STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SUNSET SQUARE GENERAL )
PARTNERSHIP, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No: 98-5236
) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on September 14, 1999, by video teleconference between Tallahassee and Tampa, Florida, before Carolyn S. Holifield, a duly-designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Richard M. Hanchett, Esquire
Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A.
2700 Barnett Plaza
101 East Kennedy Boulevard Post Office Box 1102 Tampa, Florida 32602
For Respondent: Martha L. Nebelsiek, Esquire
Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Mail Station 35
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to continue participating in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated February 26, 1999, Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (Department), notified Sunset Square General Partnership (Petitioner/Sunset Square General Partnership) that its eligibility to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program was being cancelled.
According to the letter, the reason for the cancellation was that Petitioner had failed to continuously comply with the conditions of eligibility as set forth in Section 376.3078(3), Florida Statutes, because secondary containment had not been installed at its site by January 1, 1997.
Petitioner contested the finding of ineligibility and requested a formal hearing. On November 30, 1998, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearing for assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct a formal hearing.
At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses, Angelo Guarnieri and David Scher. Respondent called one witness, William E. Burns, Jr. Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, and 13 were offered and received into evidence.
At the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the hearing and at the request of the parties, the time for filing proposed recommended orders was set for more than 10 days after the
transcript was filed. The Transcript of the proceeding was filed on September 29, 1999. Both parties timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders which have been carefully considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, Sunset Square General Partnership, is the owner of Sunset Square Shopping Center located in Clearwater, Florida, and in which Tux Cleaners, Department of Environmental Protection Identification No. 529501419, was a tenant conducting a drycleaning business.
At all times relevant hereto, the Sunset Square Shopping Center was managed by the Stuart S. Golding Company on behalf of Sunset Square General Partnership.
At all times relevant to this proceeding, Tux Cleaners was owned and operated by Angelo Guarnieri.
In June 1996, Petitioner submitted an application to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program (Program/ Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program). The application was signed by a representative of Petitioner and by Guarnieri. David Scher, an employee of the Stuart S. Golding Company, was listed on the application as the contact person for Petitioner.
All applications to the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program are joint applications that include the real property owner, the operator of the drycleaning facility, and the owner of the drycleaning facility. Thus, in this instance, the applicant was Petitioner, the owner of the real property on which the
drycleaning facility was located, and Guarnieri, the owner and operator of the facility.
Petitioner was listed as the "designated applicant" on the aforementioned application filed with the Department. The "designated applicant" served to advise and provide the Department with a single point of contact.
Upon review of Petitioner's application, the Department determined that Petitioner met the prescribed eligibility requirements for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. Thereafter, by letter dated September 27, 1996, the Department notified Petitioner that its site, Tux Cleaners, was eligible for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. The letter advised Petitioner that its "participation in the Program is contingent upon continual compliance with the conditions of eligibility set forth in Section 376.3078(3), F.S."
At the time Petitioner's letter of eligibility was issued, Section 376.3078(7), Florida Statutes (1995), required that owners and operators of drycleaning facilities install secondary containment by January 1, 1997. This statute was enacted in 1995, the year before Petitioner was determined eligible for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
To maintain its eligibility in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, Petitioner was required to install secondary containment at Tux Cleaners by January 1, 1997.
As of January 1, 1997, secondary containment had not been installed at Tux Cleaners. Consequently, on January 2, 1997, Petitioner and Tux Cleaners were no longer in compliance with the eligibility requirements for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
On January 21, 1998, Margaret Hennis, a Pinellas County environmental inspector, conducted an inspection of Tux Cleaners as part of a Title V compliance inspection. During the inspection, Hennis discovered that Tux Cleaners did not have the required secondary containment and advised Guarnieri that secondary containment needed to be installed. Guarnieri then informed Hennis that the equipment had been ordered in late 1997.
Guarnieri initially ordered secondary containment for Tux Cleaners in June 1997 but cancelled the order because he thought the business had been sold. When the business was not sold, Guarnieri reordered the secondary containment in late 1997, almost one year after it should have been installed. There is no evidence that the secondary containment was ever delivered to Tux Cleaners; and it clearly was never installed at Tux Cleaners.
Prior to becoming eligible for the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program, Petitioner hired an environmental consultant, who subsequently advised Petitioner to apply for participation in the Program. After the application of Petitioner and Tux Cleaners was approved, Petitioner believed that the environmental consultant would monitor the drycleaning facility to ensure that
the site was in continual compliance with Program eligibility requirements.
Although Petitioner and Guarnieri submitted a joint application to the Department, they never discussed the need to install secondary containment at Tux Cleaners. It was only after receiving the February 26, 1998, letter described below that Petitioner had actual knowledge of the secondary containment requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner never asked Guarnieri whether the secondary containment had been installed or directed Guarnieri to install the required secondary containment. Furthermore, Guarnieri never discussed with Petitioner the January 1997 inspection of Tux Cleaners, Hennis' notification that secondary containment needed to be installed, or any matters relative to Guarnieri's ordering and reordering of the secondary containment.
By letter dated February 26, 1998 (notice of cancellation), the Department notified Petitioner of its intent to cancel Petitioner's eligibility for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program and of the reason for the cancellation. According to the notice of cancellation, the reason for the cancellation was that Tux Cleaners had "fail[ed] to continuously comply with the conditions of eligibility set forth in s. 376.3078(3), F.S."
The February 26, 1998, letter stated, in pertinent part, the following:
The Department has determined that the referenced site is no longer eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program for the following reason:
Pursuant to s. 376.3078(7)(a), Florida Statutes (F.S.), owners or operators of drycleaning facilities shall by January 1, 1997, install dikes or other containment structures around each machine or item of equipment in which drycleaning solvents are used and around any area in which solvents or waste- containing solvents are stored. As of January 21, 1998, secondary containment had not been installed at the referenced facility. Failure to meet this requirement constitutes gross negligence (s. 376.3078(7)(d), F.S.). Also, failure to meet this requirement constitutes a failure to continuously comply with the conditions of eligibility set forth in s.
376.3078(3).
Pursuant to s. 376.3078(3)(n)1., F.S., the Department shall have the authority to cancel the eligibility of any drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility that fails to continuously comply with the conditions of eligibility set forth in s. 376.3078(3), F.S.
Persons whose substantial interests are affected by this Order of Eligibility Cancellation have a right, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., to petition for an administrative determination (hearing). The Petition must conform to the requirements of Chapters 62-103 and 28-5, F.A.C., and must be filed (received) with the Department's Office of General Counsel, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000, within forty-five (45) calendar days of receipt of this Notice. Failure to file a petition within the forty-five (45) calendar days constitutes a waiver or any
right such persons have to an administrative determination (hearing) pursuant to Sections
120.569 and 120.57, F.S.
* * *
If a petition is filed, the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate agency action. Accordingly, the Department's final action may be different from the position taken by it in this Notice.
* * *
This Order of Eligibility Cancellation is final and effective forty-five (45) calendar days after the date of receipt of this Order unless the attached site access form is signed and returned to the Department or unless a petition is filed in accordance with the preceding paragraph. Upon the timely filing of such petition, this Order will not be effective until further order of the Department. Please be advised that mediation of administrative disputes arising from or relating to this Order of Eligibility Cancellation is not available [s.] 120.573, F.S.; when requested the Department will continue to meet and discuss disputed issues with parties adversely affected by this order.
The February 26, 1998, notice of cancellation contained a typographical error in that it referenced an "attached site access form." That reference was as follows: "This Order of eligibility cancellation is final and effective forty-five (45) calendar days after the date of receipt of this Order unless the site access form is signed and returned to the Department or unless a petition is filed in accordance with the preceding paragraph."
The reference in the notice of cancellation to the site access form was irrelevant to the notice and improperly and inadvertently included in the notice. That reference should have been omitted from the notice of cancellation and the sentence which mistakenly referred to the site access form should have stated: This Order of Eligibility Cancellation is final and effective forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt of this Order unless a petition is filed in accordance with the preceding paragraph.
The February 26, 1998, notice of cancellation complies with the requirements of Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, notwithstanding the aforementioned typographical error contained therein. Consistent with the statutory requirements, the letter gives written notice to the applicant of the Department's intent to cancel Petitioner's program eligibility and also states the reason for the cancellation.
Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, provides that the "applicant shall have 45 days to resolve the reason for the cancellation to the satisfaction of the Department."
Typically, the Department's cancellation notices do not state that applicants or participants have 45 days to resolve the reason or reasons for cancellation of their eligibility. Nevertheless, the Department affords this opportunity to adversely affected parties. To facilitate this process, the Department's cancellation notices advise these parties that, when
requested, the Department will "continue to meet and discuss disputed issues with parties adversely affected by this Order."
Petitioner availed itself of the opportunity to discuss the disputed issues with the Department. In fact, shortly after receiving the notice of cancellation, Petitioner contacted the Department officials to determine what steps it could take to remain eligible for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleaning Program. Thereafter, Petitioner took immediate steps in an attempt to resolve the reasons for cancellation of its eligibility.
After extensive discussions between Petitioner and Department officials, the Department concluded that the notice of cancellation had been properly issued. The Department reached this conclusion after Petitioner acknowledged that Tux Cleaners did not have secondary containment installed by the January 1, 1997, the statutorily prescribed deadline for such installation. Having determined that the secondary containment had not been installed by the January 1997 deadline, the Department concluded that the reason for the cancellation of Petitioner's eligibility could not be resolved or corrected.
The Department has interpreted the 45-day language in Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, to allow Program applicants or participants the opportunity to resolve items that do not constitute gross negligence within the meaning of the statute.
In an attempt to bring the facility into compliance, Petitioner insisted that Guarnieri shut down all drycleaning operations at Tux Cleaners and remove all machines and solvents from the property. By mid-March 1998, Tux Cleaners had shut down all drycleaning operations and by the end of March 1998, all drycleaning machines were removed from the facility. Moreover, in mid-March 1998, after the drycleaning operations ceased, Tux Cleaners continued only as a dry drop-off facility.
Any store operating solely as a dry drop-off facility is not required to have secondary containment.
Secondary containment was not installed at Tux Cleaners by January 1, 1997, the statutorily prescribed deadline, even though it operated as a drycleaning facility from January 1, 1997, until mid-March 1998. Consequently, beginning in
January 1, 1997, and through March 1998, Petitioner and Tux Cleaners were not in compliance with the eligibility requirements of the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Section 376.3078, Florida Statutes, creates a funded program for cleanup of contamination at drycleaning facilities
and establishes eligibility requirements for participation in the program.
Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleaning Program.
In 1995, the Legislature enacted requirements related to secondary containment for drycleaning facilities. That provision, Section 376.3078(7), Florida Statutes (1995), now renumbered Section 376.3078(9), Florida Statutes, established a deadline for owners and operators to install secondary containment. Section 376.3078(9), Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part the following:
(9) REQUIREMENT FOR DRYCLEANING FACILITIES.
--It is the intent of the Legislature that the following drycleaning solvent containment shall be required of the owners or operators of drycleaning facilities, as follows:
(a) Owners or operators of drycleaning facilities shall by January 1, 1997, install dikes or other containment structures around each machine or item of equipment in which drycleaning solvents are used and around any area in which solvents or waste-containing solvents are stored. Such dikes or containment structures shall be capable of containing 110 percent of the capacity of each such machine and each such storage area. To the extent practicable, each owner or operator of a drycleaning facility shall seal or otherwise render impervious those portions of all dikes' floor surfaces upon which any drycleaning solvents may leak, spill, or otherwise be released.
* * *
(d) Failure to comply with the requirements of this subsection shall constitute gross
negligence with regard to determining site eligibility in subsection (3).
Section 376.3078(9), Florida Statutes, mandates that owners or operators of drycleaning facilities install secondary installment containers by January 1, 1997, and provides that the failure to comply with the secondary containment deadline constitutes gross negligence. Section 376.3078(9)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes.
Here, the undisputed evidence established that Petitioner failed to install secondary containment at Tux Cleaners by the statutory deadline of January 1, 1997, even though the facility operated as a drycleaning facility from January 1, 1997, until March 1998. In accordance with Section 376.3078(9)(d), Florida Statutes, Petitioner's failure to install secondary containment of January 1, 1997, constitutes gross negligence with regard to determining site eligibility under Section 376.3078(3), Florida Statutes.
The eligibility requirements for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program are delineated in Section 376.3078(3)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides in relevant part the following:
With regard to drycleaning facilities or wholesale supply facilities that have operated as drycleaning facilities or wholesale supply facilities on or after October 1, 1994, any such drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility at which there exists contamination by drycleaning solvents shall be eligible under this subsection regardless of when the
drycleaning contamination was discovered, provided that the drycleaning facility or the wholesale supply facility:
Has been registered with the department;
Is determined by the department to be in compliance with the department's rules regulating drycleaning solvents, drycleaning facilities, or wholesale supply facilities on or after November 19, 1980;
Has not been operated in a grossly negligent manner at any time on or after November 19, 1980.
According to Section 376.3078(3)(a)3., Florida Statutes, one criterion for eligibility to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program is that the drycleaning facility "has not been operated in a grossly negligent manner at any time or after November 19, 1980." Based on the clear and unambiguous language of that provision, a facility that has operated in a grossly negligent manner at any time after November 19, 1980, is ineligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
In the instant case, the evidence established that Petitioner not only failed to install secondary containment by the January 1, 1997, deadline, but also failed to install secondary installment at any time thereafter, even though it operated as a drycleaning facility.
Petitioner's failure to comply with the secondary containment requirements between January 1, 1997, and March 1998, constitutes gross negligence. Section 376.3078(9)(d), Florida Statutes. Having operated in a grossly negligent manner for the aforementioned period, Petitioner no longer meets the statutorily
prescribed eligibility requirements for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
While Petitioner does not dispute that it failed to install secondary containment as required in Section 376.3078(9), Florida Statutes, it argues that the February 26, 1998, notice of cancellation was legally insufficient. The basis of this assertion is that the notice of cancellation did not state that "the applicant shall have 45 days to resolve the reason or reasons for cancellation to the satisfaction of the department."
Petitioner also argues that Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, mandates that the Department provide an opportunity for an applicant to resolve all issues of ineligibility, including the failure to install secondary containment by the statutory deadline. Petitioner further contends that because it removed all the drycleaning equipment and solvents from the premises of Tux Cleaners within 45 days of receiving the notices of cancellation, it had resolved the reason for its cancellation in the Program.
With regard to the components of the Department's notices of cancellation to applicants or participants, Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, provides:
2. If the program eligibility of a drycleaning facility or wholesale supply facility is subject to cancellation pursuant to this section, then the department shall notify the applicant in writing of its intent to cancel program eligibility and shall state the reason or reasons for cancellation. The applicant shall have 45 days to resolve the
reason or reasons for cancellation to the satisfaction of the department. If, after 45 days, the applicant has not resolved the reason or reasons for cancellation to the satisfaction of the department, the order of cancellation shall become final and shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 120.
According to Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, when a facility is subject to cancellation, the Department must notify the person in writing of (1) its intention to cancel program eligibility; and (2) the reason or reasons for the cancellation.
In the instant case, the evidence established that the Department's notice of cancellation was legally sufficient because it stated that the Department intended to cancel Petitioner's program eligibility and gave the reasons for the cancellation. This meets the notice requirements mandated by Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes.
Notwithstanding Petitioner's assertions to the contrary, there is no statutory requirement that the Department's cancellation notice include an express statement advising the applicant or participant that it has 45 days to resolve the reason or reasons for cancellation to the satisfaction of the department. The 45-day language in Section 376.3078(3)(n)2., Florida Statutes, requires only that an applicant or participant be allowed 45 days to resolve the reason for the cancellation.
Here, Petitioner was not precluded from taking action to resolve the reasons for cancellation. In fact, the evidence
established that almost immediately after receiving the cancellation notice, Petitioner took steps it believed would resolve the reasons for cancellation of its eligibility.
However, the steps taken by Petitioner, cessation of drycleaning operations at and removal of solvents and drycleaning equipment from Tux Cleaners in March 1998, could not and did not resolve the reason for cancellation of Petitioner's eligibility in the Program. The failure of Petitioner to install secondary containment at its drycleaning facility by January 1, 1997, cannot be cured by eliminating the need for secondary containment more than a year after the deadline.
The cancellation of Petitioner's eligibility was based on its failure to comply with secondary containment prescribed by Section 376.3078(9)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner not only failed to install secondary containment by the January 1, 1997, deadline, but also continued to operate as a drycleaning facility for more than one year thereafter without installing the required secondary containment. For more than 14 months after drycleaning facilities were required to have secondary containment, Petitioner's site did not comply with the requirements of Section 376.3078, Florida Statutes, and thus, operated in a grossly negligent manner.
Facilities that have operated in a grossly negligent manner "at any time on or after November 19, 1980," including those who are deemed grossly negligent due to failure to install
secondary containment in a timely fashion, are not eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. Section 376.3078(3)(a)3. and (9)d., Florida Statutes.
The undisputed evidence established that Petitioner's site, Tux Cleaners, operated in a grossly negligent manner between January 1, 1997, and mid-March 1998. Section 376.3078(3)(a)3., Florida Statutes, excludes from participation in the Program any facility that has operated in a grossly negligent manner. Accordingly, Petitioner is ineligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
Petitioner's efforts to resolve the reason for cancellation did not accomplish that objective. The steps taken by Petitioner only eliminated the present need for secondary containment. It did not alter the fact that Petitioner failed to install secondary containment by January 1, 1997, and continued to operate without secondary containment for several months after the deadline.
Petitioner's attempt to resolve the reason for cancellation of its eligibility was precluded by the fact that it had operated in a grossly negligent manner after November 19, 1980. As a result of acting in a grossly negligent manner, Petitioner does not and cannot meet the eligibility requirements for participation in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding that Petitioner's facility is not eligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program.
DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 2000.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Martha L. Nebelsiek, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Mail Station 35
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Richard M. Hanchett, Esquire
Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A.
2700 Barnett Plaza
101 East Kennedy Boulevard Post Office Box 1102 Tampa, Florida 33601-1102
Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk
Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Mail Station 35
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Mail Station 35
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 03, 2003 | Final Order filed. |
| Sep. 05, 2000 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT (motion for extension to file brief is granted, by Second DCA) filed. |
| Aug. 24, 2000 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT (motion for extension of time is granted) filed. |
| May 08, 2000 | Notice of Agency Appeal filed. (2D00-1587 DCA Case No. ) |
| Apr. 10, 2000 | Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 18, 2000 | Letter to R. Hanchett from Judge Holifield sent out. (RE: acknowledgement of exceptions) |
| Jan. 25, 2000 | (Petitioner) Exceptions to Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 10, 2000 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held September 14, 1999. |
| Dec. 30, 1999 | (R. Hanchett) Exhibits (filed via facsimile). |
| Nov. 12, 1999 | (M. Nebelsiek) Notice of Supplemental Authority; Soap Opera Laundry and Drycleaners v. DEP (Final Order, dated 11/3/99), incorporating DOAH 98-4177 (Recommended Order dated 9/20/99 filed. |
| Oct. 20, 1999 | Letter to Judge Holifield from M. Nebelsiek Re: Corrected replacement pages 6 and 8 of the Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order w/cover letter filed. |
| Oct. 20, 1999 | (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order and Supporting Memorandum (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 19, 1999 | Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Sep. 29, 1999 | (I Volume) Transcript filed. |
| Sep. 14, 1999 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Sep. 10, 1999 | (R. Hanchett) Case Law (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 10, 1999 | (Petitioner) Supplement to Petitioner`s Pre-Hearing Statement (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 08, 1999 | (Respondent) Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed. |
| Sep. 08, 1999 | Petitioner`s Pre-Hearing Statement (filed via facsimile). 9/8/99) |
| Sep. 03, 1999 | (Petitioner) Notice of Pre filing of Exhibits; Exhibits filed. |
| Aug. 18, 1999 | Department of Environmental Protection`s Amended Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed. |
| Aug. 11, 1999 | Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jul. 30, 1999 | (Petitioner) (2) Notice of Deposition; Notice of Taking Deposition of Corporate Representative filed. |
| Jul. 27, 1999 | Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Taking Depositions Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jul. 26, 1999 | Petitioner`s Notice of Filing Unexecuted Answers to Department`s First Set of Interrogatories; Petitioner`s Unverified Response and Objections to Department`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Jul. 16, 1999 | Petitioner`s Notice of Filing Unexecuted Answers to Department`s Second Set of Interrogatories; Petitioner`s Unexecuted Answers and Objections to Department`s Second Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Jul. 14, 1999 | Petitioner Response and Objections to Department`s Second Request for Admissions filed. |
| Jul. 14, 1999 | Petitioner`s Response and Objections to Department`s First Request for Admissions; Petitioner`s Response and Objections to Department`s First Request for Production filed. |
| Jun. 25, 1999 | Notice of Video Hearing sent out. (hearing set for September 14, 1999; 9:30 a.m.; Tampa and Tallahassee, Florida) |
| Jun. 22, 1999 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (hearing continued until the time and place designated in a separately published notice) |
| Jun. 04, 1999 | Respondent`s Motion for Continuance filed. |
| May 27, 1999 | (M. Nebelsiek) Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed. |
| May 07, 1999 | Department`s Second Request for Admissions; Notice and Certificate of Service of Department`s Second Interrogatories filed. |
| May 03, 1999 | Notice of Video Hearing sent out. (hearing set for July 27, 1999; 9:00 a.m.; Tampa and Tallahassee, Florida) |
| Apr. 27, 1999 | Order Granting Continuance, Extending Discovery Deadline and Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing is continued until the time and place designated in a separately published notice) |
| Apr. 22, 1999 | Department`s Response to Petitioner`s Second Request for Production; Department`s Response to Petitioner`s First Request for Production filed. |
| Apr. 22, 1999 | Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Apr. 22, 1999 | Joint Motion for Continuance and Extension of Discovery Deadline (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 19, 1999 | Petitioner`s Second Request for Production (filed via facsimile). |
| Mar. 18, 1999 | Department`s First Request for Admissions; Department`s First Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Mar. 18, 1999 | Notice and Certificate of Service of Department`s First Interrogatories filed. |
| Mar. 18, 1999 | (R. McNelis) Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed. |
| Mar. 12, 1999 | Notice of Service of Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent; Petitioner`s First Request for Production; Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 25, 1999 | Notice of Video Hearing sent out. (Video Hearing set for 5/7/99; 9:00am; Tampa & Tallahassee) |
| Jan. 25, 1999 | Prehearing Order for Video Hearing sent out. |
| Dec. 15, 1998 | Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 03, 1998 | Initial Order issued. |
| Nov. 30, 1998 | Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record; Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing; Agency Action Letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 06, 2000 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jan. 10, 2000 | Recommended Order | Drycleaning facility operated in a grossly negligent manner by failing to install secondary containment by the statutory deadline. Petitioner is ineligible to participate in the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program. |
