14-003674 Department Of Environmental Protection vs. South Palafox Properties, Llc
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Monday, March 2, 2015.


View Dockets  
Summary: Agency established that Respondent violated conditions of C&D Permit and Consent Order; revocation of permit appropriate.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

8DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON MENTA L )

14PROTECTION , )

16)

17Pet i tioner , )

21)

22vs . ) OGC CASE NO. 14-0415

29) DOAH CASE NO. 14-3674

34SOUTH PA L AFOX PROPERTIES , INC ., )

42)

43____________________________ Respondent . ) )

48F I NA L ORDER

53An Adm i nistrative Law Judge (ALJ) wi t h the Division of Administrative Hearings

68(DOA H ), o n M arch 2, 2015 , s u bmitted a R ecom m e n ded Order ( R O) t o th e D epa rt ment

99of E nvironmen t al P r otectio n ( D EP or D epartment) in the above captioned proceeding .

120The RO Is attached hereto as E xhibit A . The R O was copied to counsel f or the

140Respondent , South P a l afox Properties , I nc . (South P alafox) , and to counsel fo r t h e

161D EP . On March 17, 2015 , the parties filed their Exceptions to the R O . O n March 27 ,

1822015 , the DEP responded to South P alafox ' s Exceptions . South Palafox did not fi l e a

202response to the DE P ' s E xceptions . This matter is now before the Sec r etary of the

223Department for fina l agency action .

230BACKGROUND

231South P a l afox is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns rea l property

247located at 6990 R olling H ills R oad , P ensacola , Escambia County , Florida. Sout h

263P alafox operates a const r uction and demoli t ion disposal facility (C & D ) at the property ,

283under the name of Rolling Hills Construction and D emo l ition R ecycling Center. T h e C &

303D operates under a permit issued by the Department. The permit was renewed in

317February 201 3 and will expire in early 2018 . Besides the general and specifi c

333conditions, the renewed permit incorporated the terms and conditions of a Consent

345Order executed in November 2012 , as well as detailed requirements relating to the

358operation of the facility, water quality monitoring , an odor remediation plan , financial

370assurance and cost estimates, and closure of the facility .

380In an eight-count Notice of Violation issued on July 31 , 2014 , DEP proposed to

394revoke the C & D permit and close the facility for violating permit conditions and rules

410that govern the operation of the facility . These included failure to comply with certain

425time frames and deadlines required by the 2012 Consent Order . The Notice of Violation

440was issued under section 403 . 087(7)(b ) , Florida Statutes, which authorizes the

453Department to revoke a permit when it finds the permit holder has " [v]iolated law ,

467department orders , rules , or regulations , or permit conditions ." South Palafox timely

479requested an administrative hearing to challenge the proposed agency action . DEP

491referred the challenge to DOAH and an ALJ conducted an evidentiary hearing on

504December 9-11, 2014 . A three-volume hearing transcript was filed , proposed

515recommended orders were submitted by the parties, and the ALJ subsequently issued

527the RO .

530SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDED ORDER

535In the RO , the ALJ recommended that the Department enter a final order

548revoking the C & D permit. (RO at page 36) . The ALJ concluded that DEP established

565the facts necessary to take that action under section 403 . 087(7) , Florida Statutes . (RO

5811J1J 76 , 79) .

585Burden of proof

588The ALJ found that DEP proved most of the charges alleged in all eight coun ts of

605the Not ice of Vio lation by clear and convincing evidence. (RO mJ 19, 28. 36 , 38, 57 , 64,

62467, 68, 73 , 76) . The ALJ noted DEP ' s argument that it must prove the allegations in the

644Notice of VIolation by a preponderance of the evidence, and South Palafox 's assertion

658that the charges should be proven by c lear and convincing evidence . (RO mJ71-73 ) .

675However , after statutory and case law a nalysis , the ALJ s im ply stated that .. no matter

693which standard is used , the Department has proven the charges ... by clear and

707convi nc i ng evidence ." {RO 1111 71-73).

716Mitigation evidence

718The DEP filed a motion in limine to preclude South Palafox from presenting

731evidence i n mitigation of the charges. (RO 1J 74) . DEP argued that unlike section

747403 . 121 (10), Florida Statutes , section 403 .087 does not require consideration of

761mitigating factors before revoking a permit. (RO 1J 74) . The ALJ denied DEP ' s motion in

779limine to prec l ude South Palafo x from presenting m itiga t ing evidence concerning

795circumstances surrounding the violations and efforts to remed iate them after July 31,

8082014 . (RO 1J1J13 , 74) . The ALJ allowed DEP to present evidence to show that South

825Palafox ' s remediation efforts were not successful and that some violations still existed

839as of the date of the final hearing . (RO 1J 13) .

852The ALJ found that South Palafo x failed to adhere to a number of deadlines and

868permit conditions established several years ago , and to make any serious effort to

881comply until it was faced with possible permit re vocation . ( RO 1J78 ). The ALJ found that

900negligence and/or inattention by the former manager did not excuse this cond uct. (RO 1J

91578). The ALJ further found that once the Notice of Violation was issued , South Palafox

930replaced the manager , invested a large amount of capital to purchase new equipment ,

943and retained new consultants in an effort to bring the facility into compliance . ( RO 1f78 ) .

962However, the ALJ found that the date on which full compliance can be achieved cannot

977be predicted . (RO 1178). The ALJ concluded that while he would impose "a less

992draconian measure than revocation given the evidence of mitigation , the [DEP]

1003established the facts necessary to take that action ." (RO 1J79).

1014STANDARDS OF REVIEW OF DOAH RECOMMENDED ORDERS

1021Section 120 . 57(1 )(1) , Florida Statutes , prescribes that an agency reviewing a

1034recommended order may not reject or modify the findings of fact of an ALJ , " unless the

1050agency first determines from a review of the entire record , and states with particularity in

1065the order , that the findings of fact were not based on competent substantial evidence ."

1080§ 120 . 57(1 )(1), Fla . Stat. (2014) ; Charlotte Cnty . v . IMC Phosphates Co ., 18 So . 3d 1089

1103(Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; Wills v . Fla . Elections Comm ' n , 955 So . 2d 61 (Fla . 1st DCA 2007) .

1127A reviewing agency may not reweigh the evidence presented at a DOAH final

1140hearing , attempt to resolve conflicts therein . or judge the credibility of witnesses . See

1155e . g ., Rogers v . Dep ' t of Health , 920 So . 2d 27 , 30 (Fla . 1st DCA 2005) ; Belleau v . Dep ' t

1184of Envtl . Prot. , 695 So. 2d 1305 , 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ; Dunham v . Highlands Cnty .

1203Sch . Bd ., 652 So. 2d 894 (Fla . 2d . DCA 1995) . These evidentiary - related matters are

1224within the province of the ALJ , as the "fact - finder " in these administrative proceedings .

1240See e . g. , Tedderv. Fla. Parole Comm ' n, 842 So. 2d 1022, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) ;

1259Heifetz v . Dep ' t of Bus . Regulation , 475 So . 2d 1277 , 1281 (Fla . 1st DCA 1985) . Also ,

1282the ALJ ' s decision to accept the testimony of one expert witness over that of another

1299expert is an evidentiary ruling that cannot be altered by a reviewing agency , absent a

1314complete lack of any competent substantial evidence of record supporting the decision .

1327See e . g ., Peace River/Manasota Reg ' / Water Supply Auth . v _ /MC Phosphates Co . , 18

1348So . 3d 1079, 1088 ( Fla . 2d DCA 2009) ; Collier Med . Ctr . v . State , Dep ' t of Health and

1373Rehab . Servs ., 462 So. 2d 83, 85 (Fla . 1st DCA 1985) ; Fla . Chapter of Sierra Club v .

1395Orlando Utils . Comm ' n , 436 So . 2d 383 , 389 (F la . 5th DCA 1983) .

1414An agency has the primary responsibility of Interpreting statutes and rules w i thin

1428i t s regulatory jurisdiction and expertise . See , e . g ., Pub . Employees Relations Comm ' n v .

1450Dade Cnty . Police Benevolent Ass ' n , 467 So . 2d 987, 989 (Fla . 1985 ); Fla . Public

1471Employee Council , 79 v . Daniels , 646 So . 2d 813 . 816 ( Fla . 1st DCA 1994) .

1491Considerable deference should be accorded to these agency i nterpretations of statutes

1503and rules within their regulatory jurisdiction , and such agency interp re tations should not

1517be overturned unless " clearly erroneous ." See , e . g ., Falk v. Beard, 614 So . 2d 1086 ,

15361089 (Fla . 1 993); Dep ' t of Envtl . Regulation v . Goldring , 477 So. 2d 532 . 534 ( Fla .

15601985) . Furthermore , agency interpretations of statutes and rules within their regulato ry

1573jurisdiction do not have to be the only reasonable interpretations . It is enough if such

1589agency interpretations are " permissible " ones _ See , e . g ., Suddath Van Lines , Inc . v .

1607of Envtl . Prot. , 668 So . 2d 209 , 212 (F la . 1st DCA 1996 ). The Department

1626administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 403 , Florida Statutes . and the rules

1640promulgated thereunder , including those applicable to C & D disposal facilities. (RO 1f

16531 ); see also§ 120 . 57(1 )(1) , Fla . Stat ( 2014) (agency can reject or modify a judge's

1673co nclus io ns of law and interpretations of administrative rule s " over which it has

1689substantive jurisdiction " ) .

1693Finally , in reviewing a recommended order and any written exceptions, the

1704agency ' s final order " shall include an explicit ruling on each exception ." See§

1719120 .57(1 )(k) , Fla. Stat. (2014) . However, the agency need not rule on an exception that

" 1736does not clearly identify the disputed portion of the recommended order by page

1749number or paragraph , that does not identify the legal basis for the exception, or that

1764does not include appropriate and specific citations to the record ." /d.

1776RULINGS ON DEP ' S EXCEPTIONS

1782Prosecutorial Discretion

1784Section 403.087(7)(b) , Florida Statutes , authorizes the Department to revoke any

1794permit issued if it finds that the permit holder has " [v]iolated law , department orders ,

1808rules , or conditions that directly relate to the permit. " See also Fla. Admin. CodeR. 62-

18234.100(3}(b); § 403.704(10) , Fla. Stat. (2014). The C & D permit was issued to South

1838Palafox under chapter 403, Florida Statutes . Chapter 403 is a remedial statute designed

1852to protect the environment, and is liberally construed to achieve that goal. See State v .

1868Hamilton. 388 So . 2d 561 , 563 ( Fla . 1980) . The statute protects the environment by

1886requiring stationary installations that may be a source of contamination to operate

1898pursuant to permits issued by the Department. See§§ 403 . 061(14) and 403 . 087 , Fla .

1915Stat. (2014).

1917In chapter 403 , the Legislature authorizes the Department to pursue various

1928enforcement remedies , including that the Department may revoke permits . See, e . g .,

1943§§403 . 061 (14) , 403.087(7), 403.121 and , 403.704(10), Fla Stat. (2014) . The fact that

1958chapter 403 contains some penal provisions does not change its character as a

1971remedial statute enacted for the public benefit. See , e.g ., Ranger Insurance Co. v . Bal

1987Harbour Club, Inc. , 509 So . 2d 940 , 943 ( Fla . 3d DCA 1985) . " The test most often

2007articulated for determining whether a particular provision of legislation is penal in

2019character is whether the legislative aim In providing the sanction was to punish the

2033individual for engaging in the activity i nvolved or to regulate the activity in question ." /d .

2051at 943 ; see also WM . v. Oep ' t of Health and Rehab . Servs ., 553 So . 2d 274 , 278 ( Fla .

20771st DCA 1989) (reflecting that while certain provisions of the statute may have a " penal

2092effect " the statute was not designed to punish violators but protect the public) .

2106It is well recognize d that the choice of an enforcement remedy is committed to an

2122adm in istrative agency's discretion and is a matter of enforcement policy unsuitable for

2136judicial review . See Heckler v . Chaney , 470 U . S . 821 , 831 (1985); Chau v . Securities

2156and Exchange Comm ' n , - - -F. Supp . 3d--- , 2014 WL 6984236 *13 (S. D .N.Y. 2014)

2175("Congress has provided the SEC with two tracks on which it may litigate certain cases.

2191Which of those paths to choose is a matter of enforcement policy squarely within the

2206SEC ' s province .'' ) . Similarly , at the state level , enforcement procedures and remed ies

2223are left to the Department ' s prosecutorial discretion and is not an appropriate subject for

2239DOAH review . See , e . g ., Sarasota Cnty . v . Oep ' t of Envtl . Regulation and Falconer , 9

2262F.A . L.R. 1822 (F la . Dep 't Envtl. Reg . 1986) ; Cobb v . Dep ' t of Envtl . Regulation , 1988

2286WL 618161 *6 ( Fla . Dept. of Env . Reg . 1988); Christensen v . Smith and Oep ' t of Envtl .

2310Regulation , 1996 WL 533981 (Fla. Dept. of Env. Reg. 1996 ).

2321The RO reflects that the ALJ inappropriately invaded this exclusive province of

2333the Department and concluded that he would have c hosen "a less draconian measure

2347than revocation given the evidence of mitigation .'' (RO 1J79) . However , section

2360403.087(7)(b) neither provides for alternatives to revocation , nor provides any standards

2371for considering mitigation evidence. The state courts are precluded from l imiting o r

2385expanding a statute by adding words that were not added by the legislature . See , e.g .,

2402Chaffee v. Miami Transfer Co. Inc. , 288 So. 2d 209, 215 (Fla. 1974) (observing that

2417courts may not invoke a limitation or add words to a statute); Atlantis at Perdido Ass ' n ,

2435Inc . v. Warner, 932 So. 2d 1206 , 1212 (F l a . 1 st DCA 2006) ( refl ect in g that an appellate

2460court is without power to construe an unamb igu ous statute in a way that would limit its

2478express terms). Thus , neither DOAH nor the Department may do what the courts cannot

2492do. /d. ; see also GTC , Inc . v. Edgar , 967 So . 2d 781 , 785 (2007) ("An agency ' s

2513interpretation of the statute that it is charged with enforcing is entitled to great

2527deference ." ) .

2531Mitigation Evidence

2533DEP Exception No. 7

2537DEP takes exception to paragraphs 7 4 and 75 , where the A LJ ultimately

2551concluded that due process requires consideration of evidence in mitigation of the

2563alleged violations. DEP argues that other provisions specifically require the agency to

2575consider mitigating factors . See , e.g. ,§ 403 .12 1(10) , Fla. Stat. (20 14) ("T he

2592administrative law judge [in an ELRA case] may receive evidence in mitigation ." ). DEP

2607further argues that the legislature knows how to imp ose such a requirement. Thu s, the

2623only relevant evidence should concern whether the violations occurred . See DEP ' s

2637Exceptions at page 6 . DEP is correct that "t he legislature k n ows how to impose such a

2657requirement; " and as outlined above the courts and administrative agencies are not

2669authorized to add words that the legislature did not add . See Chaffee , 288 So . 2d at

2687215.

2688In paragraph 75 , the ALJ noted that the Department has allowed mitigating

2700ev i dence in at least two " permit revocat i on proceedings . " ( RO 1]75 ) . The first case ,

2721Department of Environmental Protection v . Mahon , Case No 11-2276 (Fla . DOAH Dec .

273630 , 2011 ; Fla . DEP Mar. 20 , 2012) , was a proceeding to revoke an ind i vidual ' s

2755professional licenses to operate wastewater treatment plants and potable water

2765systems . Sections 403.865 through 403 . 876 , Florida Statutes , authorize the Department

2778to establish qualifications , examine and cert i fy water and wastewater treatment plant

2791operators. Sect i on 403 . 876 , Florida Statutes , authorizes disciplinary action by the

2805Department including suspending , revoking , refusing to issue or renew a license ,

2816probation and administrative fines . See§ 403 . 876 ( 1 ) , Fla. Stat. (2014) .

2832The rules promulgated under section 403 . 876 include Florida Administrative

2843Code rule 62 - 602.870 , which expressly provides for consideration of aggravating and

2856mitigating circumstances . See Fla . Admin . CodeR. 62-602.870 ( 1 ) (" The Department

2872shall , depending on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, in addition to a fine ,

2884suspend a license for a period not to exceed 2 years for any of the following

2900reasons ... "). The ALJ in Mahon specifically considered " a mitigating circumstance " and

2913recommended an alternative disciplinary action of imposing an administrative fine and

2924probation . Dep ' t of Envtl. Prot . v . Mahon , Case No 11 - 22761]26 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 30 ,

29452011 ; Fla . DEP Mar. 20 , 2012) . These remedies are authorized by section 403 . 876 . See

2964§ 403 . 876(1 ), Fla . Stat. (2014) . As discussed above, section 403 . 087 does not authorize

2984alternative remedies or consideratio n of mitigating circumstances . The interpretat i on of

2998section 403 . 087 in this Final Order i s more reasonable than that of the ALJ . See§

3017120 . 57(1 )(1) , Fla . Stat. (2014) (when rejecting or modifying a conclusion of law , the

3034agency must find its conclusion of law " is as or more reasonable ... . " ) .

3050The second case, Department of Environmental Regulation v . Vail, Case No. 87-

30634242 (Fla. DOAH Mar . 11 , 1988; Fla. DER May 11, 1988), was an action to revoke a

3081permit for construction of a wastewater treatment facility. The permit holder violated

3093permit conditions by deviating construction of the facility from the engineering plans that

3106accompanied the permit application . A fair reading of the RO in Vail suggests that the

3122Department ' s Administrative Complaint pursued alternative enforcement paths under

3132three provisions that authorized remedies ranging from " appropriate corrective action[s]"

3142to permit revocation . See Dep ' t of Envtl . Regulation v. Vail, Case No. 87-4242 mJ 32-35

3161(Fla . DOAH Mar. 11, 1988; Fla . DER May 11, 1988) . This reading is supported by the

3180ALJ ' s recommendation that the Department issue a final order requiring Mr . Vail to

3196comply with the corrective orders contained in the Administrative Complaint. See /d . at 1J

321145 and page 9. The Vail case does not stand for the proposition that section 403 . 087

3229contemplates consideration of mitigating circumstances. See§ 120 . 57(1)(1) , Fla . Stat.

3241(2014).

3242In paragraph 75 , the ALJ also noted that the four revocation cases cited by DEP

3257were either uncontested , or based on a stipulation of facts . (RO 1J75) . However, in

3273addition to the plain language of section 403 . 087 , these cases are instructive regarding

3288the Department ' s view of matters properly considered in a permit revocation

3301proceeding . See , e . g. , Dep ' t of Envtl . Regulation v . City of North Miami , 1981 WL

3322180190 (Fla . Dept. of Envtl. Regulation 1981) (final order revoking solid waste permit

3336and dredge and fill permit based on violations of permit conditions ; permit holder

3349violated setback requirements and caused violation of water quality standards); Dep ' t of

3363Envtl . Prot. v . Coyote Land Co. , OGC No. 11-0943 , { Fla . DEP August 29 , 2011)

3381(revoking permit for C & D facility based on , inter alia , violations of permit conditions);

3396Dep ' t of Envtl . Regulation v . Moreland , Final Order , OGC File No . 92-0866 (Fla . DER

3416July 27 , 1992) (revoking permit for wastewater treatment plant based on violation of

3429permit conditions) ; Dep ' t of Envtl . Regulation v . Southeastern Fiberboard, Final Order ,

3444OGC File No. 91-0116, (Fla . DER April 3, 1991) (revoking permit for industrial

3458wastewater discharge based on violation of , inter alia, permit conditions).

3468The ALJ ultimately concluded in paragraph 75 that " the concept of due process

3481accords a permit holder the right to present evidence of mitigation " and reaffirmed the

3495ruling on DEP ' s motion in limine. (RO 75 ). The ALJ does not cite any case law to

3515support this conclusion . As DEP argues in this exception , " (p]rocedural due process

3528imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of ' liberty ' or

3541' property ' interests within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fifth and

3557Fourteenth Amendment. " Matthews v . Eldridge , 424 U . S . 319 , 332 (1976); see also

3573Keys Citizens for Responsible Gov ' t , Inc .. v . Fla . Keys Aqueduct Auth ., 795 So . 2d 940 ,

3595949 (Fla . 2001) (applying the Matthews v. Eldridge analysis and concluding that due

3609process was provided) . The ALJ concluded in paragraph 73 of the RO that South

3624Palafox has no property interest in the subject permit. (RO 73) . Also , the ALJ did not

3641identify any " liberty interest " of South Palafox that is implicated by this revocation

3654proceeding .

3656For the foregoing reasons , by accepting mitigation evidence the ALJ

3666m i sinterpreted the requirements of section 403 . 087 . The interpretation of section

3681403 . 087 in this Final Order is more reasonable than that of the ALJ . See§ 120 . 57(1 )( 1 ) ,

3704Fla . Stat. (2014) . Therefore , DEP ' s Exception No . 7 is granted .

3720DEP Exception No. 8

3724DEP takes exception to the first part of paragraph 79 whe r e the ALJ

3739characterized the permit revocation as "especially harsh " or " draconian . " See DEP ' s

3753Exceptions at page 9 . The context of the characterization was the ALJ ' s statemen t that

3771he would have chosen " a less draconian measure than revocation given the evidence of

3785mitigation , . .. . " (RO 1179) . As discussed in the ruling on DEP ' s Exception No . 7 ,

3805section 403 . 087 does not authorize an alternative remedy to revocation or consideration

3819of mitigation evidence . See§ 403 . 087(7)(b) , Fla . Stat. (2014) ; Chaffee v . Miami Transfer

3836Co . Inc. , 288 So. 2d 209 , 215 (Fla . 1974) (observing that courts may not invoke a

3854limitation or add words to a statute) .

3862The ALJ acknow l edged in endnote 2 on page 36 that the Department " has a wide

3879range of options in implementing its enforcement process ," and " has the discretion to

3892use a notice of revocation under sect i on 403 . 087(7) ." (RO at page 36) . As previously

3912discussed, choice of enforcement procedures and remedies are left to the Department ' s

3926prose c utorial discretion and is not an appropriate subject for DOAH review. See , e.g.,

3941Sarasota Cnty . v . Dep ' t of Envtl. Regulation and Falconer, 9 F . A.L.R . 1822 (Fla . Dep't

3963Envtl. Reg . 1986) ; Cobb v . Dep ' t of Envtl . Regulation , 1988 WL 618161 *6 (Fla . Dept. of

3985Env . Reg . 1988) ; Christensen v . Smith and Dep ' t of Envtl. Regulation , 1996 WL 533981

4004( Fla . Dept. of Env . Reg . 1996) . Thus , to the extent that the first part of paragraph 79

4026may reflect an inappropriate review by the ALJ of the Department ' s exercise of

4041prose c utorial discretion , it is not adopted in this Final Order . See /d .

4057The interpretation of the Department ' s exercise of prosecutorial discretion under

4069section 403 . 087 in this Final Order is more reasonable than that of the ALJ . See §

4088120.57(1 )(1) , Fla. Stat. (2014) . Therefore, DEP ' s Exception No. 8 is granted .

4104DEP Exception No. 5

4108DEP takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 69 that South Palafox ' s

" 4125proposed remediation steps " to reduce the height of the facility " should be taken into

4139account in assessing an appropriate penalty ." See DEP ' s Exceptions at pages 3-4 ; RO

415569 . For the reasons discussed in the ruling on DEP's Exception No . 7 above , section

4172403 . 087 does not authorize consideration of mitigation evidence . Therefore , DEP ' s

4187Exception No.5 is granted.

4191DEP Exception No. 3

4195DEP takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in the third sentence of paragraph 24.

4211The ALJ found that ' '[i]n fairness to [South Palafox] , a repositioning of the monitoring

4226network and retesting of the samples might have produced more favorable results .'' (RO

424024) . DEP argues that this finding is not supported by the record and is "based on pure

4258speculation .'' See DEP ' s Exceptions at page 2 . Contrary to DEP ' s argument the ALJ ' s

4279finding is a reasonable inference from the record testimony of South Palafox ' s expert

4294referenced in the first two sentences of paragraph 24 . 1 (T . Vol. Ill , pp . 319-335 ). Thus ,

4314DEP ' s except i on to the third sentence of paragraph 24 is denied .

4330DEP also takes exception to the fifth sentence in paragraph 24 . The ALJ found

4345that South Palafox ' s " expert testified that the implementation of its RAP [Remedial

43591 The ALJ can " draw permissible inferen c es from the evidence ." Heifetz v . Dep ' t of Bus .

4381Regulation , 475 So . 2d 1277 , 1281 (Fla . 1st DCA 1985) .

43941 3

4396Action Plan] , now partially implemented , will cure all of the reported exceedances ." (RO

44101{24) . DEP argues that the expert's testimony specifies that full RAP implementation

4423may cure the iron exceedances . (T. Vol. Ill , p . 330 line 7- p . 331 line 20) . A complete

4445review of the record shows that there is no competent substantial record evidence to

4459support a finding that all exceedances will be cured . (T . Vol. Ill, p. 330 line 7- p . 331

4480line 20). 2 Therefore, DEP's exception to the fifth sentence in paragraph 24 is granted .

4496DEP takes exception to the sixth sentence in paragraph 24. The ALJ found that

" 4510[a]ssuming this unrefuted testimony is true . it should be taken into account in

4524determining an appropriate penalty. " (RO 1{24) . DEP argues that the ALJ ' s assumption

4539is not true . As outlined above the expert's testimony specifies that full RAP

4553implementation may cure the iron exceedances . (T . Vol. Ill, p . 330 line 7- p. 331 line

457220). However , a complete review of the record shows that there is no competent

4586substantial record evidence to support a finding that all exceedances will be cured . In

4601addition, for the reasons discussed in the ruling on DEP ' s Exception No . 7 above ,

4618section 403 . 087 does not authorize consideration of mitigation evidence . Therefore ,

4631DEP ' s exception to the sixth sentence in paragraph 24 is granted .

4645Standard of Proof

4648DEP Exception No. 6

4652DEP takes exception to the ALJ's failure to ultimately conclude in paragraphs 71-

466573 that the standard of proof in this revocation proceeding is the preponderance of the

46802 In addition, the proposed recommended order submitted to the ALJ by South

4693Palafox does not propose a finding of fact that all exceedances will be cured by RAP

4709implementation. See South Palafox proposed order filed February 10 , 2015, at 1{14 ,

4721page 5.

4723evidence standard . See DEP Exceptions at pages 4-5 . In paragraph 71 , the ALJ

4738described that DEP and South P alafox do not agree regarding the standard of proof for

4754the permit revocation proceeding . (RO 1J 71 ) . The ALJ noted DEP ' s argument that it

4773must prove the allegations in the Notice of Violation by a preponderance of the

4787evidence, and that South Palafox asserted that the charges should be proven by clear

4801and convincing evidence. (RO 1{1{71-73) . However , after statutory and case law

4813analysis, the ALJ concluded that " no matter which standard is used , the Department has

4827proven the charges ... by clear and convincing evidence. " (RO 1l1f72-73). Nonetheless ,

4839DEP argues that the ALJ ' s express conclusions do not reflect the legally correct

4854standard of proof . See RO 1{73 ( . .. [DEP] has proven the charges set forth below by

4873clear and convincing evidence ." ) ; RO 1f76 (' ' By clear and convincing evidence, [DEP]

4889has proven . . . " ) . Thus, DEP and permittees lack future guidance regarding the

4905conduct of section 403.087 permit revocation proceedings . 3 See DEP Exceptions at

4918pages 4-5 .

4921In paragraph 73 , the ALJ states that case law make s a d i stinction between

4937proceedings in which sanctions involve a professional license and implicates the loss of

4950livelihood , and other licensure disciplinary proceedings . See , e . g ., Dep ' t of Banking and

4968Fin. v . Osborne Stern and Co ., 670 So . 2d 932 , 933 (Fla. 1996) (observi ng that when

4988the proceedings implicate the loss of livelihood , an elevated standard is necessary); see

5001also Haines v . Dep ' t of Children and Families , 983 So . 2d 602 , 604 (Fla . 5th DCA 2008)

50233 The Department administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 403 , Florida

5035Statutes , and the rules promulgated thereunder, including those applicable to C & D

5048disposal facilities . (RO 1{1 ) ; see also§ 120 . 57( 1 )(I) , Fla . Stat. (20 14 ) (age n cy can reje ct

5073or modify a judge ' s conclusions of law and interpretations of administrative rules " over

5088which it has substantive jurisdiction " ) .

5095(where statute provides that a foster care license does not create a property right in the

5111recipient , a preponderance of the evidence is the appropriate standard to use in a

5125license revocation proceeding). 4

5129The ALJ found that: (1) a C & D permit is not a professional license and does not

5147implicate the loss of li velihood; and (2) section 403 . 087 specifically provides that the

5163permit issued "does not become a vested interest in the permittee. " (RO 1f 73). Thu s, the

5180appropriate standard of proof in this section 403.087 permit revocation proceeding is

5192preponderance of the evidence . Haines , 983 So. 2d at 604 . The interpretation of section

5208403 . 087 in this Final Order is more reasonable than that of the ALJ . See§ 120 . 57(1 )(I) ,

5229Fla . Stat. (2014) .

5234Therefore , DEP ' s Exception No.6 is granted. The ALJ's conclusions are modified

5247in this Final O rd er to reflect the l egally correct standard of proof as preponderance of

5265the evidence.

5267Other Exceptions

5269DEP Except i on No. 1

5275DEP takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in the last sentence of paragraph 6 that

" 5292[s]ince June , the managing partner of the LL C, Scott Miller, has overseen the

5306ope rat ions ." (RO 1f 6) . DEP points out that while Mr . Miller has been a managing

53264 In endnote 4 at page 37, the ALJ contrasts Haines with a DEP case where the

5343imposition of an administ r ative fine is sought in an enforcement action under section

5358161.054 , and the Department must prove the charges by clear and convincing

5370evidence. See Withers v . Dep ' t of Envtl. Prot ., Case No. 02-0621 (Fla. DOAH Jan . 9,

53902003 ; Fla . DEP Feb . 21 , 2003). This case is consistent with the Florida Supreme

5406Court ' s Osborne Stern opinion in 1996 , which extended the clear and convincing

5420evidence standard to imposition of an administrative fine . See a/so Fla . Dep ' t of

5437Children and Families v . Davis Family Day Care Home , - - -So. 3d--- , 2015 WL 1379920

5454* 2 (Fla . 2015).

5459member of South Palafox sin c e its inception , there are other managing members ,

5473including Charlie Davidson . (T . Vol. Ill , p . 389 lines 1 0-12 ; p . 4321ines 14-20- p . 433

5494line 7 ; p . 441 lines 2-3) . To the extent the ALJ ' s finding suggests that Scott Miller was

5515the sole managing member of South Palafox , the finding is not supported by competent

5529substantial record evidence . Therefore , DEP ' s Exception No. 1 is granted .

5543OEP Except i on N o . 2

5551DEP takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 17 that " [t]he monitoring

5566network , already in place when [South Palafox] purchased the faci l ity , consists of si x

5582groundwater monitoring wells and three surface wate r monitoring stations .'' ( RO 1{17 ) .

5598DEP argues that the A L J found that South Palafox acquired the facility in 2007 (RO

56154) , and that surface water monitoring requirements were added when the permit was

5628renewed in 2013 (RO 1{16 ; DEP Ex . 1 at pages 18-19) . Also , the ALJ found that that the

5648surface water sampling locations were selected by EPT - South Palafox ' s consultant

5662(RO 1{24) . ( T . Vol. Ill , p . 354 lines 18-24) . Competent substantial record evidence does

5681not support a finding that surface water sampling locat i ons were in place when South

5697Palafox purchased the facility .

5702Therefore > based on the foregoing reasons , DEP Exception No . 2 is granted .

5717DEP E x c ep ti on N o . 4

5728DEP takes exception to the finding in paragraph 53 that an underground sewer

5741pipe " was damaged during the storm , causing it to rupture and be exposed ,'' and that

5757the Escamb i a County Utilities Authority ( ECUA) eventually u repaired the damaged p i pe ."

5775( RO DEP argues that the competent s u bstantial record evidence does not

5789support a f i nding that sewer pipe ruptured . The record evidence supports a finding that

5806the sewer pipe was exposed as a result of the April 2014 rain event , but not a finding

5824that it was ruptured. (DEP Ex 23 . , p . 62 ; T . Vol. II , p . 244 line 2 - p. 245 line 25 ; p . 266 ,

5852lines 3 -20 ; Vol. Ill , p . 345 line 13- p . 350 line 11 ; p. 382 line 22- p . 383 line 22 ; p . 422

5879line 1 - p. 423 line 21 ; p . 437 line 17 - p . 440 line 2; p . 442 lines 8 - 14). Thus , DEP ' s

5908exception to the finding in paragraph 53 that the sewer pipe was ruptured , is granted.

5923DEP also argues that there is no competent substantial evidence to support the

5936additional finding in the third sentence of paragraph 53 that " [u]ntil the pipe was

5950repaired , [South Palafox ' s] assumption that it likely contributed to some of the odors

5965detected by the Department appears to be valid ." (RO 1J 53) . Contrary to DEP ' s

5983argument the ALJ ' s finding is a reasonable inference from the record testimony . The

5999ALJ can " draw permissible inferences from the evidence." Heifetz v . Dep ' t of Bus .

6016Regulation , 475 So . 2d 1277 , 1281 (Fla . 1st DCA 1985) . Therefore , DEP ' s exception to

6035the third sentence of paragraph 53 is denied .

6044RULINGS ON SOUTH PALAFOX EXCEPTIONS

6049Exception No. 1

6052South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 2 that " Class Ill

6068fresh surface waters runO in a northeast-southwest direction through the middle of the

6081[South Palafox] property ." (RO 1J 2) . 5 South Palafox argues that "water arrives onsite

6097already exceeding certain DEP constituents of concern ." See South Palafox Exceptions

6109at page 2 . As DEP points out In its response , there is no record basis for this argument.

6128The competent substantial record evidence demonstrates that no samples were taken

61395 All waters of the state , to t heir landward extent , are cons i dered Class Ill surface waters unless

6159o t herwise i dentified by rule . See Fla . Admin . CodeR. 62-302. 3 00(14) .

6177of the water arriving onslte . ( T . Vol Ill , p. 437 lines 1 0-13; p. 448 line 23- p. 449 line

620018) .

6202In addition , competent substantial record evidence supports the ALJ ' s finding in

6215paragraph 2 . (T. Vol Ill , p . 392 lines 6-13 ; p. 334 line 18- p . 335 line 2; p . 336 lines 4-8 ;

6240DEP Ex. 3, pp . 2 , 45-46 ; DEP E x. 23 , pp . 50-55 ; DEP Ex. 30 ; DEP E x . 40 ; R-1, Site

6264Plan). Therefore , South Palafox Exception No. 1 Is denied .

6274Exception No. 2

6277South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s findings in paragraph 8 relating to the

6293entry of a Consen t Order in 2012 to resolve previous violations. South Palafox makes

6308statements regard i ng discussions leading up to entry of the Consent Order in 2012 . See

6325South Pa lafox Except i ons at page 2 . Th ese statements are not supported by the record

6344in this proceeding .

6348The A LJ ' s findings in paragraph 8 are supported by competent substantial

6362ev i dence in the form of the Consent Order and o t he r record testimony . ( DEP E x 2 . ; T .

6388Vol. I , p. 46 line 18- p . 47 l in e 1 ) . T he r efore . South P a laf ox Exception No . 2 is denied .

6420Exception No. 3

6423South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 10 relating to

6438community complaints " regarding offensive odors emanating from the facility ." South

6449Palafox argues that no compe te nt evidence accurate l y identified the source of any

6465alleged odors in the Wedgewood Community . See South Palafox E xceptions at pages

64792 - 3 .

6483Contrary to South Palafox ' s argument , the ALJ ' s finding is supported by

6498competent substantial record evidence in the form of sworn testimony from community

6510residents . (DEP Ex. 14 , pp . 6-7 ; T . Vol. I , p . 1381ine 25- p . 140 line 7 ; Vol II , p. 176 line

653610 - p . 180 line 3; p. 184 line 20 - p. 185 line 8; p . 189 lines 14-16 ; p . 203- p . 205 line

656422) . Also, the r e is competent substant i al record evidence that the facility was in f act a

6585source of both on-site and off-site odors . ( DEP Exs . 14 and 17 ; T. Vol I , p . 55 line 5- p .

661056 line 19 ; p. 56 line 20 - p. 57 line 15 ; p. 104 lin e 1 - p. 10 5 lin e 20; p . 1 29 line s 4-6;

6641Vol Ill , p. 341 line 15- p . 342 line 3 ; p . 3441ines 7-12 ; p . 421 lin es 2-10 ; p . 4241ine 7-

6666p . 435 line 25; p . 4 36 line 3; p . 436 line 25- p. 437 l i n e 9) .

6690Therefore. South Palafox Exception No . 3 is denied .

6700Excep ti on No. 4

6705South Palafox takes exception to the A LJ ' s finding in paragraph 17 that the

6721surface water quality monitoring netwo r k has been in place for a number of years. Th e

6739ruling in DEP ' s Exception No . 2 above i s adopted herein . Thus , the first argument i n

6760South Palafox ' s exception is granted .

6768The r est of South Palafox 's exception conta in s more argument and no record

6784citations . Therefore , the rest of South Palafox ' s exception is de n ie d . See§ 120 . 57(1 )(k),

6806Fla . Stat. (2014) (agency need not rule on an except i on that " does not clearly iden tify

6825the disputed port i on of the recommended order by page number or paragraph, that

6840does not identify th e legal basis for the except ion , o r that does not include appropr i a t e

6862and specific citations to the record " ) .

6870Exception No. 5

6873South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ's finding in paragraph 19 that the

6886manner in which the Department determines the existence of a water quality violation is

" 6900accepted protocol. " (RO 1119). South Palafox a r gues that the DEP failed to provide

6915competent and substantial evidence to support the protocol. However, competent

6925substantial record evidence supports the ALJ ' s finding . (T . Vol. I , p . 42 lines 3-7 ; Vol Ill ,

6946p . 461 line 11 - p . 462 line 3) .

6958South Palafox also argues that it presented expert testimony that differed from

6970DEP ' s testimony on this issue , which should be accepted . The ALJ ' s decision to accept

6989the testimony of one expert witness over that of another expert is an evidentiary ruling

7004that cannot be altered by a reviewing agency. absent a complete lack of any competent

7019substantial evidence of record supporting the decision . See Peace River/Manasota

7030Reg ' f Water Supply Auth. v . fMC Phosphates Co ., 18 So. 3d 1079 , 1 : 088 (Fla . 2d DCA

70532009) . Therefore , South Palafox Exception No. 5 is denied .

7064Exception No.6

7066South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 19 that all of the

7083exceedances shown on Department Exhibits 5 and 6 (except nickel) are violations of

7096water quality standards . (RO 1f 19) . Without providing any record citations . South

7111Palafox argues that competent substantial expert testimony " demonstrated that the

7121water quality data relied upon by the Department was unreliable .... " See South

7134Palafox Exceptions at page 4 .

7140Contrary to South Palafox's argument , competent substantial record evidence

7149supports the ALJ ' s finding . (T . Vol. I , p . 37 line 2- p . 42 line 7 ; Vol. Ill , p . 453 line 14-

7177p . 462 line 3 : DEP Exs. 5 and 6 ) . Also , the ALJ ' s decis i on to accept the testimony of one

7204expert witness over that of another expert is an evidentiary ruling that cannot be altered

7219by a reviewing agency , absent a complete lack of any competent substantial evidence

7232of r e cord supporting the decision . See /d . Therefore , South Palafox E x ception No . 6 i s

7254denied .

7256Exception No. 7

7259South Palafox agrees with the ALJ ' s findings in paragraph 20 . Accordingly , this

7274exception is denied.

7277Exception No. 8

7280South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s findings in paragraph 21 relating to

7295turbidity of water samples relied on by the Department to determ i ne violations . South

7311Palafox argues that the ALJ ' s finding misrepresents the testimony of its expert . See

7327South Palafo x Exceptions at page 5 . There is competent substantial evidence to

7341support the ALJ ' s findings . (DEP Ex . 5 , p . 147 ; T. Vol. Ill , p. 324 line 6 - p . 325 line 22) .

7369Therefore , South Palafox Exception No . 8 is denied.

7378Exception No. 9

7381South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 22 that " [t]here is

7397no rule o r procedure that disallows the use of turbid samples . In fact , they c an be

7416representative of actual water quality . " (RO 1J22) . South Palafox argues that DEP

7430offered " no competent substantial evidence that turbid samples are representative of

7441actual water qua l ity ." See South Palafox Exceptions at page 5.

7454Competent substantial record evidence supports the ALJ ' s findings . (T . Vol. Ill , p .

7471364 l i ne 10 - p . 366 line 16 ; p . 3 55 line 23 - p. 357 line 5 ; DEP Ex . 1 ) . Th e refore , South

7503Palafo x Exception No. 9 i s den i ed .

7514Exception No. 10

7517South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 23 that " [a]

7532reasonable inference to draw from the data , however , is that iron was present in the

7547original sample at levels that required dilution and reanalysis ." (RO 1f23) . South Palafox

7562argues that the Department ;' failed to demonst r ate and proffered no competent evidence

7577related to the reasonableness of holding water samples 22 days before analysis .'' See

7591South Palafox Exceptions at page 6 .

7598Competent substan t ial record evidence supports the ALJ ' s finding . (D EP Ex . 5 , p .

761877 ; T . Vol. Ill , p. 357 line 6- p . 364 line 4) . Also , the ALJ can l' draw permissible

7640inferences from the evidence . " See He ife tz v . Dep ' t of Bus . Regulation , 475 So . 2d

76621277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) . Therefore , South Palafox Exception No . 10 is denied .

7679Exception No. 11

7682South Pa l afox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 24 that

7698reposition i ng the monitoring network and retesting the samples in question are

7711procedures that may have been beneficial but " should have been addressed long before

7724this proceeding was i nit ia ted ." (RO 1f24) . Competent substantial record evidence

7739supports the A LJ 's perm is sible inferences from the evidence . See Heifetz v . Dep ' t of

7760Bus . Regulation , 475 So . 2d 1277 , 1281 ( Fla . 1st DCA 1985) . South Palafox proposed

7779the locations for the surface water monitoring which became a condition of the permit.

7793( T . Vol. Ill , p . 3541ines 18-24). It was made aware of violations of water quality long

7812befo re DEP commenced this proceeding . ( DEP Exs . 5 , 6 , 7 , and 8) . South Palafo x did

7833not raise any issues with the accuracy of the water quality reports prior to

7847commencement of this proceeding. (T . Vol. I , p . 97 line 23- p . 98 line 9; Vol. Ill , p. 357

7869line 6 - p . 358 line 22) .

7878Therefor e, South Palafo x E xc eption No . 11 is denied .

7892Exception No. 12

7895South Palafox agrees with the ALJ ' s findings in paragraph 24 . The ruling in

7911DEP ' s Exception No . 3 is adopted herein . A cc ordingly , this exception is denied .

7930Exception No. 13

7933South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 28 that

" 7947Respondent's failure to implement the approved RAP by the established deadline

7958constitutes a violation ." ( RO 1128) . South Palafox argues that the RAP is in place today

7976and was delayed by third-party interference from Escambia County . See South Palafox

7989Exceptions at pages 7-8 .

7994South Palafox did not take exception to the ALJ ' s factual findings in paragraphs

800925 through 27 , which form the basis for the ultimate finding of a violation in paragraph

802528 . Florida case law holds that when a party does not file any exceptions to certain

8042findings of fact the party " has thereby expressed its agreement with , or at lea st waived

8058any objection to, those findings of fact. " See Envtl . Coalition of Fla ., Inc . v. Broward

8076Cnty., 586 So. 2d 1212 , 1213 (Fla . 1st DCA 1991). Also , South Palafox did not take

8093exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 29 that it " concedes that it did not comply

8111with the deadline for implementing the RAP ... . " See /d .

8123I n addition, South Palafox argues that the RAP was delayed by third-party

8136interference from Escambia County. However , South Palafox did not take exception to

8148the ALJ ' s findings in paragraphs 29 and 30 . These findings establish that South Palafox

8165did not apply for a required stormwater permit from Escamb ia County until a l most one

8182year after the county ' s notice of violation . ( RO mf 29 and 30) ; see also Envtl. Coalition of

8203Fla . , Inc . v . Broward Cnty ., 586 So . 2d 1212 , 1213 (Fla . 1st DCA 1991) .

8224Therefore , South Palafox Except ion No.13 is denied .

8233Exception No. 14

8236South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s f i nding in paragraph 31 that the facts

8254suggest that Escambia County processed th e stormwater permit application in a timely

8267manner . (R O 1]'31 ). Competent substantial record evidence supports the ALJ's finding .

8282(Joint E x. 1 , Deposition of Roza Sestnov at pp . 4 , 22-25 , 27 , 31 , 44-47 , 63-69 ; T . Vol. II ,

8303p . 262 ; DEP Ex . 1, p . 4 ) . Therefore . this exception is denied .

8322Exception Nos. 15 and 16

8327South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 35 that '' other

8343than [South Palafox 's) manager indicating that he had a new bonding agent , no

8357evidence was presented to mitigate this violation ''. The subject violation charged in the

8371Notice of Violation was that South Palafox failed to provide the required inflation

8384adjustment for its closure and long term care bond . South Palafox also takes exception

8399to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 36 that its failure to timely update its financial

8416assurance for closure and long term care costs constitutes a violation. South Palafox

8429argues that it " proffered significant evidence " but fails to provide any record citations .

8443See South Palafox E xceptions at pages 8-9.

8451Competent substantial record evidence supports the ALJ ' s findings i n paragraphs

846435 and 36 . (T . Vol. Ill , p . 4031ine 3- p . 4041ine 10 ; p. 413 lines 1-14) . The record

8487shows that DEP established the violation . (T. Vol. I , p . 50 line 8- p. 52 line 4 ; Stipulated

8507Fact 10 ; Vol. I , p . 52 lines 1 - 13; Stipulated Fact 11) 6 . Also , South Palafox had the

8528capability to provide the required inflation adjustment at any time . (T . Vol. Ill , p. 445

8545lines 1-5) . The record further shows that although the inflation adjustment was due on

8560June 16 , 2014 , M r . Scott Miller did not begin working on the issue until July 17, 2014.

8579(DEP Ex. 36 , Deposition Excerpt of Scott Miller at p . 38 lines 7-12).

8593Therefore , South Palafox Exception Nos . 15 and 16 are denied .

8605Exception No. 17

8608South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 39 by essentially

8623arguing that the corrective action financial assurance should be reduced by the amount

8636already spent implementing the RAP . See South Palafox Exceptions at pages 9-10 .

8650In paragraph 39, the ALJ found that Mr . Miller conceded that the requirement for

8665corrective action financial assurance had not been met. (RO 1J 39). In paragraph 38 , the

8680ALJ found that the required corrective action bond , which was due in October 2013 , had

8695not been secured by the time of the final hearing in December 2014 . (RO 1J 38). South

8713Palafox did not take exception to the ALJ ' s findings in paragraph 38 . Competent

8729substantial record evidence supports the ALJ ' s findings in paragraphs 38 and 39 . (T.

8745Vol I, p . 53 lines 18-24 ; Stipulated Facts 12 and 13) . Therefore , South Palafox

8761Exception No. 17 is denied.

8766Exception Nos. 18 and 19

8771South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 44 that a DEP

8787Engineer became physically ill as a result of odor at the Facility . Also, South Palafox

8803generally objects to any references to onsite odors . See South Palafox Exceptions at

88176 See Amended Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed December 5 , 2014 .

8828page 10 . Competent substantial record evidence supports the ALJ ' s finding in

8842paragraph 44 . (T. Vol. I, p. 56 line 20- p . 57 line 15) . South Pa lafox ' s " general

8864objec t ion" is not a legally sufficient exception . See§ 120.57(1 )(k) , Stat. (20 14) .

8881Th e refore , South Palafox E xception Nos . 18 and 19 are denied .

8896Exception Nos . 20 and 21

8902South Palafox seeks to clarify paragraph 52 , and agrees with parag r aph 51 .

8917These are not legally sufficient exceptions . See§ 120 . 57(1 )(k), F la. Stat. (2014 ) .

8935There f ore , these excep t ions are denied .

8945Except i on No. 22

8950South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s fi nd ing 1n paragraph 55 that ' 1 [o]n July

897021 and 22 , 2014, samples were t aken documenting that hydrogen sulfide was coming

8984from the facili t y ." (RO South Palafox essentially ar gues that the he aring testimony

9001does not support this finding . See South Palafox Exceptions at page 11 . However , there

9017is compe tent substantia l r ecord evidence to support this finding . ( T . Vol. I , p . 145 line 1

9040- p . 1461ine 15 ; p . 1461ine 16- p. 1491ine 17; p . 150 lines 3- p . 151 line 9 ; p . 1631ine

906519- p . 164 l ine 5 ; p . 1671ines 9-20) . Therefore , South Palafo x Exception No. 22 is

9085denied .

9087Exception No. 23

9090South Palafox takes exception to the AL J ' s finding in paragraph 55 that hydrogen

9106sulfide was present at the Jerome detector during 64% of the days of October and

9121November 2014. South Pa l afox essentially argues that the hearing r eco rd does not

9137support this finding. See South P alafox Exceptions at pages 11-12 . Howe ver, there is

9153competent substantia l record evidence to support the ALJ ' s finding . ( T . Vol. I, p . 150

9174lines 3- p. 151 line 9 ; p. 1631ine 19- p . 1641ine 5; p. 1671ines 9-20). Also , the ruling in

9194South Palafox Exception No. 3 above is incorporated herein . Therefore , South Palafox

9207Exception No. 23 is denied .

9213Exception No. 24

9216South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ's finding in paragraph 56 that " these

9229odors have been emanating from the facility for a number of years ." (RO 1156) . South

9246Palafox essentially argues that the hearing record does not support this finding . See

9260South Palafox Exceptions at page 12 . H oweve r , there is competent substantial record

9275evidence to support the ALJ ' s finding . (T. Vol. II , p . 181 lines 9-23 ; p . 1881ines 10-12) .

9297Therefore , South Palafox E xception No . 24 is denied.

9307Exception No. 25

9310South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 57 that DEP

9325established that South Palafox ' s odor remediation plan was not properly implemented ,

9338and it did not take steps to immediately contro l objectionable odors . (RO 11 57) . Sout h

9357Palafox essentially argues that the hearing record does not support this finding . See

9371South Palafox Exceptions at pages 12-13 . However , there is competent substantial

9383record evidence to support the ALJ's finding . (T . Vol. I , p. 30 lines 5-8; p. 133 lines 2-5 ;

9403Vol. II , p. 188 lines 13 - 17 ; p . 205 line s 15-22 ; p. 208 line 22 - p . 209 line 3 ; p . 206 line

943124- p . 208 line 4) . Therefore South Palafox Exception No . 25 is denied.

9447Exception Nos. 26 and 27

9452South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 63 "t o the extent

9469that it fails to include testimony from [South Palafo x] that any and all unauthorized waste

9485present at the site was immedia tely removed ." See South Palafo x Exceptions at page

950113 . It is well established that on administrative review of a recommended order the

9516agency has no authority to make independent or supplemental findings of fact. See ,

9529e . g ., North Port , Fla . v . Con sol . Minerals , 645 So . 2d 485 , 487 (Fla . 2d DCA 1994 ) .

9556South Palafox also takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 64 that it violated a

9574condition of its permit by " failing to r emove unauthorized waste . " See South x Palafo

9590Exceptions at page 1 3.

9595Contrary to South Palafo x' s assertion , the ALJ ' s findings in paragraphs 58

9610through 62 7 and the record evidence , shows that unauthorized waste was not

" 9623immediately removed ." (T . Vol. I , p . 58 line 13- p . 721ine 4 ; p . 108 l i ne 21 - p. 1091i n e

96515 ; p . 110 lines 2-21 ; p . 111 line 2- p . 112 line 13 ; Vol. II , p . 265 line 24- p . 266 line 2;

9679DEP Exs . 14 , 20 , 22 , and 23) . Therefore , South Palafox Exception Nos. 26 and 27 are

9697denied.

9698Exception No. 28

9701South Palafo x takes exception to the ALJ ' s finding in paragraph 68 that DEP

9717established that South Palafox violated its permit by disposing of waste outside its

9730maximum permitted height of 130 feet NGVD . ( RO 1f 68). South Palafox essentially

9745argues that the hearing record does not support this find i ng . See South Palafox

9761Except ions at pages 13-14. However , there is competent substantial record evidence to

9774support the ALJ ' s finding .

97817 South Palafo x did not take exception to these paragraphs i n the RO . Florida c ase law

9801holds that when a party does not file any exceptions to certain findings of fact the party

98181 ' has thereby expressed its agreement wrth, or at least waived any objection to , those

9834findings of fact. ' ' See Envtl . Coalition of Fla .• In c. v . Broward Cnty . , 586 So . 2d 1212 ,

98581213 ( Fla . 1st DCA 1991 ) .

9867Contrary to South Palafox ' s argument , the ALJ ' s find i ngs in paragraphs 65

9884through 67 8 and the record evidence , show that South Palafox violated permit

9897conditions by not limiting the he i ght of the disposal pile to no more than 130 feet NVGD .

9917(Stipulated Fact 5; DEP Ex. 30 ; T. Vol. I , p. 72 line 22 - p . 73 line 5; p . 128 lines 8-20 ;

9941DEP Ex. 18) . Therefore , South Palafox Exception No . 28 is denied.

9954Exception No. 29

9957South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s citation to the language of section

9972403.087(7)(b) , Florida Statutes , in paragraph 7 0. This is not a legally sufficient

9985exception . See§ 120.57(1 )(k ) , Fla . Stat. ( 2014) . Therefore , this exception is denied .

10003Exception No. 30

10006South Palafox takes except i on to the ALJ ' s finding and conclusion in paragraph

1002271 that " most of the charges in the Notice were admitted by [South Palafox] , and much

10038of its evidence was to mitigate those violations ." (RO 1171). The ALJ's finding and

10053conclusion in paragraph 71 is supported by the record of this proceeding . (RO 111129 ,

1006839 , 67 ; Stipulated Facts 5 , 10 , 11 , 12, 13 , and 19) . Therefore , South Palafox Exception

10084No. 30 is denied .

10089Exception No. 31

10092South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s conclusions in paragraph 73 . The

10107ruling on DEP Exception No. 6 above is incorporated herein. Therefore , South Palafox

10120Exception No. 31 is denied .

101268 South Palafox did not take exception to these paragraphs in the RO . Florida case law

10143holds that when a party does not file any ex c eptions t o certain findings of fact the party

" 10163has thereby expressed its agreement with , or at least waived any objection to , those

10177findings of fact. " See Envtl . Coalition of Fla ., Inc . v . Broward Cnty .. 586 So. 2d 1212 .

101991213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991 ).

10205Exception No. 32

10208South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s ultimate findings in paragraph 76 that

10223the Department proved most of the violatio ns charged in all eight counts of the N otice of

10241V i olation . (RO 1f 76). South Palafox argues that the hearing record does not support the

10259ALJ's findings . See South Palafox Exceptions at page 1 6 . H owever , the ALJ ' s findings

10278a r e supported by competent substantial record evidence as outlined i n the above rulings

10294on South Palafox ' s Exceptions . See , e . g ., South P a l afox Exception Nos . 5 , 6 , 13 , 16 .

1031925 , 27 , and 28) . These rulings are incorporated herein . T herefo r e , South Palafox

10336Exception No. 32 is den ied.

10342Exception No. 33

10345In this exception South Palafox makes an argument concerni n g the ALJ ' s

10360interpretation and application of the rules regarding objectionable odors . Sou th Palafo x

10374refers to argument made i n its "Motion in Limine and Proposed Order '' but does not

10391''c learl y identify the d is puted portion of the recommended order by page number or

10408paragraph .... " See§ 120.57(1 )(k), Fl a . Stat. ( 2014) .

10420South Palafox appears to be making an argument contrary to the ALJ ' s fin d ings

10437in paragraph 57. Th e ruling in South Palaf ox E xcept io n No. 25 above is incorporated

10456herein . Therefore , South P a lafo x E xce ption N o . 33 is denied .

10474Exception No. 34

10477South Palafo x takes exception to ALJ ' s conclusion in paragraph 78 that " the date

10493o n which full compli ance can be achieved cannot be predicted ." (RO 1f 78) . South

10511Palafox argues , contrary to the evidence and the ALJ ' s findings that '' it is in full

10529comp lian ce on the vas t majo r ity of counts . " See S out h Palafox E xcep t ions at pages 34-

1055435 . South Palafox outlines alleged actions that may have taken place after the close of

10570this record , to argue that it is now in " full compliance ." See South Palafox Exceptions at

10587pages 34-35 .

10590It is commonly acknowledged that " r eview o f a recommended order by an agency

10605head is analogous t o an appellate proceeding . " See Fl a. Admin . Practice§ 4.45 (10th

10622ed . 2015) . " T h e issues are the sufficiency of the evi den ce to support findings of fact and

10644the correctness of legal conclusions over which th e agency has substantive jurisdiction . "

10658/d . ; see§ 120.57(1)( 1 ) , Fla . Stat. (20 14) . Therefore , South Palafox ' s attempt to

10677supplement the hearing record with extra-record information is inappropriate . See , e . g .,

10692Agency for Health Care Admin . v . Orlando Reg ' / Hea/thcare Sys ., Inc ., 617 So . 2d 385 ,

10714389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (s t ating that it is a basic tenet of the appellate process that an

10734appeal is based only on evide n ce presented to the lo we r tribu n al).

10751Therefore , South Pa l afox Exception No. 34 is de ni ed .

10764Exception Nos. 35 through 38

10769South Palafox takes exception to the ALJ ' s conclusion in paragraph 79 that DEP

" 10784has established the facts necessary " to revoke C the & D permit. (RO 1f 79) . The ruling

10802i n South Palafox Exception No . 32 above is incorporated herein. Thu s, the exception to

10819the ALJ ' s conclusion is de ni ed .

10829The rest of South Palafox ' s exceptions to parag r aph 79 are denied bas e d on the

10849ruling in DEP Exception No. 8 above , wh i c h is in co r po r ated herein .

10869CONC L USION

10872Ha vi ng considered the app li cable law in ligh t of the rulings on the above

10890Except ion s, and being otherwise duly advised , it is ORDERED that:

10902A. The Recommended Order (Exhibit A) , as modified by the above rulings, is

10915adopted in its entirety and incorporated herein by reference.

10924B . The Respondent South Pa l afox Properties , I nc . ' s, operating permit

10940(Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Facility P ermit No. 003397-013-SO) is

10951hereby RE VOK ED .

10956C. The Respondent South P alafox P roperties , I nc. , shall :

109681 . within 30 days of th e date of th i s Final Order , submit a permit

10986application for closure and long term care of the Facility in

10997acco r dance with Florida Administ r ative Code Rule 62-701.320(1 );

110092 . close t he F acility in accordance with Florida Administrative Code

11022R ule 62-701 . 730(9)(b) ;

110273 . complete closure within 180 days of obtaining the permrt required

11039in paragraph C . 1 . ;

110454. provide certification o f closure construction completion no la t er

11057than 30 days after closing, covering and seed i ng of the Facility In

11071accordance with Florida Administ r ative Code Rule 62-

11080701.730(9)(d );

110825 . conduct long term care for the duration of the long term care permit

11097in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62 -

11106701 . 730(1 0) .

11111JUDICIAL REV I EW

11115Any party to this proceeding has the right to seek judicial review of the Final Order under

11132section 120 . 68 , Florida Statutes , by filing of a Notice of Appeal under rule 9 . 110 and 9 . 190 ,

11154Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure , with the Agenc y Clerk of the Department i n the Office of

11172General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M . S . 35, Tallahassee , Florida 32399 - 3000 ;

11187and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the

11205appropriate District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the

11222date this Final Order i s filed with the Agency Clerk .

11234DONE AND ORDERED this of May , 2015, in Tallahassee, Florida .

11245S TATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT

11250OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

11253Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building

112573900 Commonwealth Boulevard

11260Tallahassee, Flor i da 32399-3000

11265FILED ON THIS DATE PURSUANT TO§ 120 . 52 ,

11274FLORIDA STATUTES, WITH THE DESIGNATED

11279DEPARTMENT CLERK, RECEIPT OF WHICH IS

11285HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED .

11288dATE I

11290CERT I F I CAT E OF SERVICE

11298I CER T IFY that a copy of the forego i ng Final Order has been sent by electronic ma i l to :

11322V. Nicholas Dancaescu , Esq . B . J ack Chisolm , Jr. , Esq .

11335Christopher T . Dawson, Esq Margaret E. Seward , Esq .

11345Ashley E . Hoffman , E sq. Dept. of E nvironmental Protection

11356GrayRob i nson , P . A . Office of General Counsel

11367301 East Pine Street, Suite 1400 3900 Commonwealth Blvd .

11377Orlando , FL 32801-27 41 Mail Station 35

11384Ntck . dancaescu@gray-robtnson com Tallahassee , Fl 32399-3000

11391Chris . dawson@gray-robtnson . com Jack chisolm@dep.stale.fl us

11399Ashley . hoffman@gray-robinson . com margaret.seward@dep . sta t e . fl.u s

11412Chr i stine Cook , Esq .

11418997 S . Palafox St

11423Pe n sacola Fl, 32502

11428chnstme@christrnesuecook com

11430and by elec t ronic filing to :

11438D i vis i on of Administrative Hear i ngs

11448The DeSoto Building

114511230 Apalachee Parkway

11454Tallahassee . FL 32399-1550

11458of May , 2015 .

11462S T ATE OF FLO R I D A DEPAR T MENT

11474OF E NVIRO N MENTA L P R OTECTION

11483F RANC I NE ES

11488Administrative Law Counsel

114913900 Commonwealth Blvd . , M . S . 35

11500Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

11503Telephone 850 / 245-2242

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 01/15/2016
Proceedings: Order Correcting Scrivener's Error filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/16/2015
Proceedings: Motion for Expedited Review of Motion Stay Pending Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2015
Proceedings: Exhibits to Motion to Stay Pending Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2015
Proceedings: Motion for Stay Pending Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/23/2015
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/23/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2015
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2015
Proceedings: Department's Response to South Palafox's Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2015
Proceedings: Department's Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2015
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2015
Proceedings: (Proposed) Order for Substitution of Counsel filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel (Christine Cook) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/17/2015
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/02/2015
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 03/02/2015
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held December 9 through 11, 2014). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 03/02/2015
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 02/10/2015
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/09/2015
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 01/09/2015
Proceedings: Transcript Volumes I-III (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/30/2014
Proceedings: South Palafox Properties, LLC's Designation of Deposition Excerpts (Mike Keethler) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/30/2014
Proceedings: South Palafox Properties, LLC's Designation of Deposition Excerpts (Rosa Sestnov) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/17/2014
Proceedings: DEP's Designation of Deposition Excerpts (Mike Keethler) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/17/2014
Proceedings: DEP's Designation of Deposition Excerpts (Roza Sestnov) filed.
Date: 12/09/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: Deposition of Mike Keethler filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: Deposition of Roza Sestnov filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: Deposition of Charles Miller filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: Deposition of Scott Craig Miller filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: Deposition of Kevin Parsley filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: Department's Notice of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: Department's Notice of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: Department's Notice of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: Department's Notice of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: Department's Notice of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2014
Proceedings: South Palafox Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Related to Height of Facility filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2014
Proceedings: Department's Notice of Filing filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2014
Proceedings: Amended Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2014
Proceedings: South Palafox's Motion in Limine to Exclude Odor Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/05/2014
Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protections Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/04/2014
Proceedings: Order Granting Motion for Official Recognition.
PDF:
Date: 12/03/2014
Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Motion for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/03/2014
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Judy Cook) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/26/2014
Proceedings: FDEP's Response to South Palafox Properties, LLC's First Request for Production to Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/26/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Serving State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Answers of First Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/25/2014
Proceedings: FDEP's Response to South Palafox Properties, LLC's First Requests for Admission to FDEP filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/24/2014
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Deposition (of Mike Keethler) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Mike Keethler) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Charlie Miller) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2014
Proceedings: Cross-notice of Taking Deposition (of Rosa Sestnov) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Depositions (of Terrance Davis, Chips Kirschenfeld, and Judy Cook) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Depositions (of Chad Nowling, Dawn Templin, Alex Webster, Shawn Hamilton, and Rosa Setnov) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Judy Cook) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2014
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 9 through 12, 2014; 9:00 a.m., Central Time; Pensacola, FL; amended as to hearing room location).
PDF:
Date: 11/17/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Amended Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/17/2014
Proceedings: FDEP's List of Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/17/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Gerry Hartman) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Continuance.
Date: 11/13/2014
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2014
Proceedings: (Respondent's) Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2014
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Taking Deposition (of Scott Miller, Kevin Parsley, and Gary Bishop) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/10/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Brent Wipf) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/06/2014
Proceedings: Amended Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of Kevin Parsley, Scott Miller, Charlie Miller, and Gary Bishop) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/04/2014
Proceedings: FDEP's List of Potential Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2014
Proceedings: Respondent South Palafox Properties, LLC's First Request for Production to Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2014
Proceedings: Respondent South Palafox Properties. LLC's First Requests for Admissions to Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Response to First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Response to First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2014
Proceedings: Respondent's Response to First Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/18/2014
Proceedings: State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Production to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/18/2014
Proceedings: State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection's First Request for Admissions to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/18/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Serving State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection's First Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/17/2014
Proceedings: Order Denying Request for Mediation.
PDF:
Date: 09/12/2014
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Response in Opposition to Respondent South Palafox Properties, LLC's Request for Mediation filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2014
Proceedings: Petitioner's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Respondent's Request for Mediation filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/09/2014
Proceedings: Respondent South Palafox Properties, LLC's Request for Mediation filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2014
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 9 through 12, 2014; 9:00 a.m., Central Time; Pensacola, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2014
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2014
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Revocation filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2014
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Proceeding filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2014
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.

Case Information

Judge:
D. R. ALEXANDER
Date Filed:
08/12/2014
Date Assignment:
08/14/2014
Last Docket Entry:
01/15/2016
Location:
Pensacola, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (5):

Related Florida Statute(s) (10):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):