method 1 for selection of sample site and sample traverses. Method 2 for determining stack gas flow rate. Method 3 or 3A for gas analysis for calculation of percent O2 and CO2. Method 4 for determining stack gas moisture content to convert the flow rate from actual standard cubic feet to dry standard cubic feet. Method 5 or Method 17 for particulate matter. Method 6, 6C, or 8 for SO2. Method 7, 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, or 7E for nitrogen oxides. Method 8 for sulfuric acid mist. Method 9 for visible emissions, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.11. Method 10 for CO. Method 12 for lead. Method 13B for fluorides. Method 25A for VOCs. Method 101A for mercury. Method 104 for beryllium. Continuous Emission Monitoring for each CFB AESCB shall use Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMS) to determine compliance. CEMS for opacity, SO2, NOx, CO, and O2 or CO2, shall be installed, calibrated, maintained and operated for each unit, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a and 40 CFR 60 Appendix F. Each continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) shall meet performance specifications of 40 CFR 60, Appendix B. CEMS data shall be recorded and reported in accordance with F.A.C. Chapter 17-2, F.A.C., and 40 CFR 60. A record shall be kept for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction. A malfunction means any sudden and unavoidable failure of air pollution control equipment or process equipment to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused entirely or in part by poor maintenance, careless operation or any other preventable upset condition or preventable equipment breakdown shall not be considered malfunctions. The procedures under 40 CFR 60.13 shall be followed for installation, evaluation and operation of all CEMS Opacity monitoring system data shall be reduced to 6-minute averages, based on 36 or more data points, and gaseous CEMS data shall be reduced to 1-hour averages, based on 4 or more data points, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(h). For purposes of reports required under this certification, excess emissions are defined as any calculated average emission concentration, as determined pursuant to Condition No. 10 herein, which exceeds the applicable emission limit in Condition No. 3. Operations Monitoring for each CFB Devices shall be installed to continuously monitor and record steam production, and flue gas temperature at the exit of the control equipment. The furnace heat load shall be maintained between 70% and 100% of the design rated capacity during normal operations. The coal, bark, natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil usage shall be recorded on a 24-hr (daily) basis for each CFB. Reporting for each CFB A minimum of thirty (30) days prior notification of compliance test shall be given to DER's N.E. District office and to the BESD (Bio-Environmental Services Division) office, in accordance with 40 CFR 60. The results of compliance test shall be submitted to the BESD office within 45 days after completion of the test. The owner or operator shall submit excess emission reports to BESD, in accordance with 40 CFR 60. The report shall include the following: The magnitude of excess emissions computed in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(h), any conversion factors used, and the date and time of commencement and completion of each period of excess emissions (60.7(c)(1)). Specific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the furnace boiler system. The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known) and the corrective action taken or preventive measured adopted (60.7(c)(2)). The date and time identifying each period during which the continuous monitoring system was inoperative except for zero and span checks, and the nature of the system repairs of adjustments (60.7(c)(3)). When no excess emissions have occurred or the continuous monitoring system has not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted, such information shall be stated in the report (60.7(c)(4)). The owner or operator shall maintain a file of all measurements, including continuous monitoring systems performance evaluations; monitoring systems or monitoring device calibration; checks; adjustments and maintenance performed on these systems or devices; and all other information required by this permit recorded in a permanent form suitable for inspection (60.7(d)). Annual and quarterly reports shall be submitted to BESD as per F.A.C. Rule 17-2.700(7). Any change in the method of operation, fuels utilized, equipment, or operating hours or any other changes pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 17-2.100, defining modification, shall be submitted for approval to DER's Bureau of Air Regulation. AES - Material Handling and Treatment The material handling and treatment operations may be continuous, i.e. 8760 hrs/yr. The material handling/usage rates shall not exceed the following: Handling/Usage Rate Material TPM TPY Coal 117,000 1,170,000 Limestone 27,000 320,000 Fly Ash 28,000 336,000 Bed Ash 8,000 88,000 Note: TPM is tons per month based on 30 consecutive days, TPY is tons per year. The VOC emissions from the maximum No. 2 fuel oil utilization rate of 240 gals/hr, 2,100,000 gals/year for the limestone dryers; and 8000 gals/hr, 160,000 gals/year for the three boilers are not expected to be significant. The maximum emissions from the material handling and treatment area, where baghouses are used as controls for specific sources, shall not exceed those listed below (based on AP-42 factors): Particulate Emissions Source lbs/hr TPY Coal Rail Unloading Coal Belt Feeder neg neg neg neg Coal Crusher 0.41 1.78 Coal Belt Transfer neg neg Coal Silo neg neg Limestone Crusher 0.06 0.28 Limestone Hopper 0.01 0.03 Fly Ash Bin 0.02 0.10 Bed Ash Hopper 0.06 0.25 Ash Silo 0.06 0.25 Common Feed Hopper 0.03 0.13 Ash Unloader 0.01 0.06 The emissions from the above listed sources and the limestone dryers are subject to the particulate emission limitation requirement of 0.03 gr/dscf. However, neither DER nor BESD will require particulate tests in accordance with EPA Method 5 unless the VE limit of 5% opacity is exceeded for a given source, or unless DER or BESD, based on other information, has reason to believe the particulate emission limits are being violated. Visible Emissions (VE) shall not exceed 5% opacity from any source in the material handling and treatment area, in accordance with F.A.C. Chapter 17-2. The maximum emissions from each of the limestone dryers while using oil shall not exceed the following (based on AP-42 factors, Table 1, 3-1, Industrial Distillate, 10/86): Pollutant lbs/hr Estimated TPY Limitations TPY for 2 dryers PM/PM10 0.25 1.1 2.2 SO2 5.00 21.9 43.8 CO 0.60 2.6 5.2 NOx 2.40 10.5 21.0 VOC 0.05 0.2 0.4 Visible emissions from the dryers shall not exceed 5% opacity. If natural gas is used, emissions limits shall be determined by factors contained in AP-42 Table 1. 4-1, Industrial 10/86. The maximum No. 2 fuel oil firing rate for each limestone dryer shall not exceed 120 gals/hr, or 1,050,000 gals/year. This reflects a combined total fuel oil firing rate of 240 gals/hr, and 2,100,000 gals/year, for the two dryers. The maximum natural gas firing rate for each limestone dryer shall not exceed 16,800 CF per hour, or 147 MMCF per year. Initial and annual Visible Emission compliance tests for all the emission points in the material handling and treatment area, including but not limited to the sources specified in this permit, shall be conducted in accordance with the July 1, 1988 version of 40 CFR 60, using EPA Method 9. Compliance test reports shall be submitted to BESD within 45 days of test completion in accordance with Chapter 17- 2.700(7) of the Florida Administrative Code. Any changes in the method of operation, raw materials processed, equipment, or operating hours or any other changes pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 17-2.100, defining modification, shall be submitted for approval to DER's Bureau of Air Regulation (BAR). Requirements for the Permittees Beginning one month after certification, AESCB shall submit to BESD and DER's BAR, a quarterly status report briefly outlining progress made on engineering design and purchase of major equipment, including copies of technical data pertaining to the selected emission control devices. These data should include, but not be limited to, guaranteed efficiency and emission rates, and major design parameters such as air/cloth ratio and flow rate. The Department may, upon review of these data, disapprove the use of any such device. Such disapproval shall be issued within 30 days of receipt of the technical data. The permittees shall report any delays in construction and completion of the project which would delay commercial operation by more than 90 days to the BESD office. Reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive particulate emissions during construction, such as coating of roads and construction sites used by contractors, regrassing or watering areas of disturbed soils, will be taken by the permittees. Fuel shall not be burned in any unit unless the control devices are operating properly, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da. The maximum sulfur content of the No. 2 fuel oil utilized in the CFBs and the two unit limestone dryers shall not exceed 0.3 percent by weight. Samples shall be taken of each fuel oil shipment received and shall be analyzed for sulfur content and heating value. Records of the analysis shall be kept a minimum of two years to be available for DER and BESD inspection. Coal fired in the CFBs shall have a sulfur content not to exceed 3.3 percent by weight. Coal sulfur content shall be determined and recorded in accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a. AESCB shall maintain a daily log of the amounts and types of fuel used and copies of fuel analysis containing information on sulfur content and heating values. The permittees shall provide stack sampling facilities as required by Rule 17-2.700(4) F.A.C. Prior to commercial operation of each source, the permittees shall each submit to the BAR a standardized plan or procedure that will allow that permittee to monitor emission control equipment efficiency and enable the permittee to return malfunctioning equipment to proper operation as expeditiously as possible. Contemporaneous Emission Reductions This certification and any individual air permits issued subsequent to the final order of the Board certifying the power plant site under 403.509, F.S., shall require, that the following Seminole Kraft Corporation sources be permanently shut down and made incapable of operation, and shall turn in their operation permits to the Division of Air Resources Management's Bureau of Air Regulation, at the time of submittal of performance test results for AES's CFBs: the No. 1 PB (power boiler), the No. 2 PB, shall be specifically informed in writing within thirty days after each individual shut down of the above reference equipment. This requirement shall operate as a joint and individual requirement to assure common control for purpose of ensuring that all commitments relied on are in fact fulfilled. WATER DISCHARGES Any discharges into any waters of the State during construction and operation of AESCB shall be in accordance with all applicable provisions of Chapters 17-3, and 17-6, Florida Administrative Code, and 40 CFR, Part 423, Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, except as provided herein. Also, AESCB shall comply with the following conditions of certification: Plant Effluents and Receiving Body of Water For discharges made from the AESCB power plant the following conditions shall apply: Receiving Body of Water (RBW) - The receiving body of water has been determined by the Department to be those waters of the St. Johns River or Broward River and any other waters affected which are considered to be waters of the State within the definition of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Point of Discharge (POD) - The point of discharge has been determined by the Department to be where the effluent physically enters the waters of the State in the St. Johns River via the SKC discharge outfall 001, which is the existing main outfall from the paper mill emergency overflow to the Broward River. Thermal Mixing Zones - The instantaneous zone of thermal mixing for the AESCB cooling system shall not exceed an area of 0.25 acres. The temperature at the point of discharge into the St. Johns River shall not be greater than 95 degrees F. The temperature of the water at the edge of the mixing zone shall not exceed the limitations of Section 17-3.05(1)(d), F.A.C. Cooling tower blowdown shall not exceed 95 degrees F as a 24-hour average, nor 96 degrees F as an instantaneous maximum. Chemical Wastes from AESCB - All discharges of low volume wastes (demineralizer regeneration, floor drainage, labs drains, and similar wastes) and chemical metal cleaning wastes shall comply with Chapter 17-6, F.A.C. at OSN 006 and 007 respectively. If violations of Chapter 17-6 F.A.C. occur, corrective action shall be taken by AESCB. These wastewaters shall be directed to an adequately sized and constructed treatment facility. pH - The pH of the combined discharges shall be such that the pH will fall within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at the POD to the St. Johns River and shall not exceed 6.5 to 8.5 at the boundary of a 0.25 acre mixing zone. Polychlorinated Bipheny Compounds - There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated bipheny compounds. Cooling Tower Blowdown - AESCB's discharge from Outfall Serial Number 002 - Cooling Tower Blowdown shall be limited and monitored as specified below: a. Parameter Discharge Limit Monitoring Frequency Requirement Type Discharge Flow (mgd) Report 1/day Totalizer Discharge Temp (F) Instantaneous Maximum Continuous Recorder Total Residual Instantaneous Continuous Recorder Oxidants Maximum-.05 mg/l Time of Total 120 minutes Continuous Recorder Residual Oxidant per day Discharge (TR) Iron Instantaneous 1/week grab Maximum-0.5 mg/l pH 6-9 1/week grab There shall be no detectable discharge of the 125 priority pollutants contained in chemicals added for cooling tower maintenance. Notice of any proposed use of compounds containing priority pollutants shall be made to the DER Northeast District Office not later than 180 days prior to proposed use. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at OSN 002 prior to mixing with any other waste stream. Seminole Kraft Corporation (SKC) shall shut down the mill's once thru cooling system upon completion of the initial compliance tests on the AESCB boilers conducted pursuant to Condition II.A.7. SKC shall inform the DER NE District Office of the shutdown and surrender all applicable operating permits for that facility. Combined Low Volume Wastes shall be monitored at OSN 006 with weekly grab samples. Discharge limitations are as follows: Daily Max Daily Avg Oil and Grease 20.0 mg/l 15.0 Copper-dissolved 1.0 mg/l* N/A Iron-dissolved 1.0 mg/l* N/A Flow Report N/A Heavy Metals Report (See Below) The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 7.0* standard units and shall be monitored once per shift, unless more frequent monitoring is necessary to quantify types of nonchemical metal cleaning waste discharged. Serial number assigned for identification and monitoring purposes. Heavy metal analysis shall include total copper, iron, nickel, selenium, and zinc. *Limits applicable only to periods in which nonchemical metal cleaning waste is being discharged via this OSN. Length of composite samples shall be during the periods (s) of nonchemical metal cleaning waste generation and discharge and shall be adequate to quantify differences in sources of waste generated (air preheater vs. boiler fireside, etc.). Chemical Metal Cleaning AESCB's discharge from outfall serial number 007 - metal cleaning wastes discharged to the Seminole Kraft treatment system. Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: a. Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limits Monitoring Requirements Instantaneous Max Measurement Frequency Sample Type Flow - m3/day (MGD) - 1/batch Pump log Copper, Total 1.0 mg/l 1/ grab Iron, Total Batches 1.0 mg/l Report 1/ 1/batch grab logs Chemical metal-cleaning wastes shall mean process equipment cleaning including, but not limited to, boiler tubes cleaning. Waste treated and discharged via this OSN shall not include any stream for which an effluent guideline has not been established (40 CFR Part 423) for total copper and total iron at the above levels. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirement specified above shall be taken at the discharge from the metal-cleaning waste treatment facility(s) prior to mixing with any other waste stream. Storm Water Runoff - During construction and operation discharge from the storm water runoff collection system from a storm event less than the once in ten year twenty-four hour storm shall meet the following limits and shall be monitored at OSN 003 by a grab sample once per discharge, but not more often than once per week:* Discharge Limits Effluent Characteristic Instantaneous Maximum Flow (MGD) Report TSS (mg/l) 50 pH 6.0-9.0 During plant operation, necessary measures shall be used to settle, filter, treat or absorb silT.containing or pollutanT.laden storm water runoff to limit the suspended solids to 50 mg/l or less at OSN 003 during rainfall periods less than the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall. Any underdrains must be checked annually and measures must be taken to insure that the underdrain operates as designed. Permittees will have to modify the underdrain system should maintenance measures be insufficient to achieve operation of the underdrains as designed. AES Cedar Bay must back flush the exfiltration/underdrain system at least once during the first six months of calendar each year. These backflushings must occur no closer than four calendar months from each other. In advance of backflushing the exfiltration/underdrain systems, the permittees must notify BESD and SJRWMD of the date and time of the backflushing. Control measures shall consist at the minimum of filters, sediment, traps, barriers, berms or vegetative planting. Exposed or disturbed soil shall be protected as soon as possible to minimize silt, and sedimenT.laden runoff. The pH shall be kept within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 in the discharge to the St. Johns River and 6.5 to 8.5 in the Broward River. Special consideration must be given to the control of sediment laden runoff resulting from storm events during the construction phase. Best management practices erosion controls should be installed early during the construction period so as to prevent the transport of sediment into surface waters which could result in water quality violations and Departmental enforcement action. Revegetation and stabilization of disturbed areas should be accomplished as soon as possible to reduce the potential for further soil erosion. Should construction phase runoff pose a threat to the water quality of state waters, additional measures such as treatment of impounded runoff of the use of turbidity curtains (screens) in on-site impoundments shall be immediately implented with any releases to state waters to be controlled. It is necessary that there be an entity responsible for maintenance of the system pursuant to Section 17- 25.027, F.A.C. Correctional action or modification of the system will be necessary should mosquito problems occur. AES Cedar Bay shall submit to DER with copy to BESD, erosion control plans for the entire construction project (or discrete phrases of the project) detailing measures to be taken to prevent the offsite discharge of turbid waters during construction. These plans must also be provided to the construction contractor prior to the initiation of construction. All swale and retention basin side slopes shall be seeded and mulched within thirty days following their completion and a substantial vegetative cover must be established within ninety days of seeding. Boiler Blowdown Discharge from boiler blowdown to the cooling tower from outfall serial Number 004 shall be limited and monitored as specified below: Effluent Discharge Limits Monitoring Characteristic Requirements Daily Sample Measurement Maximum Type Frequency TSS 30.0 grab 1/Quarter Oil and Grease 15.0 grab 1/Quarter Flow - Calculation 1/Quarter Construction Dewatering Discharge of construction dewatering to the SKC once-through cooling system from outfall serial number 005 shall be limited and monitored as specified below: Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limits Monitoring Requirements Instantaneous Maximum Measurement Frequency Sample Type Flow - m3/day (MGD) - daily Totalizer Turbidity (NTU) 164 1/week grab Aluminium mg/l 1.5 1/week grab Copper mg/l 0.046 daily composite Iron mg/l 0.3 1/week grab Lead mg/l 0.5 1/week grab Mercury mg/l 0.002 1/week grab Phenol ug/l 35.7 daily grab TSS mg/l 50.0 1/week grab pH 6.0-9.0 1/week grab Variance - In accordance with the provisions of Section 403.201 and 403.511(2), F.S., AES Cedar Bay is hereby granted a variance to water quality standards of Chapter 17- 3.121, F.A.C. for copper subject to the following conditions. AES Cedar Bay shall treat the construction dewatering discharge so as not to exceed 0.046 milligrams per liter for copper in the effluent from the dewatering treatment system. AES Cedar Bay shall do sufficient bench testing to demonstrate that it can meet the above limit for copper. AES Cedar Bay shall notify DER and BESD of the bench testing, and allow DER and BESD to be present if they so desire to observe the bench testing. In addition, AES Cedar Bay shall determine the amount of treatment and removal provided for iron, aluminum and lead by the method of treatment selected for copper. A report shall be submitted to DER and BESD summarizing the results of the bench testing of the proposed treatment technique. The variance shall be valid beginning with the start of dewatering and lasting until the end of construction dewatering but not to exceed a period of two years (not including periods of interruption in the construction dewatering). The Secretary has been delegated the authority to grant additional variances or mixing zones from water quality standards should AES Cedar Bay demonstrate any to be necessary after consideration of comments from the parties, public notice and an opportunity for hearing, pursuant to section 120.57 F.S., with final action by the Siting Board if a hearing is requested. In the absence of such final action by the Secretary, compliance with water quality standards shall be measured at the designated POD to the St. John River unless a zone of mixing is granted. Project discharge descriptions - Dewatering water, outfall 005, includes all surficial groundwater extracted during all excavation construction on site for the purpose of installing structures, equipment, etc. Discharges to the SKC once through cooling water system at a location to be depicted on an appropriate engineering drawing to be submitted to DER and BESD. Final discharge after treatment is to the St. Johns River. The permittee shall report to BESD the date that construction dewatering is expected to begin at least one week prior to the commencement of dewatering. Mixing zones - The discharge of the following pollutants shall not violate the Water Quality Standards of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., beyond the edge of the designated instantaneous mixing zones as described herein. Such mixing zones shall apply when the St. Johns River is in compliance with the applicable water quality standard. Plant Dewatering Operations for two years from the date construction dewatering commences: Parameter Mixing Zone Aluminum 125,600 m2 31 acres Copper " 31 " Iron " 31 " Lead " 31 " Turbidity 12,868 m2 3.2 " Phenol 12,868 " 3.2 " The permittee shall report the date construction dewatering commences to the BESD. During operation of CBCP for the life of the facility: Iron 125,600 m2 (31 acre) mixing zone Chlorine 0 - not measurable in river Temp 1,013 m2 (0.25 acre) pH 1,013 m2 (0.25 acre) Variances to Water Quality Standards - In accordance with the provisions of Sections 403.201 and 403.511(2), F.S., permittees are hereby granted variances to the water Quality Standards of Chapter 17-3.121, F.A.C. for the following: During construction dewatering for a period not to exceed two years -- copper. The Secretary of DER may authorize variances for aluminum, iron, and lead upon a showing that treatment for copper can not bring these metals into compliance, however, any variance granted shall not cause or allow an exceedance of acute toxicity standards. During Operation -- iron. Such variances shall apply only as the natural background levels of the St. Johns River approach or exceed those standards. In any event, the discharge from the CBCP shall comply with the effluent limitations set forth in Paragraph III.A.12. At least 90 days prior to start of construction, AES shall submit a bioassay program to assess the toxicity of construction dewatering effluent to the DER for approval. Such program shall be approved prior to start of construction dewatering. Sanitary wastes from AESCB shall be collected and discharged for treatment to the SKC domestic wastewater treatment plant. Water Monitoring Programs Necessity and extent of continuation, and may be modified in accordance with Condition No. XXI, Modification of Conditions. Chemical Monitoring - The parameters described in Condition III.A. shall be monitored during discharge as described in condition III A. commencing with the start of construction or operation of the CFBs and reported quarterly to the Northeast District Office: Coal, Ash, and Limestone Storage Areas - runoff from the coal pile, ash and lime stone storage areas shall be directed to the SK waste-water treatment facility for discharge under its existing waste-water permit. Monitoring of metals, such as iron, copper, zinc, mercury silver, and aluminum, shall be done once a month during any month when a discharge occurs at OSC 008 or once per month from the collection pond. The ground water levels shall be monitored continuously at selected wells as approved by the SJRWMD. Chemical analysis shall be made on samples from all monitored wells identified in Condition III.F. below. The location, frequency and selected chemical analysis shall be as given in Condition IV.F. The ground water monitoring program shall be implemented at least one year prior to operation of the CFBs. The chemical analysis shall be in accord with the latest edition of Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and Waistwater. The data shall be submitted within 30 days of collection/analysis to the SJRWMD. GROUND WATER Prior to the construction, modification, or abandonment of a production well for the SK paper mill, the Seminole Kraft must obtain a Water Well Construction Permit from the SJRWMD pursuant to Chapter 40C-3, Florida Administrative Code. Construction, modification, or abandonment of a production well will require modification of the SK consumptive use permit when such construction, modification or abandonment is other than that specified and described on SK's consumptive use permit application form. The construction, modification, or abandonment of a monitor well specified in condition IV.H. will require the prior approval of the Department. All monitor wells intended for use over thirty days must be noticed to BESD prior to construction or change of status from temporary to permanent. Well Criteria, Tagging and Wellfield Operating Plan Leaking or inoperative well casings, valves, or controls must be repaired or replaced as required to put the system back in an operative condition acceptable to the SJRWMD. Failure to make such repairs will be cause for deeming the well abandoned in accordance with Chapter 17.21.02(5), Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 373.309, Florida Statutes and Chapter 366.301(b), and .307(a), Jacksonville ordinance code. Wells deemed abandoned will require plugging according to state and local regulations. A SJRWMD issued identification tag must be prominently displayed at each withdrawal site by permanently affixing such tag to the pump, headgate, valve or other withdrawal facility as provided by Section 40C-2.401, Florida Administrative Code. The SK must notify the SJRWMD in the event that a replacement tag is needed. The permittees must develop and implement a Wellfield Operating Program within six (6) months of certification. This program must describe which wells are primary, secondary, and standby (reserve); the order of preference for using the wells; criteria for shutting down and restarting wells; describe AES Cedar Bay and SKC responsibilities in the operation of the well field, and any other aspects of well field management operation, such as who the well field operator is and any other aspects of wellfield management operation. This program must be submitted to the SJRWMD and a copy to BESD within six (6) months of certification and receive District approval before the wells may be used to supply water for the AES Cedar Bay Cogeneration plant. Maximum Annual Withdrawals Maximum annual withdrawals for AESCB from the Floridan aquifer must not exceed 1.99 billion gallons. Maximum daily withdrawals from the Florida aquifer for the AESCB must not exceed 7.0 million gallons. The use of the Floridan aquifer potable water for control of fugitive dust emissions is prohibited when alternatives are available, such as treated discharges, shallow aquifer wells, or stormwater. The use of Floridan aquifer potable water for the sole purpose of waste stream dilution is prohibited. Water Use Transfer The SJRWMD must be notified, in writing, within 90 days of the transfer of this certification. All transfers are subject to the provisions of Section 40C-2.351, Florida Administrative Code, which state that all terms and conditions of the permit shall be binding of the transferee. Emergency Shortages Nothing in this certification is to be construed to limit the authority of the SJRWMD to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statutes, or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage, pursuant to Section 373.246, Florida Statutes. In the event of a water shortage, as declared by the District Governing Board, the AESCB shall adhere to reductions in water withdrawals as specified by the SJRWMD. Monitoring and Reporting The permittee shall maintain records of total daily withdrawals for the AESCB on a monthly basis for each year ending on December 31st. These records shall be submitted to the SJRWMD on Form EN-3 by January 31st of each year. Water quality samples shall be taken in May and October of each year from each production well. The samples shall be analyzed by an HRS certified laboratory for the following parameters: Magnesium Sulfate Sodium Carbonate Potassium Bi-Carbonate (or alkalinity if pH is 6.9 or lower) Chloride Calcium All major ion analysis shall be checked for anion-cation balance and must balance within 5 percent prior to submission. It is recommended that duplicates be taken to allow for laboratory problems or loss. The sample analysis shall be submitted to the SJRWMD by May 30 and October 30 of each year. AESCB shall mitigate any adverse impact caused by withdrawals permitted hereinon legal uses of water existing at the time of permit application. The SJRWMD has the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates or water allocations if the withdrawals of water cause an adverse impact on legal uses of water which existed at the time of permit application. Adverse impacts are exemplified but not limited to: Reduction of well water levels resulting in a reduction of 10 percent in the ability of an adjacent well to produce water; Reduction of water levels in an adjacent surface water body resulting in a significant impairment of the use of water in that water body; Saline water intrusion or introduction of pollutants into the water supply of an adjacent water use resulting in a significant reduction of water quality; or Change in water quality resulting in either impairment or loss of use of a well or water body. The AESCB shall mitigate any adverse impact cause by withdrawals permitted herein on adjacent land uses which existed at the time of permit application. The SJRWMD had the right to curtail permitted withdrawal rates of water allocations if withdrawals of water cause any adverse impact on adjacent land use which existed at the time of permit application. Adverse impacts are exemplified by but not limited to: Significant reduction in water levels in an adjacent surface water body; Land collapse or subsidence caused by a reduction in water levels; or Damage to crops and other types of vegetation. Significant increases in Chloride levels such that it is likely that wells from the plant or those being impacted from the plant, will exceed 250 mg/l. Ground Water Monitoring Requirements After consultation with the DER, BESD, and SJRWMD, AESCB shall install a monitoring well network to monitor ground water quality horizontally and vertically through the aquifer above the Hawthorm Formation. Ground water quantity and flow directions will be determined seasonally at the site through the preparation of seasonal water table contour maps, based upon water level data obtained during the applicant's preoperational monitoring program. From these maps and the results of the detailed subsurface investigation of site stratigraphy, the water quality monitoring well network will be located. A ground water monitoring plan that meets the requirements of Section 17-28.700(d), F.A.C., shall be submitted to the Department's Northeast District Office for review. Approval or disapproval of the ground water monitoring plan shall be given within 60 days of receipt. Ground water monitoring shall be required at AESCB's pelletized ash storage area, each sedimentation pond, the lime mud storage area, and each coal pile storage area. Insofar as possible, the monitoring wells may be selected from the existing wells and piezometers used in the permittees preoperational monitoring program, provided that the wells construction will not preclude their use. Existing wells will be properly sealed in accordance with Chapter 17-21, F.A.C., whenever they are abandoned due to construction of facilities. The water samples collected from each of the monitor wells shall be collected immediately after removal by pumping of a quantity of water equal to at least three casing volumes. The water quality analysis shall be performed monthly during the year prior to commercial operation and quarterly thereafter. No sampling or analysis is to be initiated until receipt of written approval of a site-specific quality assurance project plant (QAPP) by the Department. Results shall be submitted to the BESD by the fifteenth (15th) day of the month following the month during which such analysis were performed. Testing for the following constituents is required around unlined ponds or storage areas: TDS Cadmium Conductance Zinc pH Copper Redox Nickel Sulfate Selenium Sulfite Chromium Color Arsenic Chloride Beryllium Iron Mercury Aluminum Lead Gross Alpha Conductivity shall be monitored in wells around all lined solid waste disposal sites, coal piles, and wastewater treatment and sedimentation ponds. Leachate Zone of Discharge Leachate from AESCB's coal storage piles, lime mud storage area or sedimentation ponds shall not cause or contribute to contamination of waters of the State (including both surface and ground waters) in excess of the limitations of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., beyond the boundary of a zone of discharge extending to the top of the Hawthorne Formation below the wastelandfill cell or pond rising to a depth of 50 feet at a horizontal distance of 200 feet from the edge of the landfill or ponds. Corrective Action When the ground water monitoring system shows a potential for this facility to cause or contribute to a violation of the ground water quality standards of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., at the boundary of the zone of discharge, the appropriate ponds or coal pile shall be bottom sealed, relocated, or the operation of the affected facility shall be altered in such a manner as to assure the Department that no violation of the ground water standards will occur beyond the boundary of the zone of discharge. CONTROL MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION Storm Water Runoff During construction, appropriate measures shall be used to settle, filter, treat or absorb silT.containing or pollutanT.laden storm water runoff to limit the total suspended solids to 50 mg/1 or less and pH to 6.0 to 9.0 at OSN 003 during rainfall events that are lesser in intensity than the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall, and to prevent an increase in turbidity of more than 29 NTU above background in waters of the State. Control measures shall consist at the minimum of sediment traps, barriers, berms or vegetative planting. Exposed or disturbed soil shall be protected as soon as possible to minimize silT. and sedimenT.laden runoff. The pH shall be kept within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at OSN 003. Stormwater drainage to the Broward River or St. Johns River shall be monitored as indicated below: Monitoring Point Parameters Frequency Sample Type *Storm water drainage BOD5, TOC, sus- ** ** to the Broward River pended solids, from the runoff turbidity, dis- treatment pond solved oxygen, pH, TKN, Total phosphorus, Fecal Coliform, Total Coliform Oil and grease ** ** *Monitoring shall be conducted at suitable points for allowing a comparison of the characteristics of preconstruction and construction phase drainage and receiving waters. **The frequency and sample type shall be as outlined in a sampling program prepared by the applicant and submitted at least ninety days prior to start of construction for review and approval by the DER Northeast District Office. The District Office will furnish copies of the sampling program to the BESD and SJRWMD and shall indicate approval or disapproval within 60 days of submittal. Sanitary Wastes Disposal of sanitary wastes from construction toilet facilities shall be in accordance with applicable regulations of the Department and the BESD. Environmental Control Program Each permittee shall establish an environmental control program under the supervision of a qualified person to assure that all construction activities conform to good environmental practices and the applicable conditions of certification. A written plan for controlling pollution during construction shall be submitted to DER and BESD within sixty days of issuance of the Certification. The plan shall identify and describe all pollutants and waste generagted during construction and the methods for control, treatment and disposal. Each permittee shall notify the Department's Northeast District Office and BESD by telephone within 24 hours if possible if unexpected harmful effects or evidence of irreversible environmental damage are detected by it during construction, shall immediately report in writing to the Department, and shall within two weeks provide an analysis of the problem and a plan to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful effects or damage and a plan to prevent reoccurrence. Construction Dewatering Effluent Maximum daily withdrawals for dewatering for the construction of the railcar unloading facility must not exceed 1.44 million gallons, except during the first 30 days of dewatering. Dewatering for the construction of the railcar unloading facility shall terminate no later than nine months from the start of dewatering. Should the permittee's dewatering operation create shoaling in adjacent water bodies, the permittee is responsible for removing such shoaling. All offsite discharges resulting from dewatering activities must be in compliance with water quality standards required by DER Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, F.A.C., or such standards as issued through a variance by DER. SAFETY The overall design, layout, and operation of the facilities shall be such as to minimize hazards to humans and the environment. Security control measures shall be utilized to prevent exposure of the public to hazardous conditions. The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Standards will be complied with during construction and operation. The Safety Standards specified under Section 440.56, F.S., by the Industrial Safety Section of the Florida Department of Commerce will also be complied with. CHANGE IN DISCHARGE All discharges or emissions authorized herein to AESCB shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this certification. The discharge of any pollutant not identified in the application or any discharge more frequent than, or at a level in excess of, that authorized herein shall constitute a violation of this certification. Any anticipated facility expansions, production increases, or process modification which will result in new, different or increased discharges or expansion in steam generating capacity will require a submission of new or supplemental application to DER's Siting Coordination Office pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION If, for any reason, either permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with any limitation specified in this certification, the permittee shall notify the Deputy Assistant Secretary of DER's Northeast District and BESD office by telephone as soon as possible but not later than the first DER working day after the permittee becomes aware of said noncompliance, and shall confirm the reported situation in writing within seventy-two (72) hours supplying the following information: A description and cause of noncompliance; and The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying event. FACILITIES OPERATION Each permittee shall at all times maintain good working order and operate as efficiently as possible all of its treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this certification. Such systems are not to be bypassed without prior Department (Northeast District) after approval and after notice to BESD except where otherwise authorized by applicable regulations. ADVERSE IMPACT The permittees shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact resulting from noncompliance with any limitation specified in this certification, including, but not limited to, such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying event. RIGHT OF ENTRY The permittees shall allow the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and/or authorized DER representatives, and representatives of the BESD and SJRWMD, upon the presentation of credentials: To enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source is located or in which records are required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; and To have access to and copy all records required to be kept under the conditions of this certification; and To inspect and test any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required in this certification and to sample any discharge or emissional pollutants; and To assess any damage to the environment or violation of ambient standards. SJRWMD authorized staff, upon proper identification, will have permission to enter, inspect, and observe permitted and related CUP facilities in order to determine compliance with the approved plans, specifications, and conditions of this certification. BESD authorized staff, upon proper identification, will have permission to enter, inspect, sample any discharge, and observe permitted and related facilities in order to determine compliance with the approved plans, specifications, and conditions of this certification. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION This certification may be suspended, or revoked pursuant to Section 403.512, Florida Statutes, or for violations of any Condition of Certification. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY This certification does not relieve either permittee from civil or criminal responsibility or liability for noncompliance with any conditions of this certification, applicable rules or regulations of the Department, or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or regulations thereunder. Subject to Section 403.511, Florida Statutes, this certification shall not preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve either permittee from any responsibilities or penalties established pursuant to any other applicable State Statutes or regulations. PROPERTY RIGHTS The issuance of this certification does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, tangible or intangible, nor any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to public or private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations. The permittees shall obtain title, lease or right of use to any sovereign submerged lands occupied by the plant, transmission line structures, or appurtenant facilities from the State of Florida. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this certification are severable, and, if any provision of this certification or the application of any provision of this certification to any circumstances is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances and the remainder of the certification shall not be affected thereby. DEFINITIONS The meaning of terms used herein shall be governed by the definitions contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. In the event of any dispute over the meaning of a term used in these general or special conditions which is not defined in such statutes or regulations, such dispute shall be resolved by reference to the most relevant definitions contained in any other state or federal statute or regulation or, in the alternative, by the use of the commonly accepted meaning as determined by the Department. REVIEW OF SITE CERTIFICATION The certification shall be final unless revised, revoked, or suspended pursuant to law. At least every five years from the date of issuance of this certification or any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Control Act Amendments of 1972 for the plant units, the Department shall review all monitoring data that has been submitted to it or it's agent(s) during the preceding five- year period for the purpose of determining the extent of the permittee's compliance with the conditions of this certification of the environmental impact of this facility. The Department shall submit the results of it's review and recommendations to the permittees. Such review will be repeated at least every five years thereafter. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS The conditions of this certification may be modified in the following manner: The Board hereby delegates to the Secretary the authority to modify, after notice and opportunity for hearing, any conditions pertaining to consumptive use of water, reclaimed water, monitoring, sampling, ground water, surface water, mixing zones, or variances to water quality standards, zones of discharge, leachate control programs, effluent limitations, air emission limitations, fuel, or solid waste disposal, right of entry, railroad spur, transmission line, access road, pipelines, or designation of agents for the purpose of enforcing the conditions of this certification. All other modifications shall be made in accordance with Section 403.516, Florida Statutes. FLOOD CONTROL PROTECTION The plant and associated facilities shall be construed in such a manner as to comply with the Duval County flood protection requirements. EFFECT OF CERTIFICATION Certification and conditions of certification are predicated upon design and performance criteria indicated in the application. Thus, conformance to those criteria, unless specifically amended, modified, or as the Department and parties are otherwise notified, is binding upon the applicants in the preparation, construction, and maintenance of the certified project. In those instances where a conflict occurs between the application's design criteria and the conditions of certification, the conditions shall prevail. NOISE To mitigate the effects of noise produced by the steam blowout of steam boiler tubes, the permittees shall conduct public awareness campaigns prior to such activities to forewarn the public of the estimated time and duration of the noise. The permittees shall comply with the applicable noise limitations specified in Environmental Protection Board Rules or The City of Jacksonville Noise Ordinance. USE OF RECLAIMED WATER AESCB The AESCB shall design the Cogeneration Facility so as to be capable of using reclaimed and treated domestic wastewater from the City of Jacksonville for use as cooling tower makeup water. Reclaimed water shall be utilized as soon as it becomes available. Ground water may be used only as a backup to the reclaimed water after that time. Before use of reclaimed water from the City by the permittee, it will be treated to a level suitable for use as cooling tower makeup water. Reclaimed water used in the AESCB cooling tower shall be disinfected prior to use. Disinfectant levels in the cooling tower makeup water shall be continuously monitored, prior to insertion in the cooling tower. The reclaimed water shall be treated so as to obtain no less than a 1.0 mg/liter free chlorine residual after fifteen (15) minutes contact time or its equivalent. Chlorination shall occur at a turbidity of 5 Nephlometric Turbidity Units (NTU) or less, unless a lesser degree of disinfection is approved by the Department upon demonstration of successful viral kill. Within 120 days following issuance of a modification to the City of Jacksonville's DER wastewater discharge permit allowing Jacksonville, as part of its comprehensive reuse plan, to supply reclaimed water to the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project, AES Cedar Bay, Inc. shall submit a request for modification to DER for use of reclaimed water for cooling purposes, seeking to make any necessary modifications to their facility and the conditions of certification as may be necessary to allow use of reclaimed water. Its request shall include plans, technical analyses, and modelling needed to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed modifications. Its request for modification shall also include a financial analysis of the costs of any necessary modifications to its facility, additional operating costs, and the financial impact of these additional costs on AES Cedar Bay, Inc. If DER requires data or analyses concerning the cogeneration facility or its operation, or its discharges or emissions in order to evaluate Jacksonville's application to modify its domestic wastewater discharge permit, AES will supply the necessary information in a timely fashion. The Secretary, as prescribed in Condition XXI, Modification of Conditions, may modify the conditions of certification contained herein as may be necessary to implement the use of reclaimed water. The use of reclaimed water shall be contingent upon a determination of it being financially practicable, and it meeting applicable environmental standards. Prior to any such action by the Secretary, the Secretary shall request and consider a report by the SJRWMD as to the request for modification for the use of reclaimed water by AES Cedar Bay, Inc. Possible Use of Reclaimed Water The use of reclaimed water as described above shall not be limited to cooling tower makeup. Reuse water, if available may be used for fugitive particulate emission control, washdown, and any other feasible use for non-potable water which would not require additional treatment. ENFORCEMENT The Secretary may take any and all lawful actions as he or she deems appropriate to enforce any condition of this certification. Any participating agency (federal, state, local) may take any and all lawful actions to enforce any condition of this certification that is based on the rules of that agency. Prior to initiating such action the agency head shall notify the Secretary of that agency's proposed action. BESD may initiate any and all lawful actions to enforce the conditions of this certification that are based on the Department's rules, after obtaining the Secretary's written permission to so process on behalf of the Department. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES Prior to start of construction, AESCB shall survey the site for endangered and threatened species of animal and plant life. Plant species on the endangered or threatened list shall be transplanted to an appropriate area if practicable. Gopher Tortoises and any commensals on the rare or endangered species list shall be relocated after consultation with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. A relocation program, as approved by the FGFWFC, shall be followed. PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS AES Cedar Bay shall provide clean-up of the #1 underground diesel fuel storage tank site, which is listed under the EDI program, in accordance with F.A.C. Chapter 17-770. AES shall complete an Initial Remedial Action (IRA) in accordance with Rule 17-770.300, F.A.C., prior to construction dewatering. DER and BESD will receive written notification ten working days prior to initiation of the IRA. AES shall determine the extent of contamination. AES Cedar Bay shall then design and install a pump and treatment system at the site, which will create a reverse hydraulic gradient that will prevent the further spread of the contamination by the dewatering operation. This plan shall be submitted to DER and BESD for approval, thirty days prior to the start of construction dewatering, and shall be implemented prior to commencement of the dewatering operation. Furthermore, AES Cedar Bay shall submit a Quality Assurance Report (CAR) and a Remedial Action plan (RAP), in accordance with a F.A.C. Chapter 17-770 to DER for approval with copies to BESD thirty days prior to the start of construction dewatering. AES Cedar Bay shall provide complete site rehabilitation in accordance with F.A.C Chapter 17-770. AES Cedar Bay shall develop a QAPP, CAR, and RAP as required and in accordance with Chapter 17-700, F.A.C. for the site listed in XXVIII, C and D below, and submit these plans to DER for approval with copies to BESD thirty days prior to the start of construction dewatering. Prior to construction dewatering, at the underground diesel fuel storage tank #2 site, AES Cedar Bay shall: Perform an IRA with F.A.C. Rule 17-770.300. Determine the extent of down gradient contamination and submit that information to BESD, and DER prior to installation of the well described in paragraph C.4 below. Establish a series of groundwater level monitoring wells at intervals of approximately 250 feet from the coal unloading site to the #2 tank for determination of the groundwater dewatering cone of influence. Daily groundwater levels shall be recorded for each of these wells during construction dewatering. A background well with a continuous water level recorder shall be installed, at a site that would not be influenced by the dewatering operations, to determine ambient conditions at the site. Install a monitoring well with a continuous water level recorder which will be used to trigger implementation of the RAP. The well will be located 150 feet down gradient from the boundary of the plume of contamination determined above in XXVII C.2. If the epiezometric head in the trigger well drops 6 inches below ambient conditions as compared to the background well, then AES Cedar Bay shall notify DER and BESD of a verified drop of 6 inches or more in the trigger well within three working days and the appropriate portion of the RAP shall be implemented by AES Cedar Bay. AES Cedar Bay shall submit a plan for the location and construction of the monitoring wells described above in paragraph C.3 and C.4 to DER and BESD for approval. AES Cedar Bay shall submit monthly reports of the groundwater level recordings to DER and BESD. Prior to construction dewatering, at each of the following tank sites: underground diesel fuel storage tank #3; underground #6 fuel oil shortage tank #5; above-ground #6 fuel oil storage tank #2: "pitch tank" located North of the lime kilns; AES Cedar Bay shall: Install 2 down gradient monitoring wells. AES Cedar Bay shall submit a plan for location and construction of these 8 wells to DER and BESD for approval. BESD shall have the opportunity to observe the construction of these wells. Sample the above reference wells for parameters listed in 17-770.600(8), F.A.C. In addition, AES Cedar Bay shall sample the monitoring wells at the above-ground tank sites for acetone and carbon disulfide. AES Cedar Bay shall split samples with BESD if BESD so requests and submit a report of the analytical results to DER and BESD within ten days of receipt of analysis by AES Cedar Bay. If contamination is found in the above reference wells in excess of the clean-up criteria referenced in 17- 770.730(5)(a)2., F.A.C., a QAPP, CAR and an RAP will be development and, DER and BESD shall be provide with that information prior to the installation of the well described in paragraph D.4 below. Install a trigger well with a continuous water level recorder which will be located 150 feet down gradient from the boundary of the plume of contamination determined above in XXVIII.D.3. If the piezometric head in the trigger well drops 6 inches below ambient conditions as compared to the background well then AES Cedar Bay shall notify DER and BESD of a verified drop of 6 inches or more in the trigger well within three working days and the appropriate portion of the RAP shall be implemented by AES Cedar Bay. AES Cedar Bay shall submit a plan for the location and construction of the monitoring wells described above in paragraph D.4, to DER and BESD for approval. AES Cedar bay shall submit monthly reports of the groundwater level recordings to DER and BESD. Implementation of the appropriate portion of the RAP shall commence within 14 days of the determination that the construction dewatering cone of depression will reach any of contaminated sites. AES Cedar Bay shall monitor the construction dewatering effluent from their treatment system, once a week during dewatering, for the following criteria: Benzene 1 ugle; Total VOA 40 ug/l Total Naphthalenes (Total-naphthalenes = methyl napthalenes) 100 ugle; and Total Residual Hydrcarbons 5 mg/l. If the concentrations of contaminants in the effluent rise above those in the above list, AES Cedar Bay shall take corrective actions to return concentrations to acceptable levels. If any disagreement arises regarding this condition, the parties agree to submit the matter for an expedited hearing to the DOAH and shall request assignment of the hearing officer who has heard the case, if possible, pursuant to 403.5064, F.S. The informal dispute resolution process shall be used. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry Cole, Esquire Scott Shirley, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blairstone Road Suite C Tallahassee, FL 32301 Betsy Hewitt, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kathryn Mennella, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Richard L. Maguire, Esquire Towncentre, Suite 715 421 West Church Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Katherine L. Funchess, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 William C. Bostwick, Esquire 1550-2 Hendricks Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32201 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
