08-002636 Thomas M. Parham vs. Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, December 9, 2008.


View Dockets  
Summary: Respondent proved that Petitioner was maintaining an unpermitted stationary installation reasonably expected to pollute, which was discharging to the environment and required groundwater monitoring.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8THOMAS M. PARHAM, )

12)

13Petitioner, )

15)

16vs. ) Case No. 08-2636

21)

22DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

26PROTECTION, )

28)

29Respondent. )

31)

32RECOMMENDED ORDER

34On September 25, 2008, a final hearing was held in this

45case by teleconference in Jacksonville and Tallahassee before J.

54Lawrence Johnston, Administrative Law Judge, Division of

61Administrative Hearings.

63APPEARANCES

64For Petitioner: Thomas M. Parham, pro se

717225 Arlet Drive

74Jacksonville, Florida 32211

77For Respondent: Karen Bishop, Esquire

82Department of Environmental Protection

863900 Commonwealth Boulevard

89Mail Station 35

92Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

95STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

99There are two issues in this case: whether the Petitioner,

109Thomas M. Parham, is maintaining an unpermitted stationary

117installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of air

128or water pollution; and whether installations on Mr. Parham's

137property are discharging into groundwater, and whether he should

146therefore be required to obtain a groundwater monitoring permit

155and conduct groundwater monitoring as ordered in the

163Department's Final Order, DEP OGC File No. 08-0521 (the Order).

173PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

175The Department issued the Order on April 28, 2008. The

185Petitioner filed a Petition for Hearing, and the matter was

195referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on

204June 3, 2008. The matter was scheduled for final hearing on

215August 26, 2008, but a Joint Motion for Continuance was granted,

226and the final hearing was rescheduled for September 25, 2008.

236On August 18, 2008, the Department filed a Request for

246Official Recognition, which was not ruled on.

253During the final hearing, the Department called: the

261Petitioner, Thomas M. Parham; Michael Fitzsimmons, the waste

269program administrator at the Department's Northeast District

276office (NED); Emerson Raulerson, the supervisor of the solid

285waste section at the NED; Gregory Kowalski, an environmental

294scientist with TN & Associates, who conducted field work on

304Petitioner's property and prepared an Expanded Site Inspection

312Report; and Richard Rachal, the waste cleanup supervisor at the

322NED. The Department's Exhibits R-1 through R-8 were admitted

331into evidence. Thomas M. Parham testified for himself. He also

341called Sally Heuer, an environmental specialist at the NED.

350Petitioner did not move any exhibits into evidence during the

360hearing. In rebuttal, the Department re-called Mr. Rachal and

369Mr. Fitzsimmons.

371After presentation of evidence, the parties requested a

379transcript of the final hearing and were given ten days from the

391filing of the transcript in which to file proposed recommended

401orders (PROs). The Transcript was filed on October 20, 2008.

411On October 30, 2008, the Department filed a PRO. Instead

421of a PRO, Parham filed both a request for a 21-day extension of

434time to file his PRO and certified and uncertified copies of

445various documents relating to the Property. Because Parham's

453filings were not served, a Notice of Ex-Parte Communication was

463issued, giving the Department an opportunity to respond to and

473rebut the ex-parte communications. On November 17, 2008, the

482Department filed a Response, which agreed to the requested

491extension of time and objected to the submission of the

501certified documents as irrelevant.

505On November 20, 2008, Parham filed his PRO and a reply to

517the Department's Response. At this time, the relevance

525objection is overruled, and the documents are received in

534evidence as composite Petitioner's Exhibit P-1. The parties'

542PROs have been considered in the preparation of this Recommended

552Order.

553FINDINGS OF FACT

5561. Thomas Parham purchased the property at 5401

564Pickettville Road, Jacksonville, Florida (the Property), in a

572tax sale on November 21, 2007. His intention was to use it to

585park and store trucks and heavy equipment.

5922. At the time of purchase, there were no signs posted on

604the Property indicating that it was hazardous or toxic or

614otherwise compromised environmentally. At the time, there was

622no statute or rule requiring the Property to be posted to give

634the public notice of any of those conditions.

6423. Parham drove past the Property before buying it, but it

653was fenced, and the gates were locked, and he was unable to get

666in to inspect it. From the fence, he saw no indication that the

679Property was hazardous or toxic or otherwise compromised

687environmentally. However, Parham knew that there was fill

695material on the Property. He states that he did not know the

707Property was toxic or hazardous, but he did no due diligence to

719determine what kind of fill was on the Property.

7284. Parham has bought and sold property in tax sales for a

740living for the past 11 years. He owns 115 different properties,

751and has been involved in 795 property transactions. Once, he

761accidentally bought a contaminated property, which the City of

770Jacksonville bought back from him after the contamination was

779discovered. Based on his experience, Parham knew or should have

789known to conduct due diligence on the Property before buying it.

8005. After purchasing the Property, Parham saw that part of

810it had a significant amount of a black material. He testified

821that he believed it was charcoal or bituminous coal, which he

832called "black beauty." Instead of determining what it was,

841Parham decided to cover it with dirt. He had 124 truckloads of

853fill delivered to the Property and covered all of the supposed

"864black beauty."

8666. Someone saw the activity on the Property and contacted

876the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). DEP inspected

884and entered a Final Order, DEP OGC File No. 08-0521 (the Order)

896to require Parham to install monitoring wells and implement a

906monitoring program to determine whether the Property was causing

915pollution and contamination offsite. Parham challenged the

922Order, which resulted in this proceeding.

9287. Actually, the black material on the Property was not

938charcoal or bituminous coal. It was sandblasting grit material

947used by Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (Jacksonville Shipyards),

954in its shipyard operations to sandblast old paint coatings and

964rust from ships before re-painting. It would be expected that

974the used grit would be contaminated with metals and volatile

984organic compounds (VOCs). The used grit was trucked to and

994deposited on the Property when it was owned by Jacksonville

1004Shipyards in the 1970's and early 1980's.

10118. Prior to Jacksonville Shipyards' purchase of the

1019Property in 1972, it was used as a sand mine. In the process,

1032two large pits, each 20 to 25 feet deep, were excavated on the

1045Property. Later, waste was dumped into the pits, including

1054concrete, asphalt, metal pipes, wire, and wooden demolition

1062material. When Jacksonville Shipyards purchased the Property in

10701972, sandblasting grit was added to the waste placed into the

1081pits. Initially, these activities were not regulated, and the

1090pits were not lined before being used for waste disposal.

11009. By July 1980, leachate generated when waste material

1109(including the sandblasting grit, which was being delivered to

1118the Property daily) came in contact with water was running off

1129the Property towards Six Mile Creek, which flows east to where

1140it is joined by Little Six Mile Creek, from which the combined

1152flow towards the east becomes the headwater of the tidal Ribault

1163River. In addition, leachate was entering the groundwater on

1172the Property, which also flowed generally to the north towards

1182Six Mile Creek.

118510. When DEP's predecessor, the Department of

1192Environmental Regulation (DER) began to regulate land fills, it

1201required Jacksonville Shipyards to submit a groundwater

1208monitoring plan, which DER approved. Monitoring wells were

1216installed, and the groundwater on the Property was sampled once

1226in 1984 and showed groundwater contamination. DER groundwater

1234standards and criteria for arsenic, barium, chromium, lead,

1242chlorides, copper, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids

1249(TDS), and zinc were exceeded. DER attempted to negotiate a

1259consent order with Jacksonville Shipyards to address the

1267contamination, but those efforts failed, and then Jacksonville

1275Shipyards and related business entities went into bankruptcy

1283proceedings.

128411. After the bankruptcy proceeding was initiated,

1291Jacksonville Shipyards conducted no further groundwater

1297monitoring at the Property. Neither DER nor DEP issued a solid

1308waste permit or a groundwater monitoring permit for the

1317Property. No waste has been removed the Property, and no liner

1328has been installed. Leachate has continued to run off the

1338Property and infiltrate the groundwater on the Property and

1347flowed towards Six Mile Creek.

135212. After bankruptcy proceedings were initiated,

1358representatives of DER and DEP checked from time to time to see

1370if overdue property taxes had been paid, reasoning that payment

1380of the taxes would be an indication that the bankruptcy

1390proceedings had progressed to the point that a financially

1399viable owner of the Property could be required to implement an

1410appropriate monitoring program for the Property. In fact,

1418unbeknownst to DEP, title to the Property was conveyed to

1428Picketsville Realty Holdings, LLC, in 1998.

143413. In 1998 DEP contracted with a consultant to conduct

1444sampling at the Property to identify the source of the

1454groundwater contamination detected in the onsite monitoring

1461wells in 1984. Groundwater, soil, and surface water samples

1470were collected and analyzed, as were reports on assessments

1479conducted at the Pickettville Road Landfill, a federal Superfund

1488site located across Pickettville Road from the Property. The

1497consultant reported in 1999 that lead in groundwater samples

1506exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) in shallow well 11

1516and in deep well 2. In shallow well 9, N-nitrosodiphenylamine

1526also exceeded the MCL. Lead was detected in all twelve soil

1537samples collected in areas where sandblasting grit was found on

1547the surface although none of the soil samples exceeded DEP's

1557residential direct exposure Soil Cleanup Target Level (SCTL) of

1566400 mg/kg. The report concluded that the Property was the

1576source of most if not all of the contamination detected in the

1588monitoring wells on the Property. The Pickettville Road

1596Superfund site was not considered to be contributing to the

1606groundwater contamination on the Property because groundwater

1613data indicated that the Superfund site is not up-gradient of the

1624Property. Groundwater flow from the Property was found to be

1634generally westerly towards Six Mile Creek.

164014. In approximately 2003, the federal Environmental

1647Protection Agency (EPA) contracted with a consultant to perform

1656an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) on the Property to determine

1666whether it should be placed on the federal National Priorities

1676List (NPL) of sites at which a release, or potential release, of

1688hazardous substances poses a serious enough risk to the public

1698health or the environment to warrant further investigation and

1707possible remediation under the Comprehensive Environmental

1713Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and

1722the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. In

1731this assessment, surface and subsurface soils and groundwater

1739were collected from the Property, sampled, and analyzed. In

1748addition, surface water and sediment samples from Six Mile Creek

1758and from the Ribault River were collected, sampled, and

1767analyzed.

176815. The federal ESI report was issued in 2004. It found

1779arsenic, copper, benzo(a)pyrene equivalents in the surface soil

1787samples that exceeded the default levels of concern for direct

1797exposure, as provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule

1805Chapter 62-777. It also found arsenic, copper, iron, lead,

1814polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and benzo(a)pyrene equivalents

1820in the subsurface soil samples that exceeded the default levels

1830of concern for direct exposure, as provided in Rule Chapter 62-

1841777. It also found chromium, iron, and lead in one groundwater

1852sample at concentrations exceeding DEP's groundwater standards.

1859Aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, nickel, vanadium,

1866acenaphthene, fluorine, and phenanthrene levels in various

1873groundwater samples were elevated but did not exceed DEP's

1882groundwater standards. It also found that surface water samples

1891from Six Mile Creek contained barium, copper, manganese, and

1900vanadium at elevated concentrations. Sediment samples from Six

1908Mile Creek and the Ribault River contained numerous metals,

1917bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, several polyaromatic hydrocarbons

1921(PAHs), and PCB-1260 at concentrations exceeding EPA Region 4

1930guidance values. It was concluded that from the elevated

1939concentrations in the surface water samples that contamination

1947of the surface water pathways continues to occur from inorganic

1957contaminants from the Property.

196116. The number of impacted groundwater monitoring wells

1969decreased from 1984 to 2004. However, arsenic concentrations

1977increased in shallow well 9, and barium concentrations increased

1986in shallow well 8, during that time. Also, acenapthene, which

1996is a semi-volatile compound associated with PAHs, was reported

2005in two wells in the 2004 ESI report but no detection was

2017reported in the 1985 report.

202217. The 1985, 1999, and 2004 reports indicate that the

2032waste-filled pits on the Property are discharging to

2040groundwater. This is not surprising since there is no liner

2050beneath the waste that has been placed in the pits. Rain and

2062runoff on the Property would percolate through the waste and

2072leaches contaminants out of the waste. The leachate enters the

2082groundwater on the Property.

208618. Parham contends that contamination found on the

2094Property is from the 53-acre Pickettville Landfill, which was

2103operated by the City of Jacksonville. He contends that a large

2114number of lead batteries were placed in the Pickettville

2123Landfill from extensive lead battery disposal. The evidence

2131proved that the Pickettville Landfill is a Superfund site but

2141did not prove composition or amount of the waste placed in the

2153Pickettville Landfill over the years. Even if the Pickettville

2162Landfill was used extensively for lead battery disposal over the

2172years, the evidence was that little or none of the contamination

2183on the Property is attributable to the Pickettville Landfill.

2192Besides groundwater flow from the Pickettville Landfill likely

2200being away from the Property, lead contamination was found in

2210the surface and subsurface soils of the Property, making it very

2221unlikely that the contamination on the Property came from the

2231Pickettville Landfill.

223319. Parham also questions the estimate in the three

2242contamination reports on the Property that 200,000 cubic yards

2252of sandblasting grit were dumped on the property. He estimated

2262that would amount to 13,000 truckloads, which would not fit on

2274the 4-acre Property. But a witness for DEP estimated that two-

2285acres of 20-25 foot deep pits would hold that quantity of

2296sandblasting grit. Even if the actual quantity of sandblasting

2305grit dumped on the Property was less, the evidence was that it

2317was the likely source of the metal contamination found in the

2328soils and groundwater on and under the Property.

233620. Similarly, Parham suggests that waste oil and other

2345waste in the Pickettville Landfill could be the source of PAH or

2357PCB contamination on the Property. Besides groundwater flow

2365from the Pickettville Landfill likely being away from the

2374Property, those contaminants move very slowly and do not move

2384large distances, making it very unlikely that the contamination

2393on the Property came from the Pickettville Landfill. Even if

2403some did, the Pickettville Landfill would not account for much

2413of the contamination on the Property.

241921. Parham contends that, even if the Property is

2428contaminated, his placement of 124 truckloads of dirt on the

2438Property will prevent any further groundwater contamination.

2445But dirt is not impervious and will not prevent rain and runoff

2457from percolating through the waste on the Property and leaching

2467contamination into the groundwater on the Property. Eventually,

2475this groundwater leaves the Property and enters Six Mile Creek.

2485CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

248822. Section 403.061(8), Florida Statutes, 1 grants the

2496Department the power and duty to control and prohibit pollution

2506of air and water in accordance with the law and rules adopted

2518and promulgated by it, and, for this purpose, to issue such

2529orders as are necessary to control air and water pollution and

2540enforce the orders by appropriate administrative and judicial

2548proceedings.

254923. The Department has the burden of proving by a

2559preponderance of the evidence that the allegations in the Order

2569are true. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

257524. The Order alleges that Petitioner violated Section

2583403.087(1), Florida Statutes, which provides, in part:

2590A stationary installation that is reasonably

2596expected to be a source of air or water

2605pollution must not be operated, maintained,

2611constructed, expanded, or modified without

2616an appropriate and currently valid permit

2622issued by the department, unless exempted by

2629department rule.

263125. The term "stationary" is not defined by statute or

2641rule; therefore, the ordinary meaning of the word applies.

2650Stationary means "not moving." American Heritage Dictionary,

2657Fourth Edition . The evidence shows that the waste on the

2668property is in a fixed location.

267426. Section 403.031(4), Florida Statutes, defines

2680installation as "any structure, equipment, or facility, or

2688appurtenances thereto, or operation which may emit air or water

2698contaminants in quantities prohibited by rules of the

2706department."

270727. The term "facility" is not defined by statute or rule;

2718therefore, the ordinary meaning of the word applies. The

2727definition of facility includes "something created to serve a

2736specific function." American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth

2742Edition . The evidence shows that this property was operated as

2753a "solid waste management facility" and a "solid waste disposal

2763facility," as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-

2772701.200. 2 Accordingly, the waste disposal areas on the property

2782are a facility and an installation, as defined in Section

2792403.031(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62-520.200(4).

279828. A violation of any groundwater criterion contained in

2807Chapter 62-520 constitutes pollution. See Fla. Admin. Code R.

281662-520.300(6).

281729. Class G-2 groundwater is required to meet the minimum

2827criteria provided in Rule 62-520.400 and the primary and

2836secondary drinking water standards in Rule 62-520.420.

284330. Rule 62-520.400(1) provides:

2847All ground water shall at all places and at

2856all times be free from domestic, industrial,

2863agricultural, or other man-induced non-

2868thermal components of discharges in

2873concentrations which, alone or in

2878combinations with other substances, or

2883components of discharges (whether thermal or

2889non-thermal):

2890(a) Are harmful to plants, animals, or

2897organisms that are native to the soil and

2905responsible for treatment or stabilization

2910of the discharge relied upon by Department

2917permits; or

2919(b) Are carcinogenic, mutagenic,

2923teratogenic, or toxic to human beings,

2929unless specific criteria are established for

2935such components in Rule 62-520.420, F.A.C.;

2941or

2942(c) Are acutely toxic within surface

2948waters affected by the ground water; or

2955(d) Pose a serious danger to the public

2963health, safety, or welfare; or

2968(e) Create or constitute a nuisance; or

2975(f) Impair the reasonable and beneficial

2981use of adjacent waters.

298531. The Department's cleanup target levels (CTLs) for

2993groundwater are based on the minimum criteria and are derived

3003upon consideration of the following factors: "calculations using

3011a lifetime excess cancer risk level 1.0E-6 and; a hazard

3021quotient of 1 or less; and nuisance, organoleptic, and aesthetic

3031considerations." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-777.170(1)(a).

303832. The evidence shows that, as of 2004, the groundwater

3048on the Property was contaminated with chromium, iron and lead,

3058exceeding the Department's groundwater standards. This

3064constitutes pollution under Rule 62.520.300(6). Additionally,

3070arsenic, copper, iron, lead, PCBs, and benzo-a-pyrene

3077equivalents exceeded the Department's soil CTLs. Because

3084rainfall and/or surface water continue to come in contact with

3094the soil and with the waste that was placed on the property, and

3107because there is no liner, the installation may reasonably be

3117expected to be a source of water pollution.

312533. By a preponderance of evidence, the Department has

3134established that contaminants in the groundwater on Petitioner's

3142property may currently exceed the Department's groundwater

3149standards. Therefore, Petitioner is maintaining a stationary

3156installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water

3167pollution.

316834. Petitioner is required to establish a groundwater

3176monitoring program under Rule 62-520.600(1), which provides, in

3184part:

3185Unless otherwise exempted by the Department,

3191any installation discharging into ground

3196water shall establish a monitoring program

3202as described in (3) below and shall meet the

3211quality assurance requirements in category

32162c described in subsection 62-160.300(7),

3221F.A.C., and the Department's reference,

"3226Standard Operating Procedures for

3230Laboratory Operations and Sample Collection

3235Activities, " DER-QA-001/92, September 30,

32391992, hereby incorporated and adopted as a

3246reference.

324735. Rule 62-520.200, includes the following definitions:

3254(10) "Ground Water" means water beneath the

3261surface of the ground within a zone of

3269saturation, whether or not flowing through

3275known and definite channels.

3279(11) "Installation" means any structure,

3284equipment, or facility, or appurtenances

3289thereto, operation or activity which may be

3296a source of pollution.

3300* * *

3303(23) "Zone of Discharge" means a volume

3310underlying or surrounding the site and

3316extending to the base of a specifically

3323designated aquifer or aquifers, within which

3329an opportunity for the treatment, mixture,

3335or dispersion of wastes into receiving

3341ground water is afforded.

334536. As of July 1, 1982, owners of installations

3354discharging pollutants to groundwater have been required to

3362comply with the minimum criteria set forth in Rule 62-520.400.

3372See Fla. Admin. Code. R. 62-520.300(10).

337837. The groundwater on Petitioner's Property is

3385groundwater as defined in Rule 62-520.200(10).

339138. The evidence shows that, as of 2004, the waste

3401disposal areas on the Property were discharging to the

3410groundwater, and the groundwater was contaminated with chromium,

3418iron and lead in excess of the Department's groundwater

3427standards. Further, the landfill and grit blast installations

3435on the Property are reasonably expected to discharge to

3444groundwater today because rainfall and/or surface water continue

3452come in contact with the waste, generating leachate. Because

3461there is no liner to protect the groundwater, that leachate

3471moves into the groundwater.

347539. By a preponderance of evidence, the Department has

3484established that installations on Petitioner's Property are

3491discharging into groundwater, and that these discharges may be a

3501source of pollution.

3504RECOMMENDATION

3505Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

3515Law, it is

3518RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order

3526requiring Thomas Parham to:

35301. Submit a complete application for monitoring plan

3538approval on Form 62-520.900(1) to the Department of

3546Environmental Protection, Northeast District, 7825 Baymeadows

3552Way, Suite B200, Jacksonville, Florida 32256-7590 within 90 days

3561of entry of the Final Order;

35672. Implement the approved monitoring program within 90

3575days after Department approval; and

35803. Install monitoring wells in accordance with the

3588approved monitoring program and Rule 62-520.600(6).

3594DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2008, in

3604Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3608S

3609J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON

3612Administrative Law Judge

3615Division of Administrative Hearings

3619The DeSoto Building

36221230 Apalachee Parkway

3625Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3628(850) 488-9675

3630Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

3634www.doah.state.fl.us

3635Filed with the Clerk of the

3641Division of Administrative Hearings

3645this 9th day of December, 2008.

3651ENDNOTES

36521/ Statutory references are to the 2007 codification of the

3662Florida Statutes unless otherwise noted.

36672/ Rule references are to the version of the Florida

3677Administrative Code in effect at the time of the hearing unless

3688otherwise noted.

3690COPIES FURNISHED :

3693Thomas M. Parham

36967225 Arlet Drive

3699Jacksonville, Florida 32211

3702Karen Bishop, Esquire

3705Department of Environmental Protection

37093900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3712Mail Stop 35

3715Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

3718Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

3722Department of Environmental Protection

37263900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3729Mail Stop 35

3732Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

3735Michael W. Sole, Secretary

3739Department of Environmental Protection

37433900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3746Mail Stop 35

3749Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

3752Tom Beason, General Counsel

3756Department of Environmental Protection

37603900 Commonwealth Boulevard

3763Mail Stop 35

3766Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

3769NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

3775All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

378515 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

3796to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

3807will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2009
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2009
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held September 25, 2008). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2008
Proceedings: Thomas Parham Proposed Recommendation filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2008
Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from T. Parham responding to DEP`s response to petitioner`s ex-parte communication filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/17/2008
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Response to Petitioner`s Ex Parte Communications filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/07/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Ex-parte Communication.
PDF:
Date: 11/06/2008
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Johnston from Thomas Parham regarding additional exhibits filed (exhbiits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2008
Proceedings: DEP`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2008
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Johnston from T. Parham regarding Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 10/20/2008
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
Date: 09/25/2008
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/26/2008
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for September 25, 2008; 9:00 a.m.; Jacksonville and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2008
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Unopposed Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/18/2008
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Request for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2008
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/06/2008
Proceedings: (Petitioner`s) Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/05/2008
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/17/2008
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 06/17/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for August 26, 2008; 9:00 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL).
PDF:
Date: 06/13/2008
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2008
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2008
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2008
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2008
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.

Case Information

Judge:
J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
Date Filed:
06/03/2008
Date Assignment:
06/03/2008
Last Docket Entry:
03/10/2009
Location:
Jacksonville, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (4):

Related Florida Rule(s) (8):