11-000259 Family Oriented Community United Strong, Inc.; Wanda Washington; Marvin Washington; Clifford Ward; Laura Ward; Brenda Pinkney; Melissa Williams Robinson; And Tallevast Community Association, Inc. vs. Lockheed Martin Corporation And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, October 6, 2011.


View Dockets  
Summary: The Site Assessment Report Addendum and Remedial Action Plan Addendum meet all applicable rule requirements and should be approved by DEP.

1Case No. 11-0259

4STATE OF FLORIDA

7DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

11FAMILY ORIENTED COMMUNITY )

15UNITED STRONG, INC.; WANDA RECOMMENDED ORDER )

22WASHINGTON; MARVIN WASHINGTON; )

26CLIFFORD WARD; LAURA WARD; )

31BRENDA PINKNEY; MELISSA )

35WILLIAMS ROBINSON; AND )

39TALLEVAST COMMUNITY )

42ASSOCIATION, INC., )

45)

46Petitioners, )

48)

49vs. )

51LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION AND )

56DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

60PROTECTION, )

62)

63Respondents. )

65)

66)

67The final hearing in this case was held on June 7, 8, 22,

8023, 28, 29, and 30, and July 1, 6, 7 and 8, 2011, in Bradenton,

95Florida before Bram D.E. Canter, Administrative Law Judge of the

105Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH").

112APPEARANCES

113For Petitioners: Jeanne Marie Zokovitch Paben

119Barry University School of Law

124Earth Advocacy Clinic

1276441 East Colonial Drive

131Orlando, Florida 32807

134Karen Eileen Greene, Esquire

138111 Holderness Drive

141Longwood, Florida 32779

144Brett Michael Paben, Esquire

1482717 Stanfield Avenue

151Orlando, Florida 32814

154For Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation:

159Richard E. Schwartz, Esquire

163Clifford J. Katz, Esquire

167Beth Kramer, Esquire

170Crowell & Moring, LLP

1741001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest

178Washington, DC 20004-2595

181For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection

187Larry Morgan, Esquire

190Department of Environmental Protection

1943900 Commonwealth Boulevard

197Mail Station 35

200Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

203STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

207The issues to be determined in this case are whether the

218Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") should approve

227Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Site Assessment Report Addendum 3

235and remediate soil and groundwater contamination associated with

243property owned by Lockheed Martin Corporation in Tallevast,

251Manatee County, Florida.

254PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

256Following the discovery of contamination at the Lockheed

264Martin property, Lockheed Martin and DEP entered into a consent

274order that required Lockheed Martin to prepare and submit a site

285assessment plan and to proceed thereafter to remediate the site.

295Lockheed Martin submitted a site assessment report and

303subsequent addendums. On September 25, 2006, DEP approved

311Lockheed Martin's SARA 3 as satisfying the contamination

319assessment required by the consent order and related statutes

328and rules. DEP and Petitioners reached an agreement that

337Petitioners would put off their challenge of SARA 3 until DEP

348took action on the Lockheed Martin's remedial action plan.

357Lockheed Martin submitted a remedial action plan and three

366addenda to the plan. On November 4, 2010, DEP approved RAP 3.

378On January 10, 2011, Family Oriented Community United

386Strong, Inc. (“FOCUS”), Tallevast Community Association, Inc.,

393and several individuals filed a petition with DEP, challenging

402DEP’s approval of both SARA 3 and RAP 3. DEP forwarded the

414petition to DOAH for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge.

424Following motions to strike filed by Respondents, certain

432claims raised by Petitioners were stricken from their petition.

441At the final hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony

449of lay witnesses Wanda Washington, Melissa Robinson,

456Brenda Pinkney, Laura Ward, and Clifford Ward and expert

465witnesses Simone Core, William Kutash, Paul Calligan,

472Nadia Locke, Randy Merchant, and R. Kevin Pegg. Petitioners'

481Exhibits 1-3, 5, 12-14, 17-19, 27-30, 31-39, 41, 50-52, 60-61,

49165, and 70 were admitted into evidence. Lockheed Martin

500presented the testimony of expert witnesses Paul Calligan,

508James Norman, Nadine Weinberg, Charles Faust, Guy Kaminski,

516Calvin Ward, and Mark Hemingway. Lockheed Martin Exhibits 1-115

525were admitted into evidence. DEP presented the testimony of

534William Kutash. DEP's Exhibits 1-4, 6-8, and 10 were admitted

544into evidence. Joint Exhibits 1-43 were also admitted into

553evidence.

554The 20-volume Transcript of the hearing was filed with DOAH

564and the parties filed proposed recommended orders that were

573considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

581FINDINGS OF FACT

584I. Background

586A. The Former Facility and Property

5921. The Lockheed Martin property is located at 1600

601Tallevast Road. The property is slightly larger than five

610acres. It is bounded by Tallevast Road to the north; 17th

621Street Court East to the east; a golf course, undeveloped and

632residential areas to the south; and an abandoned industrial

641facility to the west.

6452. From 1961 to 1996 the American Beryllium Company

654operated an ultra-precision, beryllium parts machine shop on the

663property where metals were milled, lathed, and drilled into

672various finished components. Some of the components were

680finished by electroplating, anodizing, and ultrasonic cleaning.

687The facility once included five buildings, but the buildings

696have been removed.

6993. The facility and property were acquired by Lockheed

708Martin in 1996 and the machining operations were terminated.

717B. Contamination Discovery and Assessment

7224. Although the details are unknown, it appears that over

732a number of years, leaks or discharges occurred at a series of

"744sumps" associated with the American Beryllium Company's on-site

752wastewater treatment system. The leaks or discharges allowed

760contaminants, primarily chlorinated solvents, to enter the soil

768and groundwater beneath the facility. The contamination

775migrated laterally in all directions away from the facility, as

785well as downward.

7885. The hearsay report that a "dry well" (a gravel-filled

798pit) existed on the property and was used to dispose of acid

810baths is not supported by the non-hearsay evidence.

8186. Environmental assessments performed by Lockheed Martin

825after purchasing the site, and a later assessment by a

835prospective purchaser, found contamination. In 2000, Lockheed

842Martin informed DEP that contamination had been discovered at

851the facility. In that same year, Lockheed Martin removed the

861sumps and some soil around the sumps.

8687. Various contamination assessment activities were

874conducted by Lockheed Martin between 2001 and 2004. Contaminant

883concentrations exceeding Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels

889("GCTLs") were found at various depths.

8978. In 2001, Lockheed Martin excavated and removed over 500

907tons of contaminated soil in the area where the sumps had been

919located.

9209. At the time the contamination was discovered, public

929water supply lines served most residences in Tallevast, but not

939the residences along 16th Street, 18th Street, 19th Street, and

949parts of Tallevast Road. On these streets, residents continued

958to use water from their wells for drinking, bathing, and other

969household uses. These private water wells were tested in 2004

979and many were found to be contaminated.

98610. Petitioners contend that Lockheed Martin was late in

995notifying Tallevast residents of the contamination, but it was

1004beyond the scope of this proceeding to determine whether

1013Lockheed Martin failed to timely notify the area residents of

1023health threats known to Lockheed Martin.

102911. In 2004, Lockheed Martin and DEP entered into a

1039Consent Order that required Lockheed Martin to conduct

1047additional site assessment and, ultimately, to prepare a

1055remedial action plan to remediate the site in conformance with

1065DEP rules.

106712. Lockheed Martin submitted site assessment report

1074addendums to DEP in 2004 and 2005.

108113. In April 2006, DEP approved an Interim Remedial Action

1091and treat") system. Extraction wells were constructed in the

1101source area on the site to reduce the mass of contaminants and

1113hydraulically control the plume so it would not spread. The

1123treatment system has been in continuous operation since

1131August 2006.

113314. Lockheed Martin submitted a third site assessment

1141report addendum, SARA 3, in April 2006 and it was approved by

1153DEP on September 25, 2006.

115815. Lockheed Martin submitted a RAP in May 2007. A

1168revised RAP ("RAP 2") was submitted in August 2008. A third

1181addendum ("RAP 3") was submitted in July 2009 and was approved

1194by DEP on November 5, 2010.

1200C. Standing

120216. The individual Petitioners, Wanda Robinson, Marvin

1209Washington, Clifford Ward, Laura Ward, Brenda Pinkney, and

1217Melissa Williams Robinson, reside or own property within the

1226area established as the Temporary Point of Compliance (“TPOC”)

1235by DEP. The TPOC encompasses the land overlying areas of

1245groundwater contamination. Groundwater contamination exceeding

1250GCTLs lies beneath the private properties of these individual

1259Petitioners.

126017. The Tallevast Community Association, Inc., operates a

1268community center located at 7727 17th Street Court East, which

1278is adjacent to the Lockheed Martin site. The community center

1288property is within the TPOC. In 2008, the IRAP system failed

1299and spilled contaminated water onto the community center

1307property.

130818. FOCUS is a Florida nonprofit corporation formed in

13172003. The parties stipulated that "FOCUS' stated mission is to

1327protect the health, environment, and quality of life of the

1337Tallevast Community." 1 At least 25 of its members are residents

1348of Manatee County.

1351II. SARA 3

1354A. Groundwater Contamination

13571. Contaminants of Concern

136119. Lockheed Martin tested for and assessed all of the

1371contaminants in groundwater that were reasonably implicated by

1379the site history and test data. Lockheed Martin incurred

1388substantial costs for the assessment activities. The

1395contamination assessment was not dictated by a motive to avoid

1405costs.

140620. Petitioners contend that every chemical listed on the

1415Material Safety Data Sheet ("MSDS") for the American Beryllium

1426Company should have been tested for in the soil and groundwater.

1437It is not the practice of DEP to require that every chemical on

1450a MSDS be tested for in the environment.

145821. The groundwater beneath the Lockheed Martin property

1466and surrounding area is contaminated with a variety of

1475pollutants, but the designated "contaminants of concern"--the

1483contaminants which occur in concentrations that exceed GCTLs--

1491are 1,4-dioxane, tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE),

1498cis-1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane,

1504vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, bromodichloromethane,

1509dibromochloromethane, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane.

151422. TCE is the contaminant that occurs in the highest

1524concentrations. It is estimated that 220 pounds of TCE is in

1535the contamination plume. The 1,4-dioxane is the most frequently

1545detected contaminant. It is estimated that 160 pounds of 1,4-

1556dioxanne are in the contamination plume.

15622. Area Geology and Hydrogeology

156723. Lockheed Martin's geologic and hydrogeologic

1573assessment to determine the water-bearing zones, the confining

1581or semi-confining units, the potentiometric levels, and the

1589hydraulic gradients in the area of contamination was thorough

1598and produced a reliable characterization of the regional geology

1607and hydrogeology.

160924. Groundwater beneath the Lockheed Martin property and

1617surrounding lands occupies three aquifer systems: the Surficial

1625Aquifer System, the Intermediate Aquifer System, and the

1633Floridan Aquifer System.

163625. The Surficial Aquifer System ("SAS") is divided into

1647an upper and lower zone. The upper SAS begins at 2 to 5 feet

1661below ground surface ("bgs") and extends to about 30 feet bgs.

1674It is separated from the lower SAS by a confining unit referred

1686to by the expert witnesses as the "hard streak." The lower SAS

1698extends to about 45 feet bgs, where it intercepts a thick layer

1710of Venice clay.

171326. Beneath the Venice Clay begins the Intermediate

1721Aquifer System, which is comprised of four water-bearing zones:

1730the Upper Arcadia Formation ("AF") Gravels, the Upper AF Salt

1742and Pepper ("S&P") Sands, the Lower AF Gravels, and the Lower AF

1756Sands, extending to 290 feet bgs.

176227. Separated from the Lower AF Sands by a thick clay

1773layer, the Floridan Aquifer, consisting of limestone, begins at

1782about 320 feet bgs.

17863. Plume Delineation

178928. Lockheed Martin used the “step-out” method to

1797delineate the groundwater contamination plume for contaminants

1804originating on the Lockheed Martin property, starting at a point

1814of high groundwater concentration and then working outward

1822horizontally and vertically until monitoring wells showed no

1830contamination above GCTLs. This step-out method is the

1838generally-accepted practice for delineating a plume of

1845groundwater contamination. A contamination plume is delineated,

1852both horizontally and vertically, by “clean” monitoring wells--

1860wells that show contamination at concentrations below the GCTLs.

186929. Lockheed Martin installed 245 monitoring wells to

1877define the horizontal and vertical extent of the contamination.

1886A data set consisting of about 5,500 groundwater samples was

1897compiled.

189830. The amount of site assessment data collected by

1907Lockheed Martin was described by several experts as much more

1917data than is usually developed for comparable sites and the most

1928that several of the experts had ever seen.

193631. Lockheed Martin established the horizontal boundaries

1943of the individual contaminant plumes by identifying a ring of

1953clean wells beyond each layer (aquifer zone) of the plume.

196332. Lockheed Martin used the same method to determine the

1973vertical extent of the plume. It tested the aquifers at deeper

1984and deeper depths until the contamination was below the GCTLs,

1994indicating that the plume had not descended farther.

200233. The maximum horizontal extent (for all contaminants

2010above GCTLs in every groundwater-bearing zone) is approximately

20181,200 feet north, 2,800 feet east, 1,600 feet south, and 800

2032feet west of the facility. The total horizontal area of the

2043composite plume is over 200 acres.

204934. The upper and lower SAS, the upper AF Gravels, and the

2061upper AF S&P Sands are contaminated with site-related chemicals.

2070The deepest extent of groundwater contamination is approximately

2078200 feet below ground surface.

208335. Petitioners claim that the contamination plume was not

2092adequately delineated, but their evidence was not persuasive.

2100Petitioners did not prove that there are areas of the plume that

2112extend outside the boundary of clean wells established by

2121Lockheed Martin.

212336. Petitioners contend that groundwater contamination in

2130the residential area south of the Lockheed Martin property is

2140not adequately delineated, but Lockheed Martin and the DEP

2149proved otherwise. In their presentation on this issue,

2157Petitioners failed to account for the fact that monitoring well

2167data represent contaminant levels in an area of influence around

2177each well.

217937. Groundwater contamination in this area was adequately

2187assessed by Lockheed Martin. Petitioners' objection is more

2195about form than substance, because Lockheed Martin acknowledges

2203that groundwater contaminants were detected in the area.

2211However, the plume delineation is based on standard practices

2220regarding the selection of sampling data and the computational

2229mapping of the data.

223338. Petitioners also object to Lockheed Martin's

2240assessment near the airport. The assessment in this area is

2250adequate and reasonable under the circumstances. There are

2258obvious limitations encountered in accessing airport property

2265because of the possibility of interference with aircraft

2273landings and takeoffs.

227639. The residential area south of the Lockheed Martin

2285property and the area near the airport which Petitioners contend

2295are un-assessed or under-assessed are within the capture zone of

2305the pump and treat system proposed in RAP 3. The contamination

2316in these areas will be cleaned up.

232340. If the rumored dry well actually existed on the

2333Lockheed Martin property and was a source of contamination, the

2343contamination is part of the delineated plume and will be

2353remediated.

235441. The 2010 groundwater sampling indicated some movement

2362of the plume. Petitioners contend that the new data contradicts

2372the earlier results and, therefore, Lockheed Martin is required

2381to conduct additional site assessment. However, some

2388variability and fluctuation around the edges of the plume are

2398expected due to heterogeneities in the geology and in lab

2408analyses. It does not necessarily mean the plume is moving.

241842. It is the practice of DEP when more recent sampling

2429data indicates small changes to a plume that do not reach

2440perimeter clean wells, to accept the plume as sufficiently

2449delineated.

245043. Groundwater monitoring data developed since SARA 3 was

2459approved indicate that the plume has been relatively stable

2468within all four affected aquifer zones. The 2010 data do not

2479contradict the plume delineation.

248344. Lockheed Martin showed that the deepest layer in which

2493groundwater contamination was detected is the Upper AF S&P

2502Sands, about 140 to 160 feet bgs and about 200 feet above the

2515Floridan aquifer.

251745. Petitioners claim that the plume should be shown as

2527extending deeper, but their evidence was not persuasive. The

2536detections in the Clay/Sand Zones 3 & 4 were shown to be caused

2549by a mis-labeled monitor well. There were only a few

2559detections, and no exceedances, in 25 groundwater samples taken

2568from the Lower AF Sands.

257346. Lockheed Martin installed a sufficient number of

2581monitoring wells in the Floridan Aquifer to demonstrate that the

2591plume (above GCTLs) has not reached it. Early exceedances

2600detected in the Floridan Aquifer were likely due to “dragdown,”

2611which can occur when a well is drilled through contaminated soil

2622and drags down some of the contamination to deeper zones.

263247. A report that an on-site production well was drilled

2642to the Floridan was hearsay and is not supported by the record

2654evidence. However, if a pathway exists through the confining

2663layers to the Floridan Aquifer, the upwardly-directed,

2670potentiometric water pressure of the Floridan Aquifer should

2678prevent the contamination from moving down the pathway.

26864. Vinyl Chloride

268948. There were numerous instances when laboratory

2696detection limits were reported as being above GCTLs for vinyl

2706chloride. Detection limits above GCTLs can occur when a

2715groundwater sample contains high levels of another compound and

2724must first be diluted by the laboratory with de-ionized water

2734before it can be analyzed, which has the effect of raising the

2746detection level for other contaminants in the sample.

2754Petitioners assert that these samples could have been above

2763GCTLs. These samples are unreliable, but there are a sufficient

2773number of uncompromised water samples to assess the vinyl

2782chloride contamination.

278449. Lockheed Martin did not delineate a separate plume for

2794vinyl chloride. It could not draw an isoconcentration plume map

2804for vinyl chloride because the detections were sporadic in space

2814and time. Vinyl chloride is a breakdown product of PCE and TCE

2826and would be expected to be detected where PCE and TCE

2837concentrations are highest. The vinyl chloride contamination is

2845tied to the plumes for the parent compounds and is within the

2857mapped plumes in each aquifer zone.

28635. Lab Contaminants

286650. Four compounds detected in groundwater samples at the

2875Tallevast site–-methlyene chloride, carbon disulfide, acetone,

2881and methyl ethyl ketone–-are common laboratory and sampling

2889contaminants. Because of the large number of wells and sampling

2899events, it is likely that these compounds appeared in the data

2910as artifacts of the sampling procedures.

291651. These contaminants appeared infrequently, in scattered

2923zones, and sporadically over time, often coming up "non-detect"

2932in subsequent samplings. The lack of a pattern of detections

2942indicates that these contaminants are not part of the

2951contamination plume originating at the Lockheed Martin property.

295952. There is no evidence that bromodichloromethane and

2967dibromochloromethane were released from the facility.

2973Detections of bromodichloromethane and dibromochloromethane are

2979sporadic and transitory across the plume. There is no pattern

2989connecting them to the site. These compounds are known to be

3000byproducts of the chlorination of drinking water. They can also

3010appear when people use chlorination products to treat wells

3019themselves, for example to treat sulfur smells or disinfect the

3029well. In the most recent sampling event, bromodichloromethane

3037and dibromochloromethane were not detected in any wells.

30456. NAPL

304753. Lockheed Martin looked for non-aqueous phase liquid,

3055or “NAPL,” but it was not found. Lockheed Martin had an

3067incentive to locate and remove any NAPL to reduce its long-term

3078remediation costs. Lockheed Martin used several accepted

3085techniques and technologies to search for NAPL.

309254. NAPL is either not present or is isolated in small

3103amounts. If NAPL is present, it is not migrating away from the

3115property.

3116B. Soil Contamination

311955. Lockheed Martin removed contaminated soil from the

3127sump area in 2000 and 2001. No other "hot spots" of soil

3139contamination were found on the Lockheed Martin property.

314756. Samples of on-site soil also exceeded soil cleanup

3156Chapter 62-777 for arsenic, beryllium, copper, chromium,

3163benzo(a)pyrene, and PCE. These contaminants were scattered

3170about the Lockheed Martin property.

317557. The off-site detection of these same contaminants in

3184scattered locations and at relatively low concentrations is

3192consistent with urban and former agricultural areas. There are

3201industrial land uses near the Lockheed Martin property.

3209Petitioners did not rebut the evidence presented that these soil

3219contaminants are ubiquitous in the human environment at these

3228concentrations.

322958. Lockheed Martin and DEP investigated a report that

3238soil might have been obtained from the Lockheed Martin property

3248and used as fill on some nearby private properties. The record

3259evidence is insufficient to establish when, where, or how this

3269movement of soil occurred.

327359. Numerous soil samples were taken from areas where

3282residents said fill was placed, but no contamination was found

3292that was consistent with the proposition that it was

3301contaminated soil from the Lockheed Martin property.

330860. The soil sampling showed exceedances of SCTLs for some

3318contaminants, but their distribution was random. The types of

3327contaminants, the concentrations, and the sporadic and

3334inconsistent findings indicate that the contamination is

3341unlikely to be associated with a discharge or release from the

3352Lockheed Martin property.

335561. Petitioners contend that Lockheed Martin's assessment

3362of this possible soil contamination was inadequate. However,

3370Petitioners were in a better position to describe the location

3380and other details associated with this alleged fill.

3388Petitioners produced no details regarding the alleged fill and

3397conducted no soil sampling of their own to show that

3407contaminated soil was placed on their properties.

341462. Petitioners contend that some of the off-site soil

3423sampling conducted by DEP’s Site Investigation Section in 2004

3432was unreliable because the samples were taken to a depth of 3

3444inches, which is not consistent with the applicable DEP rule.

3454However, the referenced DEP rule was not in effect at the time.

3466In addition, the shallower samples taken by DEP are more

3476conservative for estimating risk from human contact with soil

3485contaminants. The data was properly included in the assessment.

349463. Lockheed Martin's assessment to determine whether

3501contaminated soil was transported from the Lockheed Martin

3509property to nearby private properties was reasonable and

3517adequate under the circumstances.

352164. DEP determined that the off-site soil data and

3530historical information were insufficient to conclude that

3537operations at the American Beryllium Company were the source of

3547the off-site soil contamination. Petitioners did not show that

3556the Lockheed Martin facility was the source of the contaminants

3566found off-site. The more persuasive record evidence supports

3574DEP's determination.

357665. Petitioners contend that Tallevast residents may be at

3585risk from soil contamination caused when they watered their

3594lawns with contaminated well water, but Lockheed Martin showed

3603that this contention was implausible. Volatile Organic

3610Compounds ("VOCs") sprayed through the air and onto the ground

3622would quickly volatilize. Moreover, the soils in the area are

3632sandy, allowing water to readily penetrate below the soil

3641surface so that a large accumulation of contaminants necessary

3650to cause a threat to humans from direct exposure is unlikely.

366166. When a pipe broke in the IRAP system in 2008, spilling

36735,000 gallons of contaminated water onto the ground, the soil

3684sampling conducted three weeks later showed that contaminant

3692concentrations were orders of magnitude below the SCTLs for

3701direct exposure. The concentrations that would be caused by

3710watering a lawn with contaminated well water would be even

3720lower.

372167. Petitioners conducted no soil sampling of their own to

3731support their contention that the application of groundwater to

3740lawns and gardens resulted in the contamination of the their

3750soil.

3751C. Soil Vapor Intrusion

375568. Intrusion into buildings by contaminated vapor is

3763possible if groundwater contamination is near the top of the

3773water table. Volatile contaminants can then move into a gas or

3784vapor phase and rise through the unsaturated soil where the

3794vapor may enter buildings through various pathways.

380169. Lockheed Martin assessed the area for potential vapor

3810intrusion, using multiple lines of analysis. Soil gas levels

3819should have been the highest on the Lockheed Martin property

3829where contaminant concentrations in the plume are generally the

3838highest, but on-site soil gas levels were below applicable risk

3848levels. No off-site soil gas levels exceeded soil vapor

3857regional screening levels.

386070. Soil gas levels are generally higher than indoor

3869levels because only a fraction of the soil gas will find a

3881pathway into a dwelling. In this case, soil gas levels for the

3893site-related contaminants were lower than detected indoor air

3901concentrations, indicating that the source of the indoor

3909contaminants probably was not soil gas.

391571. The concentrations of contaminants in the indoor air

3924samples were within the range of typical background levels

3933attributable to the products commonly found in residences, such

3942as household cleaning products and dry cleaning.

394972. The volatile groundwater contaminants are in

3956groundwater at about 20 feet bgs, or about 15 feet below the

3968water table. The clean water layer between the groundwater

3977contamination and the top of the water table prevents vapors

3987from being created.

399073. Petitioners did not produce competent evidence to

3998rebut Lockheed Martin's showing that soil vapor intrusion is not

4008a real risk associated with the groundwater contamination.

4016D. Conclusion

401874. Lockheed Martin employed consultants who had extensive

4026expertise in the contamination assessment sciences. Those

4033experts who testified at the final hearing were highly competent

4043and they were credible witnesses. There was no evidence

4052presented to suggest that their efforts on behalf of Lockheed

4062Martin had any purposes other than to comprehensively assess the

4072contamination and develop an effective means to clean it up as

4083quickly and as efficiently as practicable.

408975. Site assessment involves a considerable amount of

4097professional judgment. The significance of the sampling data,

4105for example, is largely a matter of professional judgment.

4114Petitioners' objections to Lockheed Martin's site assessment

4121are, in most respects, based on different professional judgments

4130(offered by Petitioners' expert witnesses) or the critique of

4139professional judgments (by Petitioners' counsel during cross-

4146examination of Lockheed Martin's expert witnesses) regarding the

4154significance of sampling data and other technical analyses.

416276. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the

4169professional judgments exercised by Lockheed Martin's experts

4176were unsound or that they resulted in a contamination assessment

4186that was inadequate to enable an effective plan for remediation.

4196III. RAP 3

419977. Lockheed Martin considered numerous alternative

4205remedies. Remedial alternatives were scored by a large

4213consultant team that considered long-term and short-term human

4221health and environmental effects, implementability, operation

4227and maintenance, reliability, feasibility, estimated time to

4234achieve cleanup, and cost.

423878. RAP 3 is designed to achieve five remedial action

4248objectives: (1) reduce potential for human exposure to site

4257contaminants found in soil, (2) reduce potential for human

4266exposure to site contaminants found in groundwater; (3)

4274hydraulically control contaminated groundwater; (4) extract and

4281treat contaminated groundwater, and (5) minimize disturbance to

4289the community and natural resources. The evidence demonstrates

4297that RAP 3 will achieve each of these objectives.

4306A. Groundwater

430879. With respect to groundwater contamination, the

4315objective of RAP 3 is to meet the active remediation

4325requirements of rule 62-780.700(1) and to demonstrate at the end

4335of the remediation that the cleanup qualifies for Risk

4344Management Option Level I -- No Further Action, without

4353institutional and engineering controls.

435780. Lockheed Martin reduced human exposure to contaminated

4365groundwater by locating and abandoning (plugging) private wells

4373that were affected by the groundwater contamination.

438081. To hydraulically control contaminated groundwater and

4387remove it, Lockheed Martin proposes a “pump and treat”

4396groundwater extraction and treatment system. This is a well-

4405known and proven-effective remediation approach for the kind of

4414groundwater contamination involved here and was determined to be

4423the only effective remediation alternative.

442882. This remedy was developed using groundwater flow and

4437contaminant transport models. The models that were used and the

4447modeling that was performed by Lockheed Martin were appropriate

4456for the selection and design of the remediation system. The

4466models incorporated all appropriate geologic, hydrologic, and

4473contaminant data.

447583. Lockheed Martin chose TCE and 1,4-dioxane as

4484representative contaminants for modeling purposes. The

4490selection of these contaminants was technically sound because

4498TCE has similar transport characteristics as the other

4506chlorinated solvents at the site that adsorb to soil and degrade

4517in the natural environment, while 1,4-dioxane would represent

4526the more mobile contaminants that do not degrade significantly.

453584. The modeled remedy for TCE and 1,4-dioxane will

4545effectively remedy all the groundwater contaminants, including

4552vinyl chloride and the other breakdown products of the site-

4562related chemicals.

456485. Petitioners did not present competent expert testimony

4572to rebut the soundness of the groundwater modeling effort.

458186. The final remedial design comprises 77 extraction

4589wells and four trenches pumping about 200 gallons of

4598contaminated water per minute. The extraction wells would

4606withdraw groundwater from four aquifer zones: the upper SAS,

4615the lower SAS, the Upper AF Gravels, and the Upper S&P Sands.

462787. An array of closely-spaced extraction and injection

4635wells will be installed in the on-site areas of highest

4645contamination for focused "flushing" and extraction of

4652contaminants.

465388. Lockheed Martin minimized adverse impacts to private

4661properties in its proposed location of well, trenches, and

4670piping. RAP 3 calls for directional drilling for the

4679installation of the majority of the conveyance piping.

468789. The modeling showed that cleanup time could be

4696optimized by placing the extraction wells along the “spine” of

4706the plume rather than spreading them out over the whole

4716footprint of the plume and by selectively shutting off wells and

4727trenches over time.

473090. Lockheed Martin created a "capture zone" large enough

4739to recover all site-related contamination in a reasonable time.

4748In each affected aquifer layer, the modeled capture zone extends

4758at least 100 feet beyond the GCTL line for the composite plume.

4770Any groundwater contaminant within the capture zone will be

4779removed by the groundwater extraction system.

478591. The estimated cleanup time is 48 years because that is

4796the time needed to complete the cleanup for the most persistent

4807contaminant--1,4-dioxane in the lower SAS. However, more than

4816half of the mass of TCE and 1,4-dioxane would be removed within

4829the first five years of operation. In ten years, 85 percent of

4841the TCE and 71 percent of the 1,4-dioxane is projected to be

4854removed and treated.

485792. The proposed treatment system includes: (1) settling

4865and filtration of iron and other metals in the ground water that

4877would interfere with the treatment process; (2) advanced

4885oxidation of VOCs followed by carbon adsorption to trap those

4895compounds not treated by ultra violet light; and (3) discharge

4905to the sewer for further treatment by the Manatee County

4915treatment works.

491793. A portion of the treated groundwater will be treated

4927again with reverse osmosis to produce water of high quality and

4938then re-injected near surface waters in order to prevent

4947lowering of water levels.

495194. The proposed remedy is flexible and adaptable to

4960future conditions and changes in technology. RAP 3 includes a

4970schedule for performance monitoring. The remedy can be adjusted

4979if the monitoring data indicates an adjustment is needed.

498895. Some of the former employees of the American Beryllium

4998Company stated that there was a production well at the facility.

5009The significance of the well is that, if it remained as an open

5022bore hole, it could be a conduit for contaminants to move

5033between aquifer zones and interfere with the remedial action

5042plan.

504396. Before the production well was found, while

5051groundwater flow and contaminant transport modeling was being

5059conducted, the models evaluated potential effects of an open

5068borehole on the Lockheed Martin site. Sensitivity analysis of

5077the model showed that the open borehole would have an

5087insignificant effect on the output.

509297. After conducting five separate searches for the

5100production well using remote sensing, ground-penetrating radar,

5107and downhole side scan sonar, a well was found and properly

5118abandoned.

511998. The well was similar in size and casing material to

5130the twenty other wells that had already been geophysically

5139logged at the site. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore,

5149that, like the other wells, the discovered well probably had an

5160open borehole to the Upper AF Gravels. The hearsay report that

5171the production well was a 6-inch well drilled into the Floridan

5182was not supported by the non-hearsay evidence. 99. Lockheed Martin obtained 13 of the 14 access

5198agreements necessary to implement RAP 3. The only outstanding

5207agreement is one for access to a railroad property. The

5217property owner has agreed to provide access as soon as final

5228design plans are provided.

5232100. Lockheed Martin rejected remediation technologies

5238that required extensive access to install, operate, and

5246maintain. In its selection of recovery well locations near the

5256Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, Lockheed Martin

5261located them along 15th Street, as opposed to farther west,

5271because it would be difficult to get access to install, operate,

5282and maintain extraction wells at the end of an active runway.

5293101. In reviewing whether a RAP is implementable, it is

5303the practice of DEP not to require the person responsible for

5314cleanup to first obtain any permits needed from other agencies

5324before DEP will approve the RAP.

5330102. With regard to the probable need for Lockheed Martin

5340to obtain a water use permit from the water management district,

5351the criteria for obtaining the permit were taken into account by

5362Lockheed Martin in the design of RAP 3. Petitioners presented

5372no competent evidence indicating that Lockheed Martin will not

5381be able to obtain the water use permit.

5389B. Soil

5391103. Lockheed Martin chose Risk Management Option Level II

5400(“no further action” with conditions) to reduce potential

5408exposure to soil contamination. Lockheed Martin will use

5416institutional and engineering controls that prevent direct

5423exposure and infiltration of contaminants into groundwater. The

5431engineering controls will include building pads or pavement on

5440portions of the Lockheed Martin property to prevent exposure and

5450infiltration of rain. The institutional controls include

5457restricting access to the facility through fencing and on-site

5466security. Deed restrictions will mandate soil management

5473practices to protect against human exposure and prohibit

5481inappropriate modifications to the property.

5486104. It is the practice of DEP to treat engineering and

5497institutional controls as remediation measures to reduce human

5505exposure risk.

5507105. Off-site soil excavation by Lockheed Martin is not

5516required because (1) the off-site soil contamination was not

5525shown to be attributable to on-site activities; (2) the soil

5535contaminants are randomly distributed over a large area; and (3)

5545excavation would be costly and disruptive for little or no gain

5556in terms of reduced human health risk.

5563C. Temporary Point of Compliance

5568106. The TPOC established as part of RAP is appropriate

5578and adequate to protect human health, public safety, and the

5588environment during remediation.

5591D. Conclusion

5593107. The more persuasive evidence shows that RAP 3 would

5603be effective in remediating the soil and groundwater

5611contamination at the Tallevast site in a reasonable manner and

5621timeframe and, if implemented, would advance the substantial

5629interests of Petitioners and all other persons affected by the

5639contamination.

5640CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

5643I. General

5645108. The individual Petitioners and Tallevast Community

5652Association, Inc., have standing to initiate this proceeding

5660because their substantial interests are affected by SARA 3 and

5670RAP 3. See § 120.569(1), Fla. Stat. FOCUS claims standing

5680pursuant to section 403.412(6), Florida Statutes, and its

5688standing was stipulated by Lockheed Martin and DEP. See n.1.

5698109. Petitioners bear the burden to prove that SARA 3 and

5709RAP 3 do not meet the applicable requirements of law. Fla.

5720Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st

5733DCA 1981).

5735110. Findings of fact in this proceeding must be

5744established by a preponderance of the evidence. See

5752§ 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

5756111. An agency's interpretations of its own rules are

5765entitled to great deference and should not be overturned unless

5775clearly erroneous or otherwise unsupported by substantial,

5782competent evidence. See Dep't of Envtl. Reg. v. Goldring , 477

5792So. 2d 532, 534 (Fla. 1985).

5798112. The final hearing in this case was a de novo

5809proceeding to determine whether SARA 3 and RAP 3 should be

5820approved. These determinations are not confined to a

5828consideration of the sampling data and other information that

5837was in existence at the time that DEP approved SARA 3 and RAP 3.

5851The determinations are based on all of the evidence presented at

5862the final hearing.

5865II. SARA 3

5868113. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-780.600 sets

5875forth the objectives of a site assessment.

5882114. The first objective of site assessment is to evaluate

5892the current exposure and potential risk of exposure to humans

5902and the environment, considering the characteristics of each

5910contaminant and the individual site characteristics. See Fla.

5918Admin. Code R. 62-780.600(3)(a). Lockheed Martin's assessment

5925achieved this objective.

5928115. The second objective of the site assessment is to

5938determine whether contamination (above contaminant target levels

5945established in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-777) is

5953present and the types of contamination present, and the

5962horizontal and vertical extent of contamination in every medium.

5971See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-780.600(3)(b). Lockheed Martin's

5979assessment achieved this objective.

5983116. The third objective of site assessment is to

5992determine or confirm the source of contamination. See Fla.

6001Admin. Code R. 62-780.600(3)(c). Lockheed Martin's assessment

6008achieved this objective.

6011117. The fourth objective of site assessment is to

6020establish the background concentrations. See Fla. Admin. Code

6028R. 62-780.600(3)(d). This objective is only applicable to sites

6037at which there is contamination exceeding CTLs for compounds

6046that occur naturally. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-780.200(5).

6055The contaminants discharged from the Lockheed Martin property do

6064not occur naturally.

6067118. The fifth objective of site assessment is to

6076establish the horizontal extent and thickness of free product.

6085See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-780.600(3)(e). Lockheed Martin

6093showed that there is no free product present.

6101119. The sixth objective of site assessment is to

6110determine whether source removal, in addition to any interim

6119source removal already performed pursuant to rule 62-780.500, is

6128warranted. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-780.600(3)(f). Lockheed

6136Martin's assessment achieved this objective by showing that

6144additional source removal is unnecessary.

6149120. The seventh objective of site assessment is to

6158describe relevant geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics

6164that influence migration and transport of contaminants at the

6173site. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-780.600(3)(g). Lockheed

6181Martin's assessment achieved this objective.

6186121. The eighth objective of site assessment is to

6195determine whether any public water supply wells are present

6204within a half-mile radius of the site, whether the site is

6215located within the regulated wellhead protection zone of a

6224public water supply well or well field, and whether any private

6235water supply wells are present within a quarter-mile radius of

6245the site. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-780.600(3)(h). Lockheed

6254Martin's assessment achieved this objective.

6259122. The ninth objective of site assessment is to

6268determine whether any surface water will be exposed to

6277contamination. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-780.600(3)(i).

6284Lockheed Martin's assessment achieved this objective.

6290123. The tenth objective of site assessment is to report

6300any off-site activities (for example, dewatering, active

6307remediation, or flood control pumping) in the immediate vicinity

6316of the site that may have an effect on the groundwater flow at

6329the site. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-780.600(3)(j). Lockheed

6338Martin's assessment achieved this objective.

6343124. The eleventh objective of site assessment is to

6352facilitate the selection of a remediation strategy for the site

6362that is protective of human health and the environment, and

6372considers the proposed property use, identifies risks posed by

6381the contamination based on the proposed use, and describes how

6391those risks will be managed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-

6402780.600(3)(k). Lockheed Martin's assessment achieved this

6408objective.

6409125. Rule 62-780.600(4) requires analyses for contaminants

6416to be performed using the appropriate analytical procedures

6424referenced or listed in chapter 62-160. Lockheed Martin met

6433this requirement. With regard to the soil sampling issues

6442raised by Petitioners, the techniques employed by Lockheed

6450Martin met the purposes of the rule and it was reasonable for

6462DEP to accept the data.

6467126. Rule 62-780.600(5) requires that the site assessment

6475include tasks that are necessary to achieve the objectives

6484described in rule 62-780.600(3). Lockheed Martin met the

6492requirements of this rule.

6496127. Lockheed Martin met the requirements of rule 62-

6505780.600(6), regarding the contaminants that must be tested for

6514ion the environment. DEP's interpretation and application of

6522this rule to not require that every chemical on a MSDS be tested

6535for is a reasonable interpretation and application of the rule.

6545128. Lockheed Martin submitted contamination assessment

6551reports and addenda as required by rule 62-780.600(7).

6559129. Rule 62-780.600(8) requires the site assessment

6566report to include numerous described elements. Lockheed

6573Martin's report, as supplemented by information presented at the

6582final hearing, includes all the applicable required elements.

6590130. Rule 62-780.600(8)(a)28. requires the use of

6597isoconcentration lines to help identify source areas and plumes.

6606DEP interpreted and applied the rule in this matter to treat

6617certain contaminants, such as vinyl chloride, as being included

6626within the isoconcentration lines drawn for other contaminants.

6634That is a reasonable interpretation and application of the rule.

6644131. In summary, Lockheed Martin demonstrated compliance

6651with all applicable rule requirements for approval of SARA 3.

6661C. RAP 3

6664132. Lockheed Martin complied with the requirements of

6672rule 62-780.700(1) for the establishment of a TPOC beyond its

6682property boundary.

6684133. RAP 3, supplemented by the record evidence, includes

6693all the applicable information required by rule 62-780.300(2)

6701and rule 62-780.700(3).

6704134. Rule 62-780.700(3)(c) states that, if the latest

6712analytical data were obtained more than 270 days before the

6722submittal of the RAP, a confirmatory round of sampling and

6732analyses is required. Lockheed Martin conducted the required

6740confirmatory sampling in 2010 and submitted the results to DEP

6750in the 2010 Groundwater Monitoring Report.

6756135. There is a sound rationale for the remediation

6765methods selected, as required by rule 62-780.700(3)(d).

6772136. Lockheed Martin's proposal to address contaminated

6779soils on the Lockheed Martin site by using institutional and

6789engineering controls meets the requirements of rule 62-

6797780.700(3)(h).

6798137. RAP 3 satisfies the applicable requirements of rule

680762-780.700(4) pertaining to special conditions for certain types

6815of remediation equipment.

6818138. The use of institutional and engineering controls for

6827soil contamination on-site is permissible without a risk

6835assessment. Lockheed Martin demonstrated that the proposed

6842controls will be protective by meeting one or more of the direct

6854exposure criteria and one or more of the leachability criteria

6864in rule 62-780.680(2).

6867139. Once the criteria for a No Further Action proposal

6877using Risk Management Options Level II have been met, Lockheed

6887Martin would be required to submit the proposal to the

6897Department. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-780.680(4).

6904140. The permits and authorizations needed to implement

6912RAP 3 are required at the time the remedial plan is implemented,

6924not at the time RAP 3 is approved. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-

6938780.700(10).

6939141. Lockheed Martin does not propose alternative GCTLs.

6947Therefore, no risk assessment is required for its groundwater

6956cleanup objective. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-780.650 and 62-

6966780.680.

6967142. RAP 3 is reasonably designed to reduce the

6976groundwater contamination that extends beyond the Lockheed

6983Martin property to below applicable GCTLs, thereby protecting

6991human health, safety and the environment.

6997143. In summary, Lockheed Martin demonstrated compliance

7004with all applicable rule requirements for approval of RAP 3.

7014RECOMMENDATION

7015Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

7025Law, it is Recommended that a final order be entered by the

7037Department of Environmental Protection that

70421. approves SARA 3, as supplemented by the assessment and

7052groundwater monitoring data and other information entered into

7060evidence at the final hearing; and

70662. approves RAP 3.

7070DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2011, in

7080Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

7084BRAM D. E. CANTER

7088Administrative Law Judge

7091Division of Administrative Hearings

7095The DeSoto Building

70981230 Apalachee Parkway

7101Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

7104(850) 488-9675

7106Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

7110www.doah.state.fl.us

7111Filed with the Clerk of the

7117Division of Administrative Hearings

7121this 6th day of October, 2011.

7127ENDNOTE

71281/ FOCUS' articles of incorporation state that its mission is

7138to promote affordable housing, employment opportunities, and the

7146availability of businesses and services to the Tallevast

7154Community, as well as to respond to the American Beryllium

7164Company contamination. It is not clear that FOCUS is the kind

7175of corporation "formed for the purpose of protection of the

7185environment, fish and wildlife resources, and protection of air

7194and water quality" that is contemplated by section 403.412(6),

7203Florida Statutes (2010). However, the parties' stipulation to

7211FOCUS' standing and the participation of other Petitioners with

7220standing renders the question moot for the purposes of this

7230proceeding.

7231COPIES FURNISHED

7233:

7234Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary

7239Department of Environmental Protection

72433900 Commonwealth Boulevard

7246Mail Station 35

7249Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

7252Tom Beason, General Counsel

7256Department of Environmental Protection

72603900 Commonwealth Boulevard

7263Mail Station 35

7266Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

7269Larry Morgan, Esquire

7272Department of Environmental Protection

72763900 Commonwealth Boulevard

7279Mail Station 35

7282Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

7285Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

7289Department of Environmental Protection

72933900 Commonwealth Boulevard

7296Mail Station 35

7299Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

7302Mary Morningstar, Esquire

7305Lockheed Martin Corporation

73086801 Rockledge Drive

7311Bethesda, Maryland 20817

7314Brett Michael Paben, Esquire

73182717 Stanfield Avenue

7321Orlando, Florida 32814

7324Mark P. Barnebey, Esquire

7328Kirk Pinkerton, P.A.

733150 Central Avenue, Suite 700

7336Sarasota, Florida 34236

7339Jeanne Marie Zokovitch Paben

7343Barry University School of Law

7348Earth Advocacy Clinic

73516441 East Colonial Drive

7355Orlando, Florida 32807

7358Karen Eileen Greene, Esquire

7362111 Holderness Drive

7365Longwood, Florida 32779

7368Clifford J. Katz, Esquire

7372Richard E. Schwartz, Esquire

7376Beth Kramer, Esquire

7379Crowell & Moring, LLP

73831001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest

7387Washington, DC 20004-2595

7390NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

7396All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

7407days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

7418this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

7429issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 01/04/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 01/04/2012
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Responses to Petitioners' Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/04/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/04/2012
Proceedings: (Agency) Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/06/2011
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 10/06/2011
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held June 7, 8, 22, 23, 28, 29, and 30, and July 1, 6, 7, and 8, 2011). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 10/06/2011
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 10/06/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Requested Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/06/2011
Proceedings: Transmittal Letter filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Joint Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Filing Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/12/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/02/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Notice of Filing Transcript (20-Volume Transcript on CD) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/02/2011
Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from B. Kramer regarding enclosed two disks filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/25/2011
Proceedings: Order (granting Petitioner's Motion to Admit Additional Pages From Mr. Norman Timothy Glover's Deposition Transcript into Evidence).
PDF:
Date: 07/15/2011
Proceedings: Motion to Admit Additional Pages from Mr. Norman Timothy Glover's Deposition Transcript into Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/15/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Joint Outline of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed.
Date: 07/06/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 06/28/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to July 6, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Bradenton, FL.
PDF:
Date: 06/28/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for June 28 through July 1 and 6 through 8, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Bradenton, FL; amended as to dates).
Date: 06/22/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to June 28, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Bradenton, FL.
PDF:
Date: 06/20/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (of K. Greene) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/17/2011
Proceedings: Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/15/2011
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 06/13/2011
Proceedings: Order (on motion to allow the use of Petitioners' depositions of Respondent's experts in lieu of their testifying at the hearing).
PDF:
Date: 06/10/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Second Supplemented Notice of Challenge of Assertion of Privilege to Inadvertently Disclosed Material by Lockheed Martin Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/10/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Motion to Allow the Use of Petitioners' Depositions of Respondent's Experts in Lieu of Their Testifying at the Hearing filed filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/08/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Notice of Service of Responses to Petitioners' Second Set of Request for Production and to Petitioners' Third Set of Interrogatories (No. 25) filed.
Date: 06/07/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to June 22, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Bradenton, FL.
PDF:
Date: 06/06/2011
Proceedings: Lockheed Martin Corporation's Notice of Filing Regarding Assertions of Privilege and Work Product filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/06/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Response to Petitiners' Third Set of Request for Production of Document filed.
Date: 06/03/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion to Designate Scott L. Winkelman and Antonio G. Mendoza as Qualified Representatives filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/03/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Motion to Allow the Use of Petitioners' Depositions of Respondent's Experts in Lieu of Their Testifying at the Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/02/2011
Proceedings: Order (on motion to modify deadline for filing of pre-hearing stipulation and to seek clarification of order of testimony).
PDF:
Date: 06/01/2011
Proceedings: Motion to Modify Deadline for Filing of Pre-heaing Stipulation and to Seek Clarification of Order of Testimony filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/31/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Response to Order Requiring Filing of Privilege Log filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/31/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Supplemented Notice of Challenge of Assertion of Privilege to Inadvertently Disclosed Material by Lockheed Martin Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/26/2011
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2011
Proceedings: Order (denying Respondent's motion for protective order).
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2011
Proceedings: Order Denying Continuance of Final Hearing.
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Witness Disclosure filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2011
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Notice of Service of Witness Disclosure filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Witness Disclosure filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Reply to Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Dr. C.H. Ward filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Mark Hemingway filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioners' Second Set of Requests for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Response to Petitioners' Notice of Challenge of Assertion of Privilege to Inadvertently Disclosed Materials by Lockheed Martin Corporation, Motion to Compel Lockheed Martin Corporation to Respond to Petitioners' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, and Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Certain Expert Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Opposition to Petitioners' Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/17/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Continued Deposition Duces Tecum of Paul Calligan filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/17/2011
Proceedings: Order (denying Petitioners' motion to compel appearance of Respondent at desposition).
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2011
Proceedings: Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioners' Motion to Compel filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Challenge of Assertion of Privilege to Indavertently Disclosed Material by Lockheed Martin Corporation, Motion to Compel Lockheed Martin Corporation to Respond to Petitioners' First Set of Request for Production of Documents, and Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Certain Expert Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion to Compel Appearance of Respondent Department of Environmental Protection at Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Blayne Hartmen filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Jim Norman filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/06/2011
Proceedings: FDEP's Notice of Supplemental Response to Petitioners' First Set of Expert Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/06/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Service of Third Set of Interrogatories to Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation (No. 25) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/06/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Second Set of Requests for Production Directed to Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/06/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Third Set of Requests for Production Directed to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/06/2011
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Supplemental Response to Petitioners' Second Set of Requests for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2011
Proceedings: Order Accepting Qualified Representative.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Gary Millington filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Tim Glover filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2011
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Response to Petitioners' Second Set of Requests for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2011
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Response Petitioners' Third Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Guy Kaminski filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Paul Calligan filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Continued Deposition Duces Tecum of Simone Core filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Charles Faust filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Nadine Weinberg filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' First Set of Requests for Admissions Directed to Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation (No. 1-24) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Second Set of Requests for Admissions Directed to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (No. 7-23) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/22/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioners' First Set of Requests for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Notice of Service of Responses to Petitioners' First Set of Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Notice of Service of Responses to Petitioners' Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 2-24) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition of Lockheed Martin Corporation Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(B)(6) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/13/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion to Designate Kirsten L. Nathanson as Qualifed Representative filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/11/2011
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 04/11/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Continued Deposition of the Department of Environmental Protection Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(B)(6) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/11/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Simone Core filed.
Date: 04/07/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 04/06/2011
Proceedings: FDEP's Notice of Response to Petitioner's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/06/2011
Proceedings: FDEP's Notice of Response to Petitioners' First Set of Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for June 7, 8, 22 through 24 and June 27 through July 1, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Bradenton, FL; amended as to dates).
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2011
Proceedings: Order (on Lockheed Martin Corporation's supplemented modified motion for entry of a scheduling order).
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Amended Response in Opposition to Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Supplemented Modified Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2011
Proceedings: Order (on Lockheed Martin Corporation's motion to strike legally irrelevant allegations and motion in limine).
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2011
Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from Brett Paben regarding page 96 missing from original petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2011
Proceedings: Order and Notice of Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2011
Proceedings: Lockheed Martin Corporation's Reply in Support of its Supplemented Modified Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2011
Proceedings: Order (on Respondents' joint motion to strike unpromulgated rule claims and motion in limine).
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion to Strike Legally Irrelevant Allegations and Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Supplemented Modified Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion for Prehearing Conference on April 5, 6, 7, or 8, 2011 filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners Response in Opposition to Respondents Joint Motion to Strike Unpromulgated Rule Claims and Motion In Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Supplemented Modified Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2011
Proceedings: Order (denying Lockheed Martin's modified motion for entry of a scheduling order).
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion to Strike Legally Irrelevant Allegations and Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Modified Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin's Motion for Pre-hearing Conference on April 5, 6, 7, or 8, 2011 filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Notice of Responses to Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: FDEP's Notice of Service of Response to Petitioners' First Set of Expert Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories Directed to Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation (Nos. 2-24) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' First Set of Request for Production Directed to Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Second Set of Request for Production Directed to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of Third Set of Interrogatories Directed to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (No. 6-27) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: Order (denying motion for scheduling order).
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint Motion to Strike Unpromulgated Rule Claims and Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response to Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Second Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of the Department of Environmental Protection Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(B)(6) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2011
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint Motion to Strike Unpromulgated Rule Claims and Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Taking Deposition of the Department of Environmental Protection Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(B)(6) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/16/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Second Motion for Entry of a Scheduling Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Response to Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/10/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Serving Answers for Respondent's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/08/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories Directed to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (Nos. 2-5) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/07/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents Directed to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/04/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin's Proposal for the Direct Examination of Lockheed Martin Witnesses on June 6-8, 2011 filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/01/2011
Proceedings: Order of Special Pre-hearing Instructions.
Date: 02/28/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response in Opposition to Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion for Entry of Revised Scheduling Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2011
Proceedings: Order Accepting Qualified Representative.
PDF:
Date: 02/22/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corportion's Motion for Entry of a Revised Scheduling Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/22/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' First Set of Requests for Admissions Directed to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (Nos. 1-6) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/16/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation's Motion to Designate Richard E. Schwartz, Clifford J. Zatz, and Beth M. Kramer as Qualified Representatives filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Service of First Set of Expert Interrogatories Directed to Respondent Lockheed Martin Corporation (No. 1) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Service of First Set of Expert Interrogatories Directed to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (No. 1) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2011
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent's First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/03/2011
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 02/03/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for April 4 through 8, June 22 through 24 and June 27 through July 1, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota, FL).
Date: 02/02/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2011
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/24/2011
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2011
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing Involving Disputed Issues of Material Fact filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2011
Proceedings: Remedial Action Plan Approval Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2011
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.

Case Information

Judge:
BRAM D. E. CANTER
Date Filed:
01/20/2011
Date Assignment:
01/24/2011
Last Docket Entry:
01/04/2012
Location:
Bradenton, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):

Related Florida Rule(s) (7):