08-002636
Thomas M. Parham vs.
Department Of Environmental Protection
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, December 9, 2008.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, December 9, 2008.
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.
- Date
- Proceedings
- 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: 11/19/2008
- 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: 11/06/2008
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Johnston from Thomas Parham regarding additional exhibits filed (exhbiits not available for viewing).
- PDF:
- Date: 10/30/2008
- Proceedings: 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.
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
-
Karen S. Bishop, Esquire
Address of Record -
Thomas M. Parham
Address of Record